Harper Batts

Harper Batts is a partner in the Intellectual Property Practice Group and Office Managing Partner of the firm's Silicon Valley office.

Areas of Practice

Harper has more than a decade of experience as an intellectual property litigator and client counselor. Numerous Fortune 50 clients have relied upon his experience to represent them in highly contentious patent litigation disputes in many different venues, including Texas, Delaware, California, New Jersey, Wisconsin, North Carolina, and the Federal Circuit. His experience includes leading several large joint defense groups in complex cases involving numerous patents and accused product lines.

He focuses on immediately determining the most relevant and effective pressure points against an adversary to quickly resolve a dispute with minimal disruption and cost to a client.

Harper has represented patent challengers and patent owners in more than 40 CBM and IPR proceedings. He has extensive experience in cases before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board.

Clients in other venues continue to rely on Harper’s experience representing clients in other venues, including the United States Court of Appeal for the Federal Circuit Court of Appeals, the International Trade Commission and district courts known for their patent litigation cases, including the Northern District of California and the Eastern District of Texas.

In addition to his extensive IP litigation experience, Harper has frequently been called upon to conduct negotiations between direct competitors, as well as conducting due diligence regarding the potential acquisition of large patent portfolios.

A sought-after speaker, Harper has presented and written publications concerning his experience and insights concerning post-grant proceedings.

Harper is experienced in numerous technology areas, including semiconductors, computer software, e-commerce, wireless technology, telecommunications, medical devices and hardware technology.

Honors

Top Intellectual Property Lawyers, Daily Journal, 2019

Recognized as a Northern California Super Lawyer - Rising Star, 2015-2016

Insights

Articles

•Have Patent Owners Gotten What They Wished For?
The Recorder, 05.01.2019
•5 Things To Consider Before Heading To PTAB
Law360, 10.16.2018
•Part 2: How to Assert and Defend Trade Secret Claims After ‘Waymo v. Uber’
The Recorder, 02.20.2018
•Lessons Learned From ‘Waymo v. Uber’ and Other Trade Secret Disputes, Part One: How to Properly Protect Your Trade Secrets
The Recorder, 02.13.2018
•Myth-Busting the Patent Trial and Appeal Board
The Recorder, 05.12.2017
•A Review Of Patent Owners' Early Expert Testimony At PTAB
Law360, 02.22.2017
•How To Make Secondary Considerations Matter (Or Not)
Law360, 06.09.2016
•How To Make Secondary Considerations Matter (Or Not)
Law360, 06.06.2016
•Myth-Busting the Patent Trial and Appeal Board
Law.com, 04.01.2016
•Open Question: Use of IPR and CBM Institution Decisions in District Court
Intellectual Property & Technology Law Journal, 08.2015
•Recent Shift in 325(d) Analysis by PTAB May Favor Patent Owners
PTAB Trials Report, 05.2015

Law of the Level Blog Posts

• Addressing Video Game Claims Under the Phillips Standard at the PTAB, August 26, 2019
• Caution to Game Companies: PTAB Continues to Preclude PTAB Challenges That It Views As Untimely, April 10, 2019
• Failure to Launch: Not Identifying the Proper Parties Can Prematurely End an Video Game IPR Challenge, February 5, 2019
• Challenges in Filing Successful IPR Petitions for Video Game Patents, January 3, 2019

Intellectual Property Law Blog Posts

• Left Empty Handed: Valve Shut Down on Written Prior Art, Highlighting Importance of System Art, December 6, 2019

• Perils of Waiting: PTAB’s Precedential Opinion Panel Designates Two More Decisions Rejecting 315(b) Arguments Regarding Time Bars, September 16, 2019

• New PTAB Guide Creates Uncertainty as to Multiple Petition Situations, August 12, 2019

Intellectual Property Law Blog Posts

• Delaware 101 Pleading Analysis Leaves Parties Guessing and Prosecutors Moving to Adapt, April 15, 2020

• Left Empty Handed: Valve Shut Down on Written Prior Art, Highlighting Importance of System Art, December 6, 2019

• Perils of Waiting: PTAB’s Precedential Opinion Panel Designates Two More Decisions Rejecting 315(b) Arguments Regarding Time Bars, September 16, 2019

• 'Addressing Video Game Claims Under the Phillips Standard at the PTAB', August 29, 2019

• New PTAB Guide Creates Uncertainty as to Multiple Petition Situations, August 12, 2019

• PTAB Continues to Preclude PTAB Challenges That It Views As Untimely, April 12, 2019

• Challenges in Filing Successful IPR Petitions for Video Game Patents, January 4, 2019

• 5 Things To Consider Before Heading To PTAB, October 17, 2018

Media Mentions

•PTAB VR Ruling Shows Shift In Thinking On 'Serial' Petitions
Law360, 04.22.2019
•PTAB Taking Note Of Parallel Litigation In Review Decisions
Law360, 10.24.2018
•4 Recent PTAB Decisions Attys Need To Know
Law360, 10.22.2018
•Apple, Fitbit Get Heart Sensor Patent Slashed At PTAB
Law360, 08.07.2018
•Apple, Fitbit Get Health Sensor Patent Invalidated At PTAB
Law360, 06.01.2018
•Patent Landscape Readjusts One Year After TC Heartland
Law360, 05.18.2018
•Industry reaction to SCOTUS patent venue decision in TC Heartland v. Kraft Food Group
IP Watchdog, 05.20.2016

Speaking Engagements

• Successful IPRs: Best Practice Suggestions from Prominent Filers, ABA-IPL IP West, Newport Beach, California, October 3, 2018

Events

•ACC-SFBA Patent Law Committee Meeting Sponsored by Sheppard Mullin LLP
Altered Beast: How Recent Supreme Court Decisions and PTO Rule Changes Under Director Iancu Have Dramatically Changed the Patent Landscape, Sheppard Mullin San Francisco, 03.28.2019

•ACC-SFBA Patent Law Committee Meeting Sponsored by Sheppard Mullin LLP
Altered Beast: How Recent Supreme Court Decisions and PTO Rule Changes Under Director Iancu Have Dramatically Changed the Patent Landscape, Palo Alto, 03.27.2019