Nathan Speed is a trial and appellate lawyer focusing on complex patent litigation and post-grant matters. Nathan has experience litigating cases in federal district courts across the country as well as the United States International Trade Commission, the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, and the Patent Trial and Appeal Board.

Nathan’s deep knowledge of the law and ability to learn new technologies quickly has allowed him to assist clients in protecting their most critical inventions, including in the areas of arthroscopic medical devices, data protection and recovery software, 3D printing technologies, computer and graphics processors, and bionic prosthetics.

Prior to joining Wolf Greenfield, Nathan was a Senior Associate in the Intellectual Property Litigation group at WilmerHale. At WilmerHale, Nathan represented clients in a range of industries including the pharmaceutical, semiconductor and telecommunication industries.

From 2009–2010, Nathan left WilmerHale to clerk for the Honorable Arthur J. Gajarsa of the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. While serving as a clerk to Judge Gajarsa, Nathan gained experience in appeals from the federal district courts, the International Trade Commission, the Court of International Trade and the Court of Federal Claims, the Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences, and the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board.

Nathan graduated summa cum laude from law school and received several academic awards including the Dean Award for top student in five courses and the Dr. John Ordronaux Prize, given annually to the graduate exhibiting the greatest ability.

Litigation:

Currently represent Bose before the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas in a three patent litigation concerning wireless headphones.
Currently represent Infineon before the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts in an eight patent litigation concerning semiconductor fabrication technologies.
Currently represent Google before the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts in a three patent litigation concerning low-precision, high-dynamic range computing.
Represented Vonage before the United States District Court for the District of Delaware in a patent litigation concerning Internet communications technology.
Represented Analog Devices before the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas in a patent litigation concerning real-time data monitoring systems.
Represented Sony before the United States International Trade Commission in patent litigation involving magnetic tape cartridges.
Represented 3Play Media, Inc. before the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts in a patent litigation involving interactive transcript technology. Case settled favorably while 3Play’s motion to dismiss was pending.
Represented Formlabs Inc. before the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia in an action seeking a declaratory judgment that Formlabs’s Form 2 3D printer did not infringe a patent related to 3D printing. After the Wolf Greenfield team defeated the patent owner’s motion to dismiss the complaint, the patent owner provided Formlabs with an unconditional covenant not to sue and the case was subsequently dismissed.
Represented Formlabs Inc. before the United States District Court for the Central District of California in a two patent litigation involving 3D printing technology. The plaintiff dismissed the case with prejudice after the Wolf Greenfield team successfully invalidated the asserted claims in an inter partes review proceeding.
Represented Smith & Nephew before the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas in a twelve-patent litigation concerning sports medicine devices. Nathan’s responsibilities included arguing at the Markman and pre-trial hearings as well as examining technical experts at trial.
Along with Mike Rader, Nathan represented EMC in a five patent litigation concerning data protection technologies. Mike and Nathan, together with EMC in-house counsel, obtained a jury verdict in EMC’s favor on May 8, 2015 against Zerto, Inc. and the Federal Circuit subsequently affirmed the verdict.
Represented Formlabs Inc. before the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York in an eight patent litigation involving 3D printing technology. Nathan’s responsibilities included briefing and arguing successful motion to dismiss certain of the plaintiff’s infringement allegations.
Represented Sony before the United States International Trade Commission in patent litigation involving technologies ranging from graphics and computer processing to liquid crystal displays.
Represented iWalk, Inc. (now BiOM) before the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts in offensive and defensive patent litigations against a competitor concerning bionic ankle and foot prostheses. Nathan’s responsibilities included drafting Markman briefs and arguing at Markman hearing.

Post-Grant Proceedings:

