Harper Batts

HB

Biography

Harper Batts is a partner in the Intellectual Property Practice Group in the firm's Silicon Valley office.

Areas of Practice

Harper has more than a decade of experience as an intellectual property litigator and client counselor. Numerous Fortune 50 clients have relied upon his experience to represent them in highly contentious patent litigation disputes in many different venues, including Texas, Delaware, California, New Jersey, Wisconsin, North Carolina, and the Federal Circuit. His experience includes leading several large joint defense groups in complex cases involving numerous patents and accused product lines.

He focuses on immediately determining the most relevant and effective pressure points against an adversary to quickly resolve a dispute with minimal disruption and cost to a client.

Harper has represented patent challengers and patent owners in more than 35 CBM and IPR proceedings. He has extensive experience in cases before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board.

Clients in other venues continue to rely on Harper’s experience representing clients in other venues, including the United States Court of Appeal for the Federal Circuit Court of Appeals, the International Trade Commission and district courts known for their patent litigation cases, including the Northern District of California and the Eastern District of Texas.

In addition to his extensive IP litigation experience, Harper has frequently been called upon to conduct negotiations between direct competitors, as well as conducting due diligence regarding the potential acquisition of large patent portfolios.

A sought-after speaker, Harper has presented and written publications concerning his experience and insights concerning post-grant proceedings.

Harper is experienced in numerous technology areas, including semiconductors, computer software, e-commerce, wireless technology, telecommunications, medical devices and hardware technology.

Honors

•Recognized as a Northern California Super Lawyer - Rising Star, 2015-2016

Experience

•In fall of 2018, received a Final Written Decision finding all challenged claims unpatentable for a video game company following an unsuccessful IPR challenge by another gaming company.
•In summer of 2018, following institution on all challenged claims for a leading wearable device company, the Patent Owner (a Wi-LAN subsidiary) gave up and disclaimed all of the challenged claims.
•Representing multiple leading streaming service providers in numerous PTAB challenges relating to compression technology.
•Representing a leading stream service provider of music in litigation in Delaware.
•In fall of 2017, after taking over for prior IPR counsel, conducted oral arguments before the Federal Circuit for a leading streaming service provider regarding a Final Written Decision of an IPR proceeding in which the claims were not found unpatentable. The Federal Circuit reversed the decision (without remand), and found all challenged claims obvious.
•Representing leading wearable device company in multiple IPR and Federal Circuit court proceedings
•In Fall of 2017, received a dismissal of a C.D. of California lawsuit without any payment for a leading ride-share provider prior to even formally responding to the Complaint.
•Represented a leading medical device company in multiple IPR proceedings involving a competitor.
•In Fall of 2016, received a dismissal of a Delaware lawsuit without any payment for a leading ride-share provider prior to even formally responding to the Complaint.
•In Fall of 2016, received a Federal Circuit decision for a leading video stream provider affirming a Final Written Decision by the PTAB invalidating claims asserted against his client.
•In Spring of 2016, represented a leading financial services company defending against a claim of patent infringement in the Eastern District of Texas. Prior to having to file an Answer, received a walkaway dismissal with prejudice for the client.
•Represented leading telecommunications provider in patent infringement case related to internet filtering.
•Representing leading streaming video provider in various IP related matters, including litigation defense, multiple IPRs and CBMs, and two Federal Circuit Appeals.
•Representing leading semiconductor company in patent dispute regarding integrated circuit buses.
•Represented a leading medical device company in litigation regarding a patent related to 3D medical imaging. The case was quickly settled.
•Represented industry leader in four separate litigations, more than 15 IPR proceedings, as well as Federal Circuit appeals involving telecommunication software and products. Conducted two jury trials, including arguing motions before the court, and taking of inventor and expert witnesses. After more than 3 years of litigation, 12 out of the 15 patents asserted against client have been invalidated, another 3 unilaterally dropped by the plaintiff.
•After threatened assertion of a large patent portfolio by semiconductor processing competitor, led negotiations which resulted in competitor walking away from original assertions.
•Represented leading router manufacturer in an ITC investigation and corresponding District of Delaware litigation involving Power-over-Ethernet technology. Only weeks before ITC trial, petitioner unilaterally dropped the entire investigation.
•Represented leading software company in patent litigation in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware relating to certain technologies used in enterprise software. The case settled very favorably.
•Represented one of the largest cell phone manufacturers in the world in various patent litigations in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas relating to transmission technology. The case settled favorably.
•Represented a car component manufacturer in patent litigation in the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina related to turbocharger technology. The day after winning numerous pre-trial motions and just prior to jury selection, the case settled favorably.
•Represented leading semiconductor and processor company in various litigations concerning 802.11, CDMA2000, Bluetooth and other wireless technologies in the Eastern District of Texas. The case settled favorably on the eve of trial.

