Nathan R. Speed

Nathan R. Speed

Shareholder | Litigation
617.646.8275 Nathan.Speed@WolfGreenfield.com LinkedIn Profile

Education

  • Brandeis University, BA
  • Boston University School of Law, JD, summa cum laude

Key Technologies

  • Wireless Networking
  • Data Protection
  • Data Recovery Software
  • Medical Devices
  • Computer &  Graphics Processors

Practice Groups

Admitted to Practice

  • Massachusetts
  • US District Court, District of Massachusetts
  • US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit

Location

  • Boston

Overview

Nathan Speed is a trial and appellate lawyer focusing on complex patent litigation and post-grant matters. Nathan has served as lead counsel in nearly a dozen appeals to the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, has actively managed more than 30 matters before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB), and has represented clients in federal district courts across the country as well as the United States International Trade Commission (ITC).

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 across a wide spectrum of technologies. Nathan has litigated cases involving technologies ranging from bionic prosthetics and orthopedic screws to wireless networks, data protection, and computer processors.

From 2009–2010, Nathan clerked 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.


Experience

District Court Litigation

  • Represent Bose before the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts in a three patent litigation concerning wireless headphones.
  • Represent Infineon before the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts in an eight patent litigation concerning semiconductor fabrication technologies.
  • Represent Google before the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts in two separate patent litigations concerning low-precision, high-dynamic range computing.
  • Represented Vonage in multiple patent litigations concerning Internet communications technology.
  • Represented Formlabs Inc. before the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia in an action seeking a declaratory judgment that Formlabs’ 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 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 pretrial hearings as well as examining technical experts at trial.

Post-Grant Proceedings

  • On behalf of Bose, secured institution of three inter partes review petitions against patents related to wireless headphones. The PTAB has subsequently issued a final written decision finding all challenged claims of one patent unpatentable, and decisions on the remaining two patents are pending.  (IPR2021-00297, -00612, -00680).
  • 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.  (IPR2018-00876, -00877).
  • On behalf of Smith & Nephew, secured a final written decision of unpatentability against a competitor’s medical device patent that was asserted in co pending litigation. Defended the Board’s decision at the Federal Circuit, and the Federal Circuit subsequently affirmed in a precedential decision. (IPR201600918).
  • In four separate decisions, 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. (IPR201600505, 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. Defended the Board’s decision at the Federal Circuit, and the Federal Circuit subsequently affirmed in a precedential decision. (IPR2016-00917).
  • 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. (MModal LLC v. Nuance Comm’ns, Inc., 20-1693).
  • 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 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).

ITC Litigation

  • Represented Sony before the United States International Trade Commission in multiple patent litigations involving magnetic tape cartridges. Certain Magnetic Data Storage Tapes and Cartridges Containing the Same, 337-TA-1036, -1058, -1076.
  • Represented Sony before the United States International Trade Commission in a patent litigation involving point-to-point networking technologies. Point-to-Point Network Communication Devices and Products Containing Same, 337-TA-892.
  • Represented Sony before the United States International Trade Commission in patent litigation involving technologies ranging from graphics and computer processing to liquid crystal displays. Point-to-Point Network Communication Devices and Products Containing Same, 337-TA-836.

Activities

  • PTAB Bar Association
  • Boston Patent Law Association

Recognition

  • Repeatedly included in The Best Lawyers in America©
  • Repeatedly named to the Massachusetts Super Lawyers list in the field of intellectual property law
  • Included in the IAM Strategy 300: The World’s Leading IP Strategists for two consecutive years
  • Included in the inaugural IAM Strategy 300: Global Leaders guide
  • Ranked in Patexia’s Patent Litigation Intelligence Report among the top 4% of most active and best performing patent litigation attorneys representing defendants
  • Ranked in Patexia’s IPR Intellifence Report among the top 3% of most active practitioners representing petitioners in inter partes reviews before the PTAB
  • Ranked in Patexia’s CAFC Intelligence Report among the top 3% of most active and best performing attorneys representing appellees
  • Ranked as the 15th most active attorney representing petitioners before the PTAB in 2020 by Managing IP
  • Received several academic awards while in law school 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
  • Received the following additional academic awards while in law school: G. Joseph Tauro Distinguished Scholar, Paul J. Liacos Distinguished Scholar, and Edward F. Hennessey Distinguished Scholar

Publications

See All Publications
(SizeLimitingPyList: [{year_group=2020, publish_date=2020-02-04 05:00:00, name=Litigating Invalidity After IPR Resolution, absolute_url=https://wolfgreenfield.com/publications/articles/2020/litigating-invadility-after-ipr-resolution}, {year_group=2019, publish_date=2019-02-22 05:00:00, name=High Court Scrutinizing Gov't Use Of AIA Reviews, absolute_url=https://wolfgreenfield.com/publications/articles/2019/high-court-scrutinizing-govt}, {year_group=2019, publish_date=2019-02-20 05:00:00, name=Petitioner Beware: Inconsistent Claim Construction Positions Can Doom a Petition, absolute_url=https://wolfgreenfield.com/publications/articles/petitioner-beware-inconsistent-claim-construction-positions-can-doom-a-petition}, {year_group=2019, publish_date=2019-01-25 05:00:00, name=Motions to Amend: The Board Invites Alice to the IPR Party, absolute_url=https://wolfgreenfield.com/publications/articles/motions-to-amend-the-board-invites-alice-to-the-ipr-party}, {year_group=2018, publish_date=2018-11-14 05:00:00, name=Risks of Waiting to File an IPR Following Click-to-Call, absolute_url=https://wolfgreenfield.com/publications/articles/2018/risks-of-waiting-to-file-an-ipr}, {year_group=2018, publish_date=2018-01-30 05:00:00, name=PTAB Left to Mitigate the Damage from Collateral Estoppel, absolute_url=https://wolfgreenfield.com/publications/articles/ptab-left-to-mitigate-the-damage-from-collateral-estoppel}])
2020 2019 2018

Recent News

See All News
2023 2022 2021 2020 2019 2018

Events


Interests

When not advocating for his clients, Nathan enjoys spending time with his wife and two children.  He also enjoys craft beers and the New England sports scene.