Patrick Maloney
Senior Associate
Patrick Maloney is nationally recognized for his experience representing clients before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB). Patrick has an impressive track record of successfully navigating patents through the PTAB, arguing hearings, and obtaining favorable decisions either by denying institution outright or confirming patentability after a full trial. To date, Patrick has handled over 150 post-grant proceedings, including inter partes reviews (IPRs) and covered business method reviews (CBMs), spanning a wide variety of technologies including telecommunications, networking, electronics, antennas, streaming media, and medical devices.
In 2021, Managing IP ranked Patrick 9th nationwide on its list of most active IPR lawyers representing patent owners. Patexia ranked Patrick as the 19th most active IPR attorney for patent owners from 2015-2020.
Patrick is a registered patent attorney. Previously, he was an associate at Lowenstein & Weatherwax LLP. At USC, Patrick evaluated and managed intellectual property at the University of Southern California’s Stevens Center for Innovation.
Education
J.D., University of California, Davis School of Law
senior editor, Environs Environmental Law and Policy Journal
president, Jewish Law Student Association
B.S. chemistry, University of California, Davis
Awards
Top 25 Most Active IPR Attorneys, Patexia (2024)
Top IPR Lateral Moves, Patexia (2022)
Representative Cases
Hulu and Netflix v. DivX, IPR2020-00647, IPR2020-00648 (Pat. Trial & Appeal Bd.): successfully defended patent owner by securing rare final written decisions after full trials confirming challenged claims in IPRs challenging two patents covering adaptive bitrate streaming technology.
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.
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.
NeoGenomics Labs. v. Natera, IPR2024-00346 (Pat. Trial & Appeal Bd.): defeated institution of IPR challenging Natera’s revolutionary cancer recurrence monitoring technology.
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.
Apple v. MPH Technologies, IPR2019-00821, IPR2019-00822, IPR2019-00825 (Pat. Trial & Appeal Bd.): successfully defended patent owner by securing complete victories upholding all challenged claims in portfolio.
Branch Banking & Trust v. Maxim Integrated Products, CBM2013-00059 (Pat. Trial & Appeal Bd.): successfully obtained first denial of covered business method patent review based on statutory estoppel.
Apple v. SEVEN Networks, IPR2020-00507 (Pat. Trial & Appeal Bd.): obtained denial of institution upholding all challenged patent claims.
Unified Patents v. Dynamic Data Technologies, IPR2019-01085 (Pat. Trial & Appeal Bd.): successfully obtained denial of institution by disqualifying asserted prior art.
Media, Speaking Engagements and Publications
Speaker, The Loper v. Raimondo Decision: A Survey of Perspectives, PTAB Bar Association (July 2024)
Moderator, Perspectives on Patent Litigation, LAIPLA (May 2024)
Panelist, Appeals to the Federal Circuit – 2023 Recent Updates, PTAB Bar Association (Dec. 2023)
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)
Panelist, Patent Litigation Panel, LABEST (May 2023)
Moderator, Top 5 New Developments in IPR Trials at the Patent Office, LAIPLA (May 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)
Author, Prior Art Status: Two Decisions To Know, PTAB Bar Association Appellate Year in Review (2022)
Co-Author, The Ones to Watch: Patent Cases This Supreme Court Term, Daily Journal (Oct. 2022)
Exception to the Rule?, Nat’l Law Review (Sept. 2022)
Quoted, Good News for Patent Challengers – Vidal’s Fintiv Tweaks Will Reduce Discretionary Denials, IAM Media (June 2022)
PTAB Allows Supplemental Information Request To Fly, PTAB Litigation Blog (Apr. 2022)
PTAB Denies Bid to Revive Challenge to IP in $2.2B Jury Win, Law360 (Mar. 2022)
DivX Patent Survives PTAB Review in Netflix IP Fight, Law360 (Aug. 2021)
Professional Affiliations
PTAB Bar Association
Admissions
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California
U.S. Patent Office
State of California