Patrick Maloney

Partner

pmaloney@corkmaloney.com
Tel. (310) 895.9402

Patrick Maloney represents clients in a range of intellectual property disputes and has significant experience representing patent owners in patent post-grant proceedings, including inter partes reviews (IPRs), covered business method reviews, and ex parte reexaminations.  

Before founding Cork Maloney, Patrick spent a decade at leading post-grant litigation boutiques.   Patrick got his start in post-grant litigation in 2013, shortly after IPRs were created by the America Invents Act.  Since then, Patrick has represented clients in over 200 post-grant proceedings before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board, securing numerous wins at both the institution and final written decision stages.  Patrick has also successfully represented parties in District Court litigation and before the Federal Circuit Court of Appeals.

Along with his litigation practice, Patrick also counsels startups and small businesses looking to develop and protect their intellectual property.  Patrick previously worked in the University of Southern California’s Stevens Center for Innovation, helping to evaluate, manage, and license intellectual property developed at USC.

Patrick is a registered patent attorney with a background in chemistry who has handled matters involving a range of technologies, including telecommunications, streaming media distribution, medical devices, diagnostics, circuitry, network access control, secure electronic transactions, and antenna design.

Patrick has been recognized for his extensive work in inter partes review.  In 2021, Patrick was ranked 9th on Managing IP’s list of top lawyers for patent owners in IPRs filed in 2021.  In 2020, Patexia ranked Patrick as number 19 on its list of most-active patent owners’ counsel in IPRs since 2015.

Patrick is also actively involved in the patent community.  He currently serves on the Board of Directors for the Los Angeles Intellectual Property Law Association.  Patrick is also heavily involved in the PTAB Bar Association, where he is a vice-chair on the Appeals from the PTAB Committee.  Patrick appears in webinars and panel discussions for both organizations and has authored numerous articles on recent developments in patent law.

    • J.D., University of California, Davis, School of Law senior editor, Environs Environmental Law and Policy Journal president, Jewish Law Student Association

    • B.S., Chemistry, University of California, Davis.

    • Hulu, LLC et al. v. DivX, LLC, IPR2020-00647 (Pat. Trial & Appeal Bd.); Netflix, Inc. et al. v. DivX, LLC, IPR2020-00648 (Pat. Trial & Appeal Bd.): successfully defended patent owner in IPRs challenging a pair of patents covering adaptive bitrate streaming technology, securing final written decisions confirming all challenged claims in one patent, and the vast majority of challenged claims in the other.

    • Apple Inc. v. MPH Technologies Oy, IPR2019-00821, IPR2019-00822, IPR2019-00825 (Pat. Trial & Appeal Bd.): successfully defended patent owner by securing complete victories including two denials of institution and one final written decision. 

    • Advanced Micro Devices, Inc. v. Realtek Semiconductor Corp., IPR2023-00920 (Pat. Trial & Appeal Bd.): successfully obtained institution of review of circuitry patent for petitioner, ultimately leading to settlement.

    • NeoGenomics Laboratories, Inc. v. Natera, Inc., Inc., IPR2024-00346 (Pat. Trial & Appeal Bd.):  successfully obtained § 325(d) discretionary denial of petition asserting the same art previously presented during original prosecution.

    • ST Microelectronics, Inc. v. The Trustees of Purdue Univ., IPR2022-00723, (Pat. Trial & Appeal Bd.); Wolfspeed, Inc. v. The Trustees of Purdue Univ., IPR2022-00761 (Pat. Trial & Appeal Bd.): successfully defended the same patent in sequential challenges by different petitioners, obtaining denials of institution in both cases.

    • Branch Banking and Tr. Company v. Maxim Integrated Products, Inc., CBM2013-00059 (Pat. Trial & Appeal Bd.):  successfully defended patent owner by securing a denial of institution in the first covered business method patent review to deny institution under estoppel provisions in 35 U.S.C. § 325(a)(1).

    • Apple Inc. v. SEVEN Networks, LLC, IPR2020-00507 (Pat. Trial & Appeal Bd.): obtained denial of institution on the merits.

    • Unified Patents Inc. v. Dynamic Data Technologies, LLC, IPR2019-01085 (Pat. Trial & Appeal Bd.):  successfully represented patent owner, securing a denial of institution by disqualifying the petition’s primary reference under the rarely invoked prior art exception in Pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103(c)(1).