Background
Seth Lindner is a patent litigator who represents technology companies in a wide range of intellectual property matters. Seth has taken multiple patent cases to trial and has represented clients in over 40 inter partes review proceedings before the PTAB, often serving as lead counsel. He holds a JD from Columbia Law School. Seth also has several years of industry experience involving semiconductor device fabrication, circuit design, and computational image processing. He earned a Master’s degree in electrical engineering as a Paul F. Anderson Fellowship recipient at the Pennsylvania State University. Seth’s research focused on machine learning, computer vision, and autonomous vehicle navigation. He also holds a Bachelor of Science degree in Engineering Science.
​
Over the past decade, Seth has evaluated infringement allegations for hundreds of patents and is able to quickly identify the strengths and weaknesses of each allegation. Seth has helped clients obtain and negotiate patent licenses in a variety of technical fields, including semiconductor design and manufacturing, semiconductor packaging, integrated circuits, wireless communications, and others, with patent licenses totaling more than $200 million.
Prior to joining BC Law Group, Seth spent nearly ten years at Vinson & Elkins and Baker Botts where he represented some of the world’s largest technology companies in high-stakes patent litigations. He then spent several years doing mainly plaintiff’s side work for a variety of clients, where he led several successful licensing campaigns and defended numerous patents in IPR proceedings.
EDUCATION
-
Bachelor of Science, with Honors, Engineering Science, The Pennsylvania State University, 2001
-
Master of Science, Electrical Engineering, The Pennsylvania State University, 2004
-
J.D., Columbia University School of Law, 2011
COURT ADMISSIONS
-
State of Texas
-
U.S. Patent and Trademark Office
-
U.S. District Court, Western District of Texas
-
U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Texas
PTAB Expertise
Seth’s PTAB trials practice builds upon his vast experience as a patent litigator in district court and his deep technical expertise in the areas of semiconductors, circuit design, communications, and machine learning. Seth’s educational background—Master’s degree in electrical engineering—and his industry experience, including several years in integrated circuit fabrication, circuit design, and computational image processing, allow him to quickly grasp the technical concepts that matter. Seth has worked extensively on behalf of both petitioners and patent owners and is able to quickly identify opportunities and weaknesses to improve his clients’ outcomes.
When representing patent owners, Seth understands that winning quickly (e.g., securing a denial of institution) often turns on finding a weakness in the petition that pertains to each ground for challenge. Denial of institution can put a patent owner in a significantly stronger strategic position, especially in light of the PTAB’s increasing reluctance to allow serial petitions for IPR. Seth also has a keen eye for identifying legal defects in a petition and leveraging those to his clients’ advantage. In one instance, for example, a petitioner relied upon a piece of alleged prior art consisting of a conference paper that came from the personal files of petitioner’s expert witness, who attested that he had personally attended the conference. At first glance, it appeared that there was no effective way to challenge that conference paper as prior art. However, upon further investigation, Seth formulated a strategy for attacking the paper’s status as a “printed publication,” since the petitioner had failed to provide legally sufficient evidence of how widely distributed the paper was. As a result, the client was able to secure a denial of institution, avoiding an additional year of the PTAB proceeding.
When representing petitioners, a strong petition combines both exceptional prior art and careful structuring of each ground of attack. Since the Supreme Court’s momentus 2018 decision in SAS Institute v. Iancu (and the Federal Circuit’s clarifying interpretation in AC Technologies v. Amazon), any final written decision by the PTAB must address every ground in a petition. This means, for example, that if petitioner raises five grounds for challenging claims of a patent, the board will institute even if it believes that only one of those grounds is reasonably likely to succeed. Petitioners are well served, in Seth's experience, by structuring their grounds such that no single attack can defeat all grounds simultaneously.
Over his nearly decade-long experience with PTAB trials, Seth has developed a network of subject matter experts, and knows how to use expert testimony to strengthen his clients’ arguments. Seth is also particularly adept at cross-examining opposing experts to elicit admissions that are helpful to his clients’ arguments.
PTAB Results
Since 2012, the PTAB has denied institution of just 19% of all petitions filed. In Seth’s matters, when representing the patent owner, institution was denied 59% of the time (as of March 15, 2023, according to statistics compiled by Lex Machina), which means that Seth’s patent owner clients have avoided institution more than three times as often as the average patent owner facing a PTAB petition. On the flip side, when representing the petitioner, Seth’s matters have resulted in trial being instituted 88% of the time, which is much higher than the average institution rate of 52% over the same time period.