Douglas R. Wilson
Partner
An “outstanding strategic thinker and highly impressive, succinct, and composed oral advocate.”
– IAM 1000
Douglas Wilson is a nationally recognized trial attorney litigating a wide variety of intellectual property disputes spanning patents, trade secrets, antitrust, and appeals in the state and federal courts. A “badass litigator” (Law360), he “stands out for his technical fluency in the electronics arena” with “exceptional knowledge of the law” (IAM 1000). Doug was awarded Lawyer of the Year for Patent Litigation in Austin (2023). He has handled disputes at all levels of the federal judiciary: district court, appellate court, and U.S. Supreme Court.
An aggressive litigator and skilled strategist, Doug balances his mastery of the details and nuances of a dispute while keeping the big picture firmly in his sights. His flawless oral arguments and trial presentations have resulted in high-profile wins and favorable settlements at the trial court and appellate level.
Doug is a trailblazer at the Patent Office’s Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB), having the distinction of successfully arguing the first inter partes review resulting in a decision confirming patentability of all challenged claims. He has successfully represented both petitioners and patent owners in dozens of victories at the PTAB, with these favorable outcomes resolving disputes and driving client victories in parallel high-stakes district court patent litigation cases.
Doug’s combination of technical fluency is valued by judges and clients. Drawing on his prior engineering career, his expertise covers an array of technical fields. He has handled litigation involving everything from microprocessors, graphics processors, source code, networking, video games, cellular telephones, web design, computer software, oilfield equipment, and pharmaceuticals.
Doug is ranked as a top patent professional internationally in the IAM 1000 (2018-24), by the Best Lawyers in America (2017-24), and a top-rated Super Lawyer in intellectual property litigation (2017-24).
Previously, Doug served as a judicial law clerk at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in Washington D.C., and was partner at the litigation firm Heim, Payne & Chorush LLP. He served on the executive committee of the Honorable Lee Yeakel IP American Inn of Court.
Clerkship
Judicial law clerk to the Honorable Richard Linn, U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, Washington, D.C.
Education
J.D. with honors, Order of the Coif, University of Texas School of Law
Editor-in-Chief, Texas Review of Law & Politics
B.S. summa cum laude, chemical engineering, Lamar University
Awards
Leading Litigators in America, LawDragon (2023-2024)
Best Lawyers, Lawyer of the Year for Patent Litigation – Austin, Texas (2023)
IP Star, Managing Intellectual Property (2022-2024)
IAM 1000, Top Patent Professional (2018-2024)
Leading Litigators in America, LawDragon (2022-2024)
Thomson Reuters Super Lawyers, Intellectual Property Litigation (2017-2024)
BL Rankings, Best Lawyers In America (2017-2025)
Outstanding Antitrust Litigation Achievement in Private Practice – Provigil Litigation, American Antitrust Institute (2019)
Outstanding Antitrust Litigation Achievement in Private Practice – K-Dur Litigation, American Antitrust Institute (2017)
Representative Cases
Appellate Matters
Rapid Completions v. Weatherford Int’l, Nos. IPR2016-01509, IPR2016-01514, IPR2016-01517 (Pat. Trial & Appeal Bd.) & Nos. 18-1859, 18-1860, 18-1861 (Fed. Cir.): successfully represented patent challenger in obtaining IPR final written decisions canceling all asserted claims in a portfolio of three asserted patents relating to downhole oil field drilling equipment; also successfully defended decisions on appeal resulting in three Rule 36 judgments.
Rapid Completions v. Weatherford Int’l, IPR2017-01232, IPR2017-01236 (Pat. Trial & Appeal Bd.), Nos. 19-1317, 19-1318 (Fed. Cir.): obtained IPR judgements canceling all asserted claims in two patents asserted in litigation relating to oil field equipment and successfully defended them on appeal.
Sony v. Intellectual Pixels, IPR2020-01248, IPR2021-00237 (Pat. Trial & Appeal Bd.) & No. 22-1546 (Fed. Cir.): after successfully obtaining rare IPR Final Written Decisions confirming claims in two patents on 3D video game graphics technology, won summary affirmances upholding judgment on appeal.
U.S. Patent Office Litigation
Snap Inc. v. Vaporstream, Inc., Nos. IPR2018-00397, IPR2018-00408, IPR2018-00416, IPR2018-00439, IPR2018-00455 (Pat. Trial & Appeal Bd.): prevailed representing patent owner in obtaining five final written decisions after a full trial confirming patentability of all challenged claims in four patents directed to secure electronic messaging systems.
ABB Inc. v. ROY-G-BIV Corp., Nos. IPR2013-00062, IPR2013-00063, IPR2013-00074, IPR2013-00282, IPR2013-00286, IPR2014-00122 (Pat. Trial & Appeal Bd.): in the very first PTAB trial to result in an affirmance of all challenged claims of a patent, successfully defended patent owner in inter partes review proceedings challenging a portfolio of five patents related to robotic motion control software.
Group III Int’l v. Targus Int’l LLC, IPR2021-00371 (Pat. Trial & Appeal Bd.): obtained a rare decision after full trial confirming validity of all 40 challenged claims in Targus’ groundbreaking patent on a checkpoint-friendly bag design.