Secured two institution decisions for petitioner Sony against a patent related to magnetic tape cartridges. In response to the petitions, the patent owner statutorily disclaimed one of the four challenged claims, and the parties settled the trials shortly after the oral hearing.
On behalf of client Smith & Nephew, Nathan and Rich Giunta secured a final written decision of unpatentability against a competitor’s medical device patent that was asserted in co-pending litigation. Nathan defended the Board’s decision at the Federal Circuit, and the Federal Circuit subsequently affirmed in a precedential decision. (IPR2016-00918).
In four separate decisions, Nathan convinced the Board to institute IPR trials against 68 out of 68 challenged claims concerning medical device technologies. The institution decisions lead, in part, to the patent owner dismissing the challenged patents with prejudice from a co-pending litigation. (IPR2016-00505, -00506, -00507, and -00508).
Represented petitioner Smith & Nephew in IPR proceedings concerning suture anchors. Patent owner statutorily disclaimed all challenged claims prior to institution, and the Board entered adverse judgment against the patent owner. Nathan defended the Board’s decision at the Federal Circuit, and the Federal Circuit subsequently affirmed in a precedential decision. (IPR2016-00917).
Represented patent owner University of Texas in an IPR proceeding. Obtained denial of institution. (IPR2019-00406).
Represented patent owner EMC Corporation in four IPRs proceedings. Obtained denial of institution in all four proceedings. (IPR2014-01329, -01332, -01295, -01254).
Represented patent owner BTG International, Inc. in an IPR proceeding. Obtained denial of institution. (IPR2015-01305).
Represented patent owner Saint-Gobain Performance Plastics Rencol Ltd. in an IPR proceeding (IPR2014-00309). Obtained final written decision finding challenged claims patentable.

Appellate:

Lead counsel for appellee Nuance Communications in an appeal from an inter partes review trial that Wolf Greenfield successfully handled before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board. The Federal Circuit affirmed the Board’s finding that the challenged claims of a Nuance patent were not proven unpatentable.
Lead counsel for appellee WisTa Laboratories in an appeal from an inter partes review trial that Wolf Greenfield successfully handled before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board. Shortly after oral argument, the Federal Circuit summarily affirmed WisTa’s victory before the Board. (Provepharm Inc. v. WisTa Laboratories Ltd., 19-2372, -2373).
Lead counsel for appellees RPX Corporation and Advanced Micro Devices in an appeal from an inter partes review trial that Wolf Greenfield successful handled before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board. The Federal Circuit summarily affirmed the Board’s finding that RPX and AMD had proven the patent owner’s claims unpatentable. (IYM Technologies, LLC v. RPX Corp., Case No. 2019-1761).
Lead counsel for appellee Smith & Nephew in an appeal from an inter partes review trial that Nathan and his team successful handled before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board. The Federal Circuit issued a precedential opinion affirming the Board’s finding that Smith & Nephew had proven the patent owner’s claims unpatentable. Arthrex, Inc. v. Smith & Nephew, Inc. 935 F.3d 1319 (Fed. Cir. 2019).
Lead counsel for appellee EMC Corp. in an appeal of an ongoing royalty order that the United States District Court for the District of Delaware awarded EMC. The appellant voluntarily dismissed its appeal on the morning that oral argument was to be heard, and the parties subsequently entered into a settlement agreement favorable to EMC.
Lead counsel for appellee Smith & Nephew in an appeal from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board. The Board, at Smith & Nephew’s request, had entered adverse judgment against the patent owner following the patent owner’s decision to statutorily disclaim claims for which Smith & Nephew had sought inter partes review. In a precedential decision, the Federal Circuit affirmed the Board’s decision, finding that 37 C.F.R. § 42.73(b) permits the Board to enter an adverse judgment when a patent owner statutorily disclaims all claims at issue after an IPR petition has been filed, but before an institution decision. Arthrex, Inc. v. Smith & Nephew, Inc., 880 F.3d 1345 (Fed. Cir. 2018). Law360 identified the decision as one of four decision that IP attorneys “need to know.”
Lead counsel for appellee Cirrus Logic in an appeal from an inter partes reexamination that Wolf Greenfield successfully handled on behalf of Cirrus. The Federal Circuit affirmed our client’s victory. Knowles Electronics LLC v. Cirrus Logic, Inc., 883 F.3d 1358 (Fed. Cir. 2018).

PTAB Bar Association
Boston Patent Law Association

Nathan has been repeatedly named to the Massachusetts Super Lawyers list in the field of intellectual property law and included in The Best Lawyers in America©. He has also been included in the IAM Strategy 300: The World’s Leading IP Strategists for two consecutive years and is included in the inaugural IAM Strategy 300: Global Leaders guide. Nathan was ranked as the 15th most active attorney representing petitioners before the PTAB in 2020 by Managing IP.

While in law school, Nathan received several academic awards including the Dean Award in five courses and the Dr. John Ordronaux Prize, given annually to the graduate exhibiting the greatest ability, based on grades, coursework, extracurricular activities, and general character and conduct. In addition, he also received the following academic awards: G. Joseph Tauro Distinguished Scholar, Paul J. Liacos Distinguished Scholar and Edward F. Hennessey Distinguished Scholar.