Articles

•5 Things To Consider Before Heading To PTAB
Law360 , October 16, 2018
•Part 2: How to Assert and Defend Trade Secret Claims After ‘Waymo v. Uber’
The Recorder , February 20, 2018
•Lessons Learned From ‘Waymo v. Uber’ and Other Trade Secret Disputes, Part One: How to Properly Protect Your Trade Secrets
The Recorder , February 13, 2018
•Myth-Busting the Patent Trial and Appeal Board
The Recorder , May 12, 2017
•A Review Of Patent Owners' Early Expert Testimony At PTAB
Law360 , February 22, 2017
•How To Make Secondary Considerations Matter (Or Not)
Law360 , June 9, 2016
•How To Make Secondary Considerations Matter (Or Not)
Law360 , June 6, 2016
•Myth-Busting the Patent Trial and Appeal Board
Law.com , April 1, 2016
•Open Question: Use of IPR and CBM Institution Decisions in District Court
Intellectual Property & Technology Law Journal , August 2015
•Recent Shift in 325(d) Analysis by PTAB May Favor Patent Owners
PTAB Trials Report , May 2015

Media Mentions

•PTAB Taking Note Of Parallel Litigation In Review Decisions
Law360 , October 24, 2018
•4 Recent PTAB Decisions Attys Need To Know
Law360 , October 22, 2018
•Apple, Fitbit Get Heart Sensor Patent Slashed At PTAB
Law360 , August 7, 2018
•Apple, Fitbit Get Health Sensor Patent Invalidated At PTAB
Law360 , June 1, 2018
•Patent Landscape Readjusts One Year After TC Heartland
Law360 , May 18, 2018
•Industry reaction to SCOTUS patent venue decision in TC Heartland v. Kraft Food Group
IP Watchdog , May 20, 2016

Speaking Engagements

• Successful IPRs: Best Practice Suggestions from Prominent Filers, ABA-IPL IP West, Newport Beach, California, October 3, 2018

Events

•ACC-SFBA Patent Law Committee Meeting Sponsored by Sheppard Mullin LLP
Altered Beast: How Recent Supreme Court Decisions and PTO Rule Changes Under Director Iancu Have Dramatically Changed the Patent Landscape
Sheppard Mullin San Francisco , March 28, 2019
•ACC-SFBA Patent Law Committee Meeting Sponsored by Sheppard Mullin LLP
Altered Beast: How Recent Supreme Court Decisions and PTO Rule Changes Under Director Iancu Have Dramatically Changed the Patent Landscape
Palo Alto , March 27, 2019

Areas of Practice (9)

  • Intellectual Property
  • False Advertising, Lanham Act and Unfair Competition
  • Patent Litigation
  • Post-Grant Proceedings
  • Trade Secrets
  • Emerging Company/Venture Capital
  • Entertainment and Digital Media
  • Life Sciences and FDA
  • Social Media and Games

Education & Credentials

Contact Information:
650.815.2673  Phone
650.815.4668  Fax
www.sheppardmullin.com
University Attended:
Johns Hopkins University, B.A., Chemistry, 1999
Law School Attended:
University of Miami School of Law, J.D., cum laude, 2005
Year of First Admission:
2006
Admission:
United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit; United States Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB); United States District Court for the Northern District of California; California; United States Patent and Trademark Office; United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas
Memberships:

Memberships

•State Bar of California
•United States Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB)
•United States Patent and Trademark Office
•United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
•United States District Court for the Northern District of California
•United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas

ISLN:
922862343

Peer Reviews

This lawyer does not have peer reviews.

*Peer Reviews provided before April 15, 2008 are not displayed.

Documents (5)

Documents by this lawyer on Martindale.com

Palo Alto, California

Contact Harper Batts

Required Fields

Required Fields


By clicking on the "Submit" button, you agree to the Terms of Use, Supplemental Terms and Privacy Policy. You also consent to be contacted at the phone number you provided, including by autodials, text messages and/or pre-recorded calls, from Martindale and its affiliates and from or on behalf of attorneys you request or contact through this site. Consent is not a condition of purchase.

You should not send any sensitive or confidential information through this site. Emails sent through this site do not create an attorney-client relationship and may not be treated as privileged or confidential. The lawyer or law firm you are contacting is not required to, and may choose not to, accept you as a client. The Internet is not necessarily secure and emails sent though this site could be intercepted or read by third parties.