Advanced Micro Devices v. Monterey Research, IPR2020-01124 (Pat. Trial & Appeal Bd.): defended AMD and prevailed at trial, obtaining final decision canceling all 19 patent claims relating to memory technology asserted in pending litigation.
NeoGenomics Labs. v. Natera, IPR2024-00346 (Pat. Trial & Appeal Bd.): defeated institution of IPR challenging Natera’s revolutionary cancer recurrence monitoring technology.
Google and Facebook v. VideoShare, Nos. IPR2020-01631, CBM2020-00027, Reexamination 90/014,894 (Pat. Trial & Appeal Bd.): Defeated Google and Facebook early and decisively in three separate IPR, CBM, and ex parte reexamination proceedings challenging client’s patent relating to video streaming technologies, resulting in a $26 million jury verdict for client in co-pending litigation.
Weatherford U.S. v. Enventure Global Technology, IPR2020-01580, IPR2020-01648, IPR2020-01684, IPR2020-01700, IPR2021-00107 (Pat. Trial & Appeal Bd.): obtained final decisions after a full trial canceling all challenged claims in a portfolio of five drilling tool patents asserted against its client Weatherford.
STMicro and Wolfspeed v. Purdue University, IPR2022-00252, -00723, and -00761 (Pat. Trial & Appeal Board): successfully defended client Purdue University in defeating institution of three separate IPR challenges to groundbreaking Purdue patent on silicon carbide MOSFET devices.
LG Electronics v. Wi-LAN Inc., No. IPR2018-00673 (Pat. Trial & Appeal Bd.): obtained IPR judgment confirming patentability of all disputed claims in wireless network patent asserted in co-pending litigation after a full trial.
Unified Patents v. Barkan Wireless IP Holdings, No. IPR2018-01186 (Pat. Trial & Appeal Bd.): obtained IPR judgment after full trial confirming patentability of challenged claims in patent related to wireless communication networks.
Rockwell Automation v. Automation Middleware, Nos. IPR2017-00023, IPR2017-00048, IPR2017-00049, IPR2017-00469, IPR2017-00470 (Pat. Trial & Appeal Bd.): obtained favorable decisions denying institution of all inter partes review proceedings and protecting a portfolio of five patents related to motion control technology.
Verint Sys. v. KeySee Software, No. IPR2018-01579 (Pat. Trial & Appeal Bd.): obtained decision denying institution of inter partes review proceedings in a challenge to a patent covering hacking of cellular encryption.
Federal Court Litigation
MicroUnity Systems Engineering v. Sony Corp., No. 05-cv-00505 (E.D. Tex.): represented plaintiff in a series of patent infringement litigations involving a portfolio of innovative patents on unified media processing including a significant settlement with Intel in the late stages of litigation.
Halliburton Energy Services, Inc. v. Packers Plus Energy Services, Inc., No. CV-44964 (238th District Midland County, Texas): represented Halliburton in trade secret misappropriation and breach of contract litigation against both individual and corporate defendants who allegedly breached their employment contracts in forming competitor company; resolved favorably on the eve of trial.
Targus Int’l v. Group III Int’l and Victorinox Swiss Army Inc., Nos. 20-cv-21435 (S.D. Fla.) & 20-464 (D. Del.): successfully represented #1 manufacturer of laptop cases in dispute over checkpoint-friendly travel laptop cases and recovered ~$2M in judgments.
Holosun Technologies v. NameSilo et al., No. 23-cv-02138 (D. Az.): obtained permanent injunction barring defendants from infringement of client’s copyright and trademarks.
Cedar Lane v. Alps Alpine North America, No. 23-cv-0001 (W.D. Wash.): represented supplier of premium in-vehicle navigation units in patent case and obtained early dismissal with prejudice; $0 paid to non-practicing entity.
Moxchange LLC v. Spectrum Brands, No. 21-cv-1496 (D. Del.): successfully represented defendant in obtaining an early dismissal with prejudice after filing motion to dismiss complaint asserting infringement of wireless networking patent.
Interval Licensing v. AOL, No. 13-1282 (Fed. Cir.): obtained a reversal of a district court claim construction order on appeal in patent litigation involving computerized attention management technology.
In re K-Dur Antitrust Litigation, MDL No. 1419 (D.N.J.): class counsel for direct-purchaser plaintiffs in antitrust litigation against Schering-Plough and others alleging attempts to keep generic drug companies from receiving FDA approval to market sustained release potassium chloride products; resolved favorably before trial.
Weatherford Tech. v. Tesco Corp., No. 17-cv-00456 (E.D. Tex.): patent litigation involving an oilfield control line device for tubular running services; resolved favorably during trial.
PalTalk Holdings v. Microsoft Corp., No. 09-cv-00274 (E.D. Tex.): patent infringement litigation involving online multiplayer gaming technology; resolved favorably during trial.
ZiiLabs Inc. v. Samsung Electronics Co., No. 14-cv-00203 (E.D. Tex.): patent infringement litigation relating to graphics processor technology; resolved favorably on the eve of trial.
