Polsinelli’s Intellectual Property Litigation practice take creative and strategic approaches to resolving intellectual property disputes for local, regional, national and global companies and individuals. The practice is nationally ranked as Distinguished in Intellectual Property Litigation by BTI Consulting Group Litigation Outlook. Our trial attorneys are also ranked among the top 1% of Best Performing Law Firms Overall (representing defendants or plaintiffs) by Patexia Patent Litigation Intelligence Report.

With more than 1,300 intellectual property litigation filings over the past six years, we frequently try high-technology intellectual property cases tied to diverse subject matter including:

On a national level, attorneys in the Intellectual Property Litigation practice handle all stages of intellectual property litigation, including jury trials and appeals, and have trial experience in courts throughout the U.S., including but not limited to:

  • District of Delaware
  • Eastern District of Texas
  • Western District of Texas
  • Northern District of California
  • Central District of California
  • Northern District of Illinois
  • Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB)
  • Trademark Trial and Appeal Board (TTAB)
  • International Trade Commission
  • Federal Circuit Court of Appeals
In addition, our attorneys have decades of collective experience in the highly specialized area of Paragraph IV litigation under the Hatch-Waxman Act in key venues and are experienced in all aspects of pharmaceutical technology. Finally, we leverage the in-depth knowledge of our dedicated Post Grant Review attorneys to offer full-service representation to our litigation clients in related proceedings before the PTAB.

Our patent litigation experience includes cases involving the following technologies:

  • Biosimilars
  • Paragraph IV disputes under the Hatch-Waxman Act
  • Animal health sciences
  • Software and information technology
  • Biosciences
  • Medical devices
  • Telecommunications, electronics, and electrical and mechanical devices
  • Business methods
  • Design patents
Related Capabilities
BiosimilarsChemical Intellectual PropertyHatch-Waxman & BiologicsIntellectual PropertyLitigationMechanical Engineering & Medical Devices Patent ProsecutionPatent LitigationPatent Preparation & ProsecutionRestrictive Covenants & Trade Secrets LitigationTrademark, Copyright & Branding
Publications
All Publications
Disclosure to Generative-AI Tools Can Create Patent Prosecution Risk
Key Takeaways Using generative-AI tools for patent drafting creates more than efficiency gains. AI-assisted patent drafting can create patentability risks associated with novelty, inventorship, § 112, and later, enforceability. Public accessibility, not the use of AI itself, drives the statutory-bar analysis. Disclosing an invention to an AI system may qualify as a “printed publication” or as making it “otherwise available to the public” under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(1), thereby creating a statutory bar risk that could preclude patent protection. AI can assist inventors and patent counsel, but it cannot be the inventor. Inventorship still requires human conception. Companies using AI in invention disclosures or patent drafting should adopt guardrails. Use closed AI environments for all invention disclosure and patent drafting, avoid AI tools accessible
Read More
Sharp Drop in Patent Challenges Shows Shift From Volume to Value
Pat Muffo, Suni Sukduang, James Murphy and Ryan Murphy discuss how despite expectations that recent USPTO and PTAB policy changes would lead to an increase in patent litigation, patent infringement filings declined significantly in early 2026 largely because patent owners and non-practicing entities are shifting away from high-volume, low-value lawsuits and focusing on fewer, higher-stakes cases.
Read More