Articles

Blogs

February 20, 2019

Petitioner Beware: Inconsistent Claim Construction Positions Can Doom a Petition

January 25, 2019

Motions to Amend: The Board Invites Alice to the IPR Party

January 30, 2018

PTAB Left to Mitigate the Damage from Collateral Estoppel

May 16, 2017

Due Process: Just How Much Process is Due?

April 11, 2016

The BRI Standard: An Unconstitutional Taking of Private Property?

March 31, 2016

When One Door to an IPR Proceeding Closes, Another Opens

March 16, 2016

Federal Circuit Orders the PTAB to Play Fair

January 28, 2016

An NPE Uses an IPR to Take a Bite Out of Apple

December 22, 2015

The PTAB Chooses Its Own Adventure

August 25, 2015

Board Tells Bass to “Go Fish”

Other Publications:

Note, Examining the Interstate Commerce Clause Through the Lens of the Indian Commerce Clause, 87 B.U. L. Rev. 467 (2007).

Recent News & Events

January 20, 2021

Wolf Greenfield Ranked by Managing IP As a Top Law Firm at the PTAB in 2020

January 14, 2021 10:00 AM - 11:00 AM ET

BBA’s Intellectual Property Year in Review: Patents

October 13, 2020

Wolf Greenfield Attorneys Named to 2020 Massachusetts Super Lawyers, Rising Stars Lists

August 20, 2020

29 Wolf Greenfield Attorneys Named to The Best Lawyers in America 2021

July 17, 2020

Nathan Speed Quoted by Law360 on PTAB Amendments During AIA Trials

July 8, 2020

Nathan Speed Listed in IAM Strategy 300 For Second Consecutive Year

April 13, 2020

Nathan Speed Quoted by Law360 on the Impact Of Distinct Printed Publication Rules in Exams, IPR

January 8, 2020

Nathan Speed Quoted by Law360 on PTAB Printed Publication Ruling

December 24, 2019

Nathan Speed Quoted by Bloomberg Law

December 12, 2019 12:00 PM - 1:00 PM ET

Webinar: Crossroads of Litigation and IPR Practice: Recent Developments and Trends

Expand All

Litigation:

Currently represent Bose before the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas in a three patent litigation concerning wireless headphones.
Currently represent Infineon before the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts in an eight patent litigation concerning semiconductor fabrication technologies.
Currently represent Google before the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts in a three patent litigation concerning low-precision, high-dynamic range computing.
Represented Vonage before the United States District Court for the District of Delaware in a patent litigation concerning Internet communications technology.
Represented Analog Devices before the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas in a patent litigation concerning real-time data monitoring systems.
Represented Sony before the United States International Trade Commission in patent litigation involving magnetic tape cartridges.
Represented 3Play Media, Inc. before the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts in a patent litigation involving interactive transcript technology. Case settled favorably while 3Play’s motion to dismiss was pending.
Represented Formlabs Inc. before the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia in an action seeking a declaratory judgment that Formlabs’s Form 2 3D printer did not infringe a patent related to 3D printing. After the Wolf Greenfield team defeated the patent owner’s motion to dismiss the complaint, the patent owner provided Formlabs with an unconditional covenant not to sue and the case was subsequently dismissed.
Represented Formlabs Inc. before the United States District Court for the Central District of California in a two patent litigation involving 3D printing technology. The plaintiff dismissed the case with prejudice after the Wolf Greenfield team successfully invalidated the asserted claims in an inter partes review proceeding.
Represented Smith & Nephew before the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas in a twelve-patent litigation concerning sports medicine devices. Nathan’s responsibilities included arguing at the Markman and pre-trial hearings as well as examining technical experts at trial.
Along with Mike Rader, Nathan represented EMC in a five patent litigation concerning data protection technologies. Mike and Nathan, together with EMC in-house counsel, obtained a jury verdict in EMC’s favor on May 8, 2015 against Zerto, Inc. and the Federal Circuit subsequently affirmed the verdict.
Represented Formlabs Inc. before the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York in an eight patent litigation involving 3D printing technology. Nathan’s responsibilities included briefing and arguing successful motion to dismiss certain of the plaintiff’s infringement allegations.
Represented Sony before the United States International Trade Commission in patent litigation involving technologies ranging from graphics and computer processing to liquid crystal displays.
Represented iWalk, Inc. (now BiOM) before the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts in offensive and defensive patent litigations against a competitor concerning bionic ankle and foot prostheses. Nathan’s responsibilities included drafting Markman briefs and arguing at Markman hearing.

