Scott A. McKeown

Overview

Scott McKeown focuses his practice on post-grant patent counseling and litigation matters at the US Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) and related appeals to the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC). Scott handles all aspects of post-issuance patent proceedings, with a particular focus on administrative trials before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB), such as inter partes review (IPR) and post-grant review (PGR). He also provides advice on USPTO post-grant proceedings concurrent with complex International Trade Commission (ITC) and district court litigations.

Named one of the world’s leading patent practitioners for post-grant proceedings by Intellectual Asset Management, Scott is one of the most active PTAB trial attorneys in the US, having handled more than 400 PTAB matters since 2012, including those in which more than $500 million was at stake. He currently serves as lead post-grant counsel to some of the world’s best-known innovators and has handled some of the most noteworthy PTAB trials to date, including the only precedential decision on live testimony. Moreover, he was named by Managing IP as its “Outstanding PTAB Litigator” in 2020. 

Scott is a Professorial Lecturer in Law at The George Washington University Law School and a Founding Director of the PTAB Bar Association. He lectures and writes extensively on PTAB proceedings and maintains the award-winning blog, PatentsPostGrant.com, which examines developments in patent litigation, including issues related to USPTO post issuance proceedings. 

Prior to joining Wolf Greenfield, Scott chaired the PTAB group at an Am Law 10 law firm and was a shareholder in that firm’s intellectual property litigation practice. 

Prior to becoming an attorney, Scott worked as an electrical engineer for a government agency, troubleshooting embedded systems and circuit designs. He also has experience across a wide range of related technologies, including computer software, wireless telecommunication protocols, network architectures, e-commerce applications, analog and digital signal processing, and consumer electronics.