Media, Speaking Engagements and Publications
Sony’s Patent Challenge Revived in Streaming Service Row, Law360 (Oct. 2023)
Fed. Cir.’s 1-Line Orders Hand Bumble A Win, Sony A Loss, Law360 (Sept. 2023)
Vidal Revives Challenge Of Claims In Chip Patent, Law360 (Apr. 2023)
Patent Office Director Orders Second Look at Purdue Patent Case, Bloomberg Law News (Apr. 2023)
Exception to the Rule?, Nat’l Law Review (Sept. 2022)
Patent Plaintiffs Scrambling After Texas Court Cools Hotspot, Bloomberg Law (July 2022)
PTAB Wipes Claims In 2 Drilling Tool Patents, Law360 (May 2022)
PTAB Allows Supplemental Information Request To Fly, PTAB Litigation Blog (Apr. 2022)
PTAB Axes 19 Claims Of Patent Caught In Semiconductor Row, Law360 (Jan. 2022)
Panelist, Complex Civility: Keeping Cold Wars Cold in Complex Litigation, Giles S. Rich Inn of Court (Jan. 2022)
Sense of Adventure: Armond Wilson’s founding partners gambled on themselves and the bet paid off, Daily Journal (April 2021)
Speaker, Patent Law 101 for Startups, MIT Global IAP Day (Jan. 2021)
Amid Economic Slump, Patent Office Pushes Back Fee Hikes, Bloomberg Law (July 2020)
Fed. Cir. Lets PTAB Ax Video Game Messaging Patent Claims, Law360 (June 2020)
Riot Games’ Networking Patent Win Affirmed by Federal Circuit, Bloomberg Law (June 2020)
Zaxcom Seeks Review of Factoring Product Praise in Patent Trial, Bloomberg Law (May 2020)
Co-Author, Filing Optional Reply Briefs Significantly Improves IPR Results, Law360 (May 2020)
PTAB Precedent Lays Out Method for Weighing Secondary Evidence, Bloomberg Law (Apr. 2020)
Targus Sues Victorinox Over Airport-Friendly Laptop Bag Patent, Bloomberg Law (Apr. 2020)
Remote Work May Change Attorneys’ Habits After Pandemic, Bloomberg Law (Mar. 2020)
Co-Author, What Happens at The Board Does Not Stay at The Board: How Patent Owners Can Leverage IPR Proceedings in Litigation, IP Watchdog (Mar. 2020)
Patent Litigation Sees ‘Exponential’ Changes Amid Coronavirus, Bloomberg Law (Mar. 2020)
$1.1 Billion CalTech Infringement Win Shows Patent Board Perils, Bloomberg Law (Feb. 2020)
Itron’s Invalidation of Utility Monitoring Patents Affirmed, Bloomberg Law (Feb. 2020)
Fed. Circ. OKs Meter Patent Ax After Late Time-Bar Challenge, Law360 (Feb. 2020)
Co-Author, How Increased Stays Pending IPR May Affect Venue Choice, Law360 (Nov. 2019)
Fed. Cir. Asked to Reverse Riot Games’ PTAB Wins, Law360 (Sept. 2019)
Snap Caps Challenges To Messaging Patents With PTAB Win, Law360 (Sept. 2019)
Snap Gets Mixed Results in Patent Office Attack on Vaporstream, Bloomberg Law (Jul. 2019)
Former Federal Circuit Clerks Launch IPR-Focused Firm, The Recorder/Law.com (May 2019)
Ex-Knobbe Martens, Heim Payne Partners Launch IP Boutique, Law360 (May 2019)
Knobbe Martens Partner Opens Boutique IP Firm, Daily Journal (May 2019)
Former Knobbe Martens Lawyer Forms New IP Boutique Armond Wilson, Bloomberg Law (May 2019)
Skilled in the Art: What Does Qualcomm’s Post-Koh Future Look Like? + Ex-Federal Circuit Clerks Say Small Is Beautiful at PTAB, Law.com (May 2019)
Apple, Qualcomm Reach Courthouse-Steps Settlement to End Suits, Bloomberg Law (Apr. 2019)
HP, SAP Get Big Baboon Patent Lawsuit Tossed, Bloomberg Law (Apr. 2019)
Skilled in the Art: Keeping It Real at the Ninth Circuit + Two Knobbe Partners Find New Homes, Law.com (Apr. 2019)
PTAB Won’t Review LG’s Challenges To Wi-LAN 4G Patent, Law360 (Oct. 2018)
Tesco Drilling Patent Case Stays In Texas’ Eastern District, Law360 (Oct. 2018)
No PTAB Review For Rockwell Automation Of Robotics Patent, Law360 (Apr. 2017)
Court Says Community of Interest Privilege Inapplicable to Supplier Communications, Bloomberg Law (July 2011)
Professional Affiliations
Federal Circuit Bar Association
PTAB Bar Association
Honorable Lee Yeakel IP American Inn of Court, executive committee
Admissions
U.S. Supreme Court
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas
U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas
U.S. Patent Office
State of Texas