Post-Grant Proceedings:

Secured two institution decisions for petitioner Sony against a patent related to magnetic tape cartridges. In response to the petitions, the patent owner statutorily disclaimed one of the four challenged claims, and the parties settled the trials shortly after the oral hearing.
On behalf of client Smith & Nephew, Nathan and Rich Giunta secured a final written decision of unpatentability against a competitor’s medical device patent that was asserted in co-pending litigation. Nathan defended the Board’s decision at the Federal Circuit, and the Federal Circuit subsequently affirmed in a precedential decision. (IPR2016-00918).
In four separate decisions, Nathan convinced the Board to institute IPR trials against 68 out of 68 challenged claims concerning medical device technologies. The institution decisions lead, in part, to the patent owner dismissing the challenged patents with prejudice from a co-pending litigation. (IPR2016-00505, -00506, -00507, and -00508).
Represented petitioner Smith & Nephew in IPR proceedings concerning suture anchors. Patent owner statutorily disclaimed all challenged claims prior to institution, and the Board entered adverse judgment against the patent owner. Nathan defended the Board’s decision at the Federal Circuit, and the Federal Circuit subsequently affirmed in a precedential decision. (IPR2016-00917).
Represented patent owner University of Texas in an IPR proceeding. Obtained denial of institution. (IPR2019-00406).
Represented patent owner EMC Corporation in four IPRs proceedings. Obtained denial of institution in all four proceedings. (IPR2014-01329, -01332, -01295, -01254).
Represented patent owner BTG International, Inc. in an IPR proceeding. Obtained denial of institution. (IPR2015-01305).
Represented patent owner Saint-Gobain Performance Plastics Rencol Ltd. in an IPR proceeding (IPR2014-00309). Obtained final written decision finding challenged claims patentable.

Appellate:

Lead counsel for appellee Nuance Communications in an appeal from an inter partes review trial that Wolf Greenfield successfully handled before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board. The Federal Circuit affirmed the Board’s finding that the challenged claims of a Nuance patent were not proven unpatentable.
Lead counsel for appellee WisTa Laboratories in an appeal from an inter partes review trial that Wolf Greenfield successfully handled before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board. Shortly after oral argument, the Federal Circuit summarily affirmed WisTa’s victory before the Board. (Provepharm Inc. v. WisTa Laboratories Ltd., 19-2372, -2373).
Lead counsel for appellees RPX Corporation and Advanced Micro Devices in an appeal from an inter partes review trial that Wolf Greenfield successful handled before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board. The Federal Circuit summarily affirmed the Board’s finding that RPX and AMD had proven the patent owner’s claims unpatentable. (IYM Technologies, LLC v. RPX Corp., Case No. 2019-1761).
Lead counsel for appellee Smith & Nephew in an appeal from an inter partes review trial that Nathan and his team successful handled before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board. The Federal Circuit issued a precedential opinion affirming the Board’s finding that Smith & Nephew had proven the patent owner’s claims unpatentable. Arthrex, Inc. v. Smith & Nephew, Inc. 935 F.3d 1319 (Fed. Cir. 2019).
Lead counsel for appellee EMC Corp. in an appeal of an ongoing royalty order that the United States District Court for the District of Delaware awarded EMC. The appellant voluntarily dismissed its appeal on the morning that oral argument was to be heard, and the parties subsequently entered into a settlement agreement favorable to EMC.
Lead counsel for appellee Smith & Nephew in an appeal from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board. The Board, at Smith & Nephew’s request, had entered adverse judgment against the patent owner following the patent owner’s decision to statutorily disclaim claims for which Smith & Nephew had sought inter partes review. In a precedential decision, the Federal Circuit affirmed the Board’s decision, finding that 37 C.F.R. § 42.73(b) permits the Board to enter an adverse judgment when a patent owner statutorily disclaims all claims at issue after an IPR petition has been filed, but before an institution decision. Arthrex, Inc. v. Smith & Nephew, Inc., 880 F.3d 1345 (Fed. Cir. 2018). Law360 identified the decision as one of four decision that IP attorneys “need to know.”
Lead counsel for appellee Cirrus Logic in an appeal from an inter partes reexamination that Wolf Greenfield successfully handled on behalf of Cirrus. The Federal Circuit affirmed our client’s victory. Knowles Electronics LLC v. Cirrus Logic, Inc., 883 F.3d 1358 (Fed. Cir. 2018).