Experience

• ASUSTeK Computer Inc.; ASUS Global PTE. LTD.; Dell Technologies Inc.; Dell Inc.; and HP Inc v. LITL LLC  (IPR2024-00532) – Representing patent owner LITL in IPR related to tablet computing devices and associated software.
• Hoshino Gakki Co. Ltd., v Pearl Musical Instrument Co. (Reexam: 90/019,424) – Representing Hoshino is challenging U.S. patent 7,671261 directed to a musical instrument carrier assembly.
• Inari Agriculture v. Corteva Agriscience (IPR2024-00179-181) – Representing petitioner Inari Agriculture in a challenge to patents directed to transgenic plant cells including herbicide resistant genes.
• Tik Tok Inc., v 10Tales (Reexam: 90/015,310) – Representing patent owner 10Tales in reexamination of U.S. Patent 8,856,030 directed to managing digital media presentations by associated assets.
• Unified Patents v. Anonymous Media Research (Reexam: 90/019,375) – Representing Unified Patents in challenging U.S. patent 8,510,768 directed to media metering and measurement systems.
• Inari Agriculture v. Pioneer-Hi Bred Int’l Inc. (PGR 2024-00019) – Representing petitioner Inari Agriculture in a challenge to a patent directed to a maize inbred plant.
• Roku Inc. v. Ecolink Intelligent Technologies, Inc. (IPR2023-00792) – Representing Roku in challenging patent relating to home security system.
• Inari Agriculture v. Corteva Agriscience (PGR 2023-00022) – Representing petitioner Inari Agriculture in a successful challenge to a patent directed to transgenic plant cells including herbicide resistant genes.
• Akamai Technologies, Inc. v. Equil IP Holdings LLP (IPR2023-00329-00332) – Representing Akamai in challenging patents related to web-based graphic processing.
• Ericsson et al. v. Godo Kaisha IP Bridge (IPR2022-00725; 00726; and 00755) – Representing IP Bridge in defense of patents pertaining to orthogonal frequency-division multiplexing, and related signaling protocols. These IPRs were denied institution.
• WFR IP LLC. V. GN Audio USA Inc. (D.Del – 2022) – Representing GN in two patent suit directed to wireless headphones.
• Ericcson et al. v. Collision Communications Inc. (IPR2022-01233) – Representing Collision in defending its patent directed to noise suppression in multi-user carrier wireless signaling environments.
• SAP America v. Express Mobile (IPR2022-00518) – Representing SAP in challenging patents related to web page building interfaces. IPR instated and all claims cancelled.
• Inari Agriculture – Challenge to patents of Dow Bioscience directed to gene editing of seeds for obvious type double patenting.90/019,131; 90/019,138; and 90/019,130.
• Signify North America Corp., & Signify Holding B.V. v. All Star Lighting Supplies, Inc. (DNJ -2022) – Defense of All Star Lighting in six patent infringement suit directed to LED lighting fixtures. This matter settled favorably.
• GN Audio A/S et al v. Snik LLC (NDCA - 2022) – Action for declaratory judgment on behalf of GN audio entities (6 patents relating to magnet-secured recharging of wireless headphones). This matter settled favorably.
• Roku v. Universal Electronics (IPR2022-00943; IPR2022-01289) – Representing Roku in challenging patents relating to voice control and home automation systems.
• Exactech Inc v. Zimmer et al. (IPR2022-00836-00841; and 00910) – Representing Exactech is challenging patents relating to orthopedic surgery tools and visualization systems. Successful institution; thereafter the matter settled favorably.
• ThroughPuter Inc., v. Microsoft Inc. (IPR2022-00527; 00528; 00574; 00757; 00758 and 01566) – Representing ThroughPuter in defending patents directed to multi-user, parallel processing systems. Institution Denied in 00757 and 00758.
• EPL Limited v. Colgate-Palmolive (PGR2022-0001) – Represented Colgate-Palmolive in defense of patent directed to recyclable toothpaste containers. Settled favorably prior to institution.
• A Global Leader in Medical Technology, Services, and Solutions (IPR2021-00239; 00243- and 00244) – Challenged patents directed to heart valves and mechanisms for the placement thereof.  All claims cancelled.
• Cellink AB v. Organovo Inc.(IPR2021-1049; 0150; 01543; 01544) – Representing CellInk AB in challenging directed to printing of cellular structures.
• Ideal Industries Lighting LLC d/b/a Cree Lighting v. RAB Lighting Inc. (IPR2021-00646; and 00655) – Representing RAB Lighting in defending patents directed to LED lighting fixtures. This matter settled favorably.
• Palo Alto Networks, Inc. v. Centripetal Networks (IPR2021-01147-01151; and 01153-01158; 01270; and PGR2021-00108) – Representing Palo Alto Networks in challenging a patent portfolio related to packet filtering.
• Lumenis Be. Ltd v. BTL Healthcare Technologies A.S. (IPR2021-01273; 01275; 01276; 01278-01280; 01282-01285; and 01402-01405) – Representing Lumenis in challenging a patent portfolio related to electrical stimulation of muscles for muscle toning.
• Schaeffler Group USA Inc. v. BorgWarner Ithaca LLC (IPR2020-01482) – Representing BorgWarner in defense of patent directed to variable cam timing phaser for automotive engines. Institution denied and matter settled favorably.
• SuperCell Oy v. Gree Inc. (IPR2021-00499-501) – Representing Gree Inc. Successfully defended three patents directed to MMORPG player classification and matching. Institutions denied and matter settled favorably.
• SuperCell Oy v. Gree Inc. (PGR2020-00063) – Representing Gree Inc. Successfully defended virtual reality patent. Institution denied and matter settled favorably.
• Amp Plus Inc., dba Elco Lighting v. DMF Inc. (IPR2019-01094) – Representing DMF in defending patent related to a lighting fixture assembly litigated in Central District of California. Litigated claims upheld by PTAB.
• Samsung Electronics Co., LTD, and Samsung Electronics America, Inc., v. Ultravision Technologies, LLC (IPR2020-01173-1175) – Representing Samsung in challenging patents related to large-format modular display systems. These matters favorably settled pre-trial.
