Harper Batts is a partner in the Intellectual Property Practice Group located in the firm's Silicon Valley office.
Areas of Practice
Harper has a decade and a half of experience as an intellectual property litigator and client counselor. Numerous Fortune 500 clients have relied upon his experience to represent them in highly contentious patent disputes in venues across the country. He has been selected as a Top IP Attorney in California by the Daily Journal, and IAM Patent 1000 noted that Harper “performs adroitly in post-grant proceedings on both the patent owner and petitioner sides.” In 2020, he obtained institution of numerous petitions for inter partes review, obtained numerous final written decisions finding all claim unpatentable, and obtained an exceptional case finding and an award of attorney’s fees in the Central District of California.
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 is one of the leading attorneys for handling complex PTAB challenges across a variety of technologies, having obtained institution on almost every IPR he has filed. Harper has represented patent challengers and patent owners in more than 70 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.
- Representing leading streaming service provider in 10+ IPRs against Broadcom. The patents claim techniques for managing web services, video compression, and adaptive streaming.
- Representing leading streaming service provider in a Central District of California patent dispute and a corresponding IPR.
- Representing leading semiconductor company in 2 IPRs against IP Value Management subsidiary involving microcontrollers, FPGAs, and other programmable devices, with both IPRs instituted.
- Representing leading video game company in Western District of Texas litigation involving erasure code technology.
- Representing leading software provider in Western District of Texas litigation involving 3 asserted patents.
- Representing leading streaming service providers in 6 IPRS involving technologies including partial frame encryption and adaptive streaming, with all IPRs instituted.
- Represented leading furniture manufacturers in Eastern District of Texas case and 2 related IPRS concerning augmented reality technology. Case settled favorably.
- Represented leading drone manufacturer in patent dispute, including declaratory judgment filing in the District of Delaware. Case settled favorably.
- Represented leading streaming service provider in 7 instituted PTAB challenges relating to compression technology. To date over 85 claims have been found unpatentable across 5 patents.
- Represented leading semiconductor manufacturer in multiple IPR challenges concerning 802.11 and Bluetooth technology that were instituted and all asserted claims found invalid.
- Represented a leading streaming provider of music in 4 IPR proceedings that settled shortly after the filing of the IPRs.
- Represented leading sporting goods company in the Central District of California litigation and obtained dismissal before responding to complaint after sending Rule 11 letter.
- Represented leading TV manufacturer in the Eastern District of Texas in case involving various technologies including 802.11. Case settled favorably.
- 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.
- Represented a leading stream service provider of music in litigation in Delaware. Case settled favorably.
- 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 Central District 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.
The World's Leading Patent Professionals, IAM Patent 1000, 2020, 2021
Top Intellectual Property Lawyers, Daily Journal, 2019, 2021
Recognized as a Northern California Super Lawyer - Rising Star, 2015, 2016
- At the Post-Iancu USPTO, Will the PTAB Squeeze on Petitioners Continue?IAM, 03.01.2021
- The Recorder, 05.01.2019
- Law360, 10.16.2018
- Part 2: How to Assert and Defend Trade Secret Claims After ‘Waymo v. Uber’The Recorder, 02.20.2018
- Lessons Learned From ‘Waymo v. Uber’ and Other Trade Secret Disputes, Part One: How to Properly Protect Your Trade SecretsThe Recorder, 02.13.2018
- Myth-Busting the Patent Trial and Appeal BoardThe Recorder, 05.12.2017
- A Review Of Patent Owners' Early Expert Testimony At PTABLaw360, 02.22.2017
- Law360, 06.09.2016
- Myth-Busting the Patent Trial and Appeal BoardLaw.com, 04.01.2016
- Open Question: Use of IPR and CBM Institution Decisions in District CourtIntellectual Property & Technology Law Journal, 08.2015
- Recent Shift in § 325(d) Analysis by PTAB May Favor Patent OwnersPTAB Trials Report, 05.2015
- "Hello Again, Worlds: A Failed Gaming IPR Leads to § 101 Success," May 21, 2021
Law of the Level Blog Posts
- "Addressing Video Game Claims Under the Phillips Standard at the PTAB," August 26, 2019
- "Caution to Game Companies: PTAB Continues to Preclude PTAB Challenges That It Views As Untimely," April 10, 2019
- "Failure to Launch: Not Identifying the Proper Parties Can Prematurely End an Video Game IPR Challenge," February 5, 2019
- "Challenges in Filing Successful IPR Petitions for Video Game Patents," January 3, 2019
Intellectual Property Law Blog Posts
"5 Things To Consider Before Heading To PTAB," October 17, 2018
- The Biggest Patent Rulings of 2021: A Midyear ReportLaw360, 07.06.2021
- Law360, 11.02.2020
- Law360, 07.08.2020
- Law360, 04.22.2019
- Law360, 10.24.2018
- Law360, 10.22.2018
- Apple, Fitbit Get Heart Sensor Patent Slashed At PTABLaw360, 08.07.2018
- Apple, Fitbit Get Health Sensor Patent Invalidated At PTABLaw360, 06.01.2018
- Patent Landscape Readjusts One Year After TC HeartlandLaw360, 05.18.2018
- Industry reaction to SCOTUS patent venue decision in TC Heartland v. Kraft Food GroupIP Watchdog, 05.20.2016
- "Successful IPRs: Best Practice Suggestions from Prominent Filers," ABA-IPL IP West, Newport Beach, California, October 3, 2018
- Fighting (Patent) Trolls with Dragons: How to Effectively and Efficiently Defend Against Patent AssertionsVideo Game Bar Association Virtual Townhall, 12.16.2020
- Altered Beast: How Recent Supreme Court Decisions and PTO Rule Changes Under Director Iancu Have Dramatically Changed the Patent Landscape, Sheppard Mullin San Francisco, 03.28.2019
- Altered Beast: How Recent Supreme Court Decisions and PTO Rule Changes Under Director Iancu Have Dramatically Changed the Patent Landscape, Palo Alto, 03.27.2019
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
J.D., University of Miami School of Law, 2005, cum laude
B.A., Chemistry, Johns Hopkins University, 1999
- 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