Patexia 244 Measuring Impact at Ptab Who S Most Active in Tech Heavy Disputes

In the world of patent litigation, the PTAB has taken a central role, especially for disputes involving high-tech innovations. From software and semiconductors to digital communications, many of today’s most consequential patent battles play out not just in district courts or the ITC, but also before PTAB judges. For companies and counsel involved in parallel proceedings, success at the Board can define broader litigation strategy, influence settlement leverage, and even impact product launches.

With that in mind, we examined the attorneys who’ve been most active and most strategic in high-volume, tech-heavy PTAB disputes over the past several years. For this purpose, we analyzed all petitions filed between January 1, 2020, and December 31, 2024. While our focus was on cases involving tech-heavy subject matter, we did not limit the analysis to specific IPC codes. Instead, we evaluated each attorney’s full body of work and identified the primary IPC codes that consistently appeared across their cases.

The table below highlights the top 10 attorneys by case volume, along with their firm affiliations and the main IPC categories that have dominated their PTAB activity in recent years.

 

Rank	Attorney	Firm	Proceedings	Key IPC Focus
1	Karl Renner	Fish & Richardson	449	G06F, H04L
2	Reza Mirzaie	Russ August & Kabat	256	G06F, H04W
3	Naveen Modi	Paul Hastings	252	G06F, H04L
4	Scott A. McKeown	Wolf, Greenfield & Sacks	221	H04L, G06F
5	James M. Glass	Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan	217	G06F, H04L
6	Vincent James Rubino III	Fabricant LLP	199	G06F, H04L
7	Peter Lambrianakos	Fabricant LLP	196	G06F, G10L
8	Joseph E. Palys	Paul Hastings	193	G06F, H04L
9	Jeremy J. Monaldo	Fish & Richardson	176	H04W, H04L
10	Kenneth James Weatherwax	Lowenstein & Weatherwax	169	H04L, G06F

Table 1.1: PTAB Leaderboard: Top 10 Most Active Practitioners in PTAB Proceedings (2020 - 2024)

 

Out of the 7,671 PTAB proceedings filed between 2020 and 2024, certain technology categories clearly dominated. G06F (Electric Digital Data Processing) accounted for 1,978 filings, while H04L (Transmission of Digital Information) followed with 1,394, making them the two most active IPC codes during the period. These classifications highlight the intense activity in sectors involving software, networking, and digital communication technologies, areas that continue to drive innovation and patent disputes alike. To better understand how these disputes play out in practice, it’s helpful to consider an illustrative case that spans multiple forums and technologies.

One such example is the series of inter partes reviews (IPRs) filed by NJOY against Juul Labs, challenging patents related to e-cigarette technology. The dispute began with a Section 337 investigation complaint (337-TA-1368) at the ITC, where Victoria Maroulis, Kevin Johnson, and Alex Lasher served as lead attorneys, alongside a parallel case in district court (2:23-cv-01204). In response, the defendant filed five IPR petitions at the PTAB, targeting patents covering electronic control systems and fluid delivery mechanisms integral to vaping devices. This case highlights the complexity and technical depth common to many PTAB proceedings within these IPC classes.

Representing Juul Labs in this high-stakes litigation was James M. Glass of Quinn Emanuel, an attorney who consistently ranks among the top practitioners in tech-heavy PTAB disputes. With a deep docket of cases centered around G06F and H04L, Glass has built a track record of representing clients in some of the most complex and closely watched proceedings at the Board. His team successfully defended Juul against all five IPR petitions filed by NJOY: four were denied institution on substantive grounds, and after a full trial on the fifth, the Board issued a Final Written Decision affirming Juul’s patent claims. This outcome exemplifies the key role that deep technical expertise and litigation strategy play in PTAB proceedings involving complex technologies. With all five IPR petitions filed by NJOY being unsuccessful in challenging Juul’s patents, the ITC issued a limited exclusion order against NJOY’s vaping products. That exclusion order is currently under appeal at the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC). Meanwhile, the related district court case remains stayed pending the outcome of the ongoing appeal.

As PTAB continues to play an increasingly important role in patent enforcement and defense, attorneys who combine deep technical understanding with strategic litigation skills are distinguishing themselves in the tech-heavy sectors. Leaderboards that track activity at the PTAB not only reflect sheer volume but also highlight specialists defining outcomes in some of the most complex patent disputes today. For companies and counsel involved in parallel litigation across multiple forums, these practitioners serve as trusted partners in addressing today’s complex patent challenges.

Methodology

This analysis is based on a comprehensive review of all PTAB proceedings filed from January 1, 2020, through June 30, 2025. We focused on cases involving technology-related subject matter, encompassing a broad range of IPC codes without limiting the scope to any specific classifications. Each attorney’s case portfolio was examined to identify the volume of proceedings and the primary IPC codes that consistently appeared across their work. Rankings were determined based on the number of cases where attorneys served as counsel of record, providing a clear measure of activity and specialization in tech-heavy PTAB litigation.