• Dolby Laboratories Inc. v. Intertrust Technologies Corp. (IPR2020-00660 - 664, IPR2020-01104-01106, IPR2020-01123; IPR2020-01273, IPR2020-1209) – Representing Dolby in challenging patents related to digital rights management (DRM) systems.
• Samsung Electronics Co., LTD, and Samsung Electronics America, Inc., v. Cellect, LLC (IPR2020-00472-00477, IPR2020-00512, IPR2020-00559-00569, IPR2020-00571-00572, Reexaminations 90/014,452 – 457) – Representing Samsung in challenging patents related to reduced area camera assemblies. All IPR challenged claims cancelled.
• Palo Alto Networks, Inc. v. Packet Intelligence LLC. (IPR2020-00335-00338, IPR2020-00485-00486) – Representing Palo Alto Networks in challenging patents in ongoing PTAB IPR trials relating to packet classification, switching and monitoring. All challenged claims cancelled.
• Roku, Inc. v. Canon Kabushiki Kaisha (IPR2020-00341-00359) – Represented Roku in challenging patents relating to display and interface technologies. These matters favorably settled pre-trial.
• Baxter Corp v. American Medical Technology Company (IPR2020-00024, IPR2020-00025, IPR2020-00026, IPR2020-00027) – Defended an American medical technology company against IPR challenges directed to its patents on antimicrobial medical valves and assemblies. All such IPR challenges were denied by the PTAB.
• A Major U.S. Auto Manufacturer. v. Carrum Technologies, LLC. (IPR2020-00055, IPR2012-00056, IPR2020-00057) – Representing a major U.S. auto manufacturer in challenging patents related to adaptive cruise control systems and methodologies.  
• A Major Technology Company . v. Anywhere Commerce (IPR2019-01625, IPR2019-01626, IPR2019-01627, IPR2019-01628, IPR2019-01629, IPR2019-01630) – Representing a major technology company in challenging patents related to mobile payment systems and associated payment processing methodologies. All challenged claims cancelled and litigation dismissed.
• A Major Multinational Telecommunications Equipment Company v. L3Harris Technologies (IPR2019-01512, IPR2019-01570, IPR2019-01631) – Represented a Major Multinational Telecommunications Equipment Company in challenging patents related to telecommunication switching, protocol processing, and network management. This matter settled favorably pre-trial.
• A Leading Consumer Electronics Company (IPR2016-00834, CAFC-18-1172) – In a precedential opinion, the Federal Circuit successfully vacated the decision of the PTAB in an IPR. The PTAB reversed its earlier determination on remand in favor of patent owner Sony.
• American Medical Technology Company v. Baxter Corp. (IPR2019-00119, IPR2019-00120, IPR2019-00121) – Representing an American medical technology company in ongoing PTAB IPR trials relating to automated methods of preparing pharmaceutical dosages.
• Dolby Laboratories Inc. v. Intertrust Technologies Corp. (ND California) – Representing Dolby in a declaratory judgement action relating to audio/video processing systems. This matter settled favorably.
• Represented the World’s Leading Consumer Electronics Company in multiple appeals (Nos. 18-1987, 18-1988, 18-2092, 18-2114, 18-2115, 18-1529, 18-1531) at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit resulting from inter partes review proceedings involving four patents directed towards methods and systems for transferring data between computers/host devices and data transmitting/receiving devices. Secured critical wins and notable precedent on questions of claim preclusion.
• Delphi Technologies Inc. v. Microchip Technology Inc. (IPR2017-00861, IPR2017-00864) – Challenged patents relating to multi-host USB control circuitry. Secured affirmance of critical claim cancellations at the PTAB.
• A Leading Multinational Technology Company v. Spring Ventures LTD (IPR2017-01653) – Successfully challenged Spring Ventures patent directed to software interfaces, resulting in the cancellation of all challenged claims, and defeating a motion to amend. Secured summary affirmance of the PTAB win on appeal to the Federal Circuit.
• Sukup Mfg. Co v. Sioux Steel Co. (IPR2019-000316) – Representing Patent Owner Sioux Steel in defending its patented technology relating to automated farming equipment (favorably settled).
• Unified Patents v. Uniloc 2017 LLC  (IPR2019-01126) – Representing Unified Patents in challenging Uniloc patent directed to motion estimation in video compression.
• Unified Patents v. Portal Communications (IPR2019-00513) – Representing Unified Patents in challenging Portal Communication pertaining to a natural language search interface. (All challenged claims cancelled, multiple attempts at amending denied). 
• Unified Patents v. SpeakWare Inc (IPR2019-00495) – Representing Unified Patents in challenging SpeakWare patent relating to voice recognition technology. (Favorably settled.)
• Unified Patents v. Universal Cipher (IPR2019-00498) – Representing Unified Patents in challenging Universal Cipher’s patent pertaining to encryption technology. (Favorably settled.)
• Solar Junction Corporation v. IQE plc (DER2018-00019) – Represent IQE, a semiconductor wafer manufacturer, and its employees in a derivation proceeding at the PTAB.
• SIPCO, LLC v. RAB Lighting Inc. (D.N.J) – Represented RAB Lighting in a 6-patent lawsuit relating to wireless communications for lighting systems. (Favorably settled.)
• Intel Corp. V. Godo Kaisha IP Bridge (IPR2018-01487, IPR2018-01486, IPR2018-01408, IPR2018-01407, IPR2018-01406, IPR2018-01404, IPR2018-01155, IPR2018-00987, IPR2018-00951, IPR2018-00753, IPR2018-00756) – Represented IP Bridge in numerous IPR proceedings directed to semiconductor fabrication and operation. (Favorably settled.)
• SuperCell Oy v. Gree Inc. (PGR2018-00064, PGR2018-00070, PGR2018-000071, PGR2019-00018) – Successfully defended against institution in 3 of 4 proceedings related to mobile video gaming technology. One trial remains ongoing before the PTAB.
• Prairie Land Millwright Services Inc. v. Sioux Steel Co. (IPR2016-01873) – Successfully secured a final written decision for Patent Owner Sioux Steel upholding all challenged claims of a pioneering patent in the field of grain bin sweeps. Successfully defended the IPR win on appeal before the Federal Circuit, securing a summary affirmance.
• GN Hearing A/S v. Oticon A/S (IPR2017-01926, IPR2017-01927) – Successfully challenged every claim of two separate patents directed to hearing aid technology between close competitors.
• Sportbrain Holdings LLC v. GN Netcom, Inc. et al. (N.D. Ill.) – Represented GN Netcom in defending patent infringement claims relating to wireless headphones and applications relating thereto. Plaintiff voluntarily dismissed the case prior to the Answer after GN Netcom alleged lack of a Rule 11 basis for Plaintiff’s infringement claims.
• Comcast v. Rovi  – Represented Rovi and Tivo in 40+ IPR proceedings related to interactive electronic program guide technology.
• Oil States Energy Services, LLC v. Greene’s Energy Group, LLC (U.S. Sup. Ct.) – Co-authored an amicus brief on behalf of the world’s leading consumer electronics company, supporting the respondent, in a case addressing the authority of the USPTO’s Patent Trial & Appeal Board to rule on the patentability of issued patents in inter partes review proceedings.
• TC Heartland LLC v. Kraft Foods Group Brands LLC (U.S. Sup. Ct.) – Co-authored an amicus brief on behalf of an interested party, supporting the petitioner, in a case addressing the appropriate scope of venue in patent litigation.
• HID Global Inc. v. MorphoTrust USA LLC (IPR2017-01938, IPR2017-01939, IPR2017-01940, IPR2017-01941) – Defended patents directed to secure credential technologies.
• Cuozzo Speed Technologies, LLC v. Lee LLC (U.S. Sup. Ct.) – Co-authored an amicus brief on behalf of an interested party, supporting the respondent, in a case addressing the propriety of the broadest reasonable claim construction standard (BRI) for in USPTO Patent Trial & Appeal Board proceedings.
• ClearCorrect Operating LLC v. Align Technology Inc. (IPR2016-00270) – All challenged claims of a patent directed to Invisalign® dental appliances canceled. Appeal pending before the CAFC. (Favorably settled.)
• Arris International et al. v. Sony Corp. (IPR2016-00827, IPR2016-00828) – Represented patent owner. Defended patents directed to video processing technology. All challenges denied by the PTAB.
• Viasat v. Advanced Media Networks (IPR2016-00628, IPR2016-00629, IPR2016-00795, IPR2016-00796) – Defended patents directed to mobile WiFi technology. All challenges denied by the PTAB.
• J-Squared Inc. d/b/a University Loft v. Sauder Woodworking (IPR2015-00774, IPR2015-00958) – Successfully challenged claims to a modular chair design. Appeals pending before the CAFC.
• A Leading Multinational Technology Company v. Rockstar Consortium (IPR2015-00090, 91, 197, 200-202, 206-7, 210-12, 215, 235-36) – Filed 14 IPRs against the former Nortel patent portfolio relating to telecommunication methodologies and interfaces. Settled on behalf of client.
• eBay Inc. v. MoneyCat Ltd. (CBM2014-00091, CBM2014-00093) – Claims directed to electronic payment systems cancelled on behalf of client eBay.
• Eastman Kodak Company, AGFA Corp., Esko Software BVBA and Heidelberg USA v. CTP Innovations LLC (IPR2014-00788-91) – Filed IPRs on behalf of the largest printing companies in the world. Successfully derailed a patent assertion campaign lodged against small to medium size pre-press printing companies across the country. Appeals pending before the CAFC.
• Square Inc. v. REM Holdings LLC (IPR2014-00312, Reexamination 95/001618, 95/001,620) – Prevailed on behalf of the challenger in canceling all challenged claims of patents directed to mobile payment hardware.
• Time Warner Cable, Paramount Studios; et al v. Nissim Corp. (IPR2014-00961, IPR2014-00962) – Represented patent owner in defending patents directed to DVD technology. All challenges denied by PTAB.
• Sony Mobile v. Adaptix Inc. (IPR2014-01524, IPR 2014-01525) – PTAB instituted trial in IPR2014-01524 as to all challenged claims of Adaptix patent 6,947,748. On May 19, 2015, all challenged claims of Adaptix patent 7,454,212 were canceled in IPR2014-01525.
• E.I. DuPont de Nemours & Co. v. Merck & Co. Inc. and Intervet International B.V. (Interference 106,016) – Prevailed in a patent interference directed to veterinary medicine on behalf of DuPont (Senior Party 12/663,848).
• Cisco Systems Inc. v. RPX Clearinghouse (IPR2014-01220) – Settled, post-institution on behalf of Cisco.
• Innolux Corp v. Semiconductor Energy Labs(IPR2013-00028, 00038, 00060, 00064, 00065, 00066, 00068) – Challenged the semiconductor patents of Semiconductor Energy Labs (SEL) directed to complex TFT semiconductors and manufacturing methodologies. Seven IPRs were filed attacking several hundred claims in total, all of which were instituted by the PTAB. As a result of these IPRs, the litigation between the companies was stayed, and the dispute settled.
• K40 Electronics LLC v. Escort Inc.(IPR2013-00203, IPR2013-00240) – In the first and only IPR to date to include live testimony, the PTAB found in favor of client K40 Electronics, canceling all challenged claims.
• Unified Patents Inc. v. Clouding IP LLC (IPR2013-00586) – The PTAB granted a total victory for Unified Patents, finding all challenged claims unpatentable and denying patent owner’s motion to amend.
• GSI Commerce Solutions v. Clear With Computers (CBM2013-00055) – Settled on behalf of GSI.
• Ariosa Diagnostics v. Isis Innovation(IPR2012-00022, IPR2013-00250, 00276, 00277, 00308) – Ariosa is the leading provider of noninvasive prenatal tests for genetic anomalies.

Activities

• PTAB Bar Association, Founding Director
• American Bar Association
• American Intellectual Property Law Association (AIPLA)
• Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE)
• Temple University College of Engineering – Board of Visitors

Recognition

• Temple University Engineering – Top 50 Engineers (2023)
• Managing Intellectual Property “Patent Star” (2022-2023)
• IAM Global Leaders: The World’s Leading IP Strategists (2022-2023)
• Managing IP Magazine: Americas “Outstanding Litigator PTAB” (2020)
• Patexia’s IPR Intelligence Report: Top 1% of best performing and most active attorneys practicing before the PTAB (2023) 
• Patexia’s CAFC Intelligence Report: Top 2% of best performing and most active attorneys in CAFC cases (2023)
• Lexology Legal Influencer – Dispute Resolution: US and IP: US (2018)
• IAM Strategy 300: The World’s Leading IP Strategists (2018-2019)
• Chambers USA: America’s Leading Lawyers for Business
• The Legal 500 US (2012, 2015, 2018)
• Managing IP Magazine: Virginia “Litigator of the Year” (2017)
• Managing IP Magazine: PTAB “Litigator of the Year” (2015)
• The Best Lawyers in America®: Litigation–Intellectual Property (2015-2017, 2019-2024)
• The Best Lawyers in America®: Patent Law (2023-2024)
• The Best Lawyers in America - Lawyer of the Year (2021)
• Super Lawyers (2020-2021)
• IAM Patent 1000: The World's Leading Patent Practitioners
• Managing IP Magazine: “IP Star” (2013-2018)
• The National Law Journal: IP Trailblazers & Pioneers (2014)
• Temple University: Gallery of Success (2013)