Partner
Steven Hartsell
- Texas A&M, J.D. (2006)
- Georgia Tech, B.S. (2000)
Steven Hartsell is an experienced litigator and registered patent attorney who represents clients on both sides of the docket in high-stakes patent litigation and post-grant proceedings nationwide. His practice is grounded in an earlier career as a research engineer in advanced materials and semiconductor technology, giving him a deep technical footing for complex disputes.
Steven’s litigation practice spans federal courts across the country and covers a broad range of industries, including semiconductors, telecommunications, mobile devices, televisions, distributed computing systems, software, medical devices, and consumer electronics. As part of the trial team in IPA Technologies Inc. v. Microsoft Corp., he helped secure a $242 million jury verdict (reported as the third-largest patent verdict in Delaware history) and he has obtained additional wins in both district court and before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB).
An experienced advocate in IPR proceedings, Steven has a track record of results before the PTAB, including multiple denials of institution and favorable Final Written Decisions for his clients. His practice also includes related appeals to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit.
Before entering the legal profession, Steven put his B.S. in Materials Science and Engineering from Georgia Tech to work as a research engineer, developing combustion chemical vapor deposition (CCVD) technologies and performing advanced materials characterization. He later supported leading semiconductor manufacturers, including Texas Instruments, as an applications engineer. That technical foundation allows him to communicate effectively with inventors, experts, and judges in even the most complex technical disputes.
Steven’s practice reaches every major forum in patent litigation giving him a full-spectrum view of how a case is likely to unfold at each stage.
Patent Infringement
IPA Technologies Inc. v. Microsoft Corp. (D. Del.)
Represented patent owner in infringement litigation on computer-assistant technology as it relates to Microsoft’s Cortana. Part of the trial team that obtained a jury verdict for $242 million (reported as the 3rd largest patent verdict in Delaware history).
Multimedia Technologies Pte. Ltd. v. VIZIO, Inc. (C.D. Cal.)
Defended VIZIO against claims of patent infringement on ten patents related to smart TV technology.
Ortiz & Associates Consulting LLC v. VIZIO, Inc. (N.D. Tex.)
Served as lead counsel for VIZIO, resulting in a dismissal with prejudice at the pleading stage based on a novel application of the marking statute and an award of attorney’s fees that was upheld by the Federal Circuit.
Packet Intelligence v. NetScout et al. (E.D. Tex.)
Part of the trial team that obtained a jury verdict of willful patent infringement and enhanced damages, as well as a the court rejecting unclean hands and inequitable conduct defenses following a bench trial.
Robertson Transformer Co. v. General Electric Co. et al. (N.D. Ill.)
Represented Robertson in a patent infringement lawsuit related to electronic ballasts that power compact and linear fluorescent lighting. Successfully obtained summary judgment dismissing defendants’ equitable defenses and a pre-trial finding of infringement.
Post-Grant Proceedings
Google, LLC v. IPA Technologies, IPR2019-00728, -00730, and -00731 (PTAB)
Lead counsel for patent owner on computer-assistant technology, including Request for Director Review, multiple appeals, and remand proceedings.
Google, LLC v. IPA Technologies, IPR2019-00729, -00732, -00735, and -00736 (PTAB)
Lead counsel for patent owner; persuaded the Board to deny institution on the merits across four inter partes review petitions challenging three patents related to computer-assistant technology.
Google, LLC v. IPA Technologies, IPR2018-00384, -00474, -00475, and -00476 (PTAB)
Lead counsel for patent owner; convinced the Board to deny institution on the merits across four inter partes review petitions challenging three patents related to agent-based navigation and multi-modal interface technology.
Sony Group Corp. (Japan) of Tokyo, JP v. MZ Audio Sciences, LLC, IPR2022-01544 (PTAB)
Represented patent owner and obtained a Final Written Decision finding no challenged claims unpatentable.
Sandvine Corp. v. Packet Intelligence, LLC, IPR2017-00450, -00451, -00629, -00630, -00769 and -00862 (PTAB)
Lead counsel for patent owner; persuaded the Board to decline institution of multiple IPRs related to data packet inspection technology for computer networks.
Ex Parte Reexamination Control No. 90/015,476 (PTO)
Successfully defended a DSP technology patent through ex parte reexamination, with the PTO confirming patentability of every challenged claim.
Commercial Litigation
Fortis Advisors LLC (as Stockholder Representative of Former Jennerex Inc. Stockholders) v. Sillajen, Inc., No. N18C-09-127 (Del. Super. Ct.)
Represented Fortis in breach of contract claims arising from a merger agreement related to the commercialization of the cancer drug Pexa-Vec.
Principal Aviation Group, LLC v. Chad G. Stanford, et al., No. DC-16-07658 (298th Dist. Ct., Dallas County, Tex.)
Defended Pratt & Whitney against claims including civil conspiracy, aiding and abetting tortious interference with business relationship, and fraud involving consignment deals in the aviation parts market.
Dallas Bar Association
Federal Bar Association
The Best Lawyers in America – Patent Law (2024-2026)
Overview
Steven Hartsell is an experienced litigator and registered patent attorney who represents clients on both sides of the docket in high-stakes patent litigation and post-grant proceedings nationwide. His practice is grounded in an earlier career as a research engineer in advanced materials and semiconductor technology, giving him a deep technical footing for complex disputes.
Steven’s litigation practice spans federal courts across the country and covers a broad range of industries, including semiconductors, telecommunications, mobile devices, televisions, distributed computing systems, software, medical devices, and consumer electronics. As part of the trial team in IPA Technologies Inc. v. Microsoft Corp., he helped secure a $242 million jury verdict (reported as the third-largest patent verdict in Delaware history) and he has obtained additional wins in both district court and before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB).
An experienced advocate in IPR proceedings, Steven has a track record of results before the PTAB, including multiple denials of institution and favorable Final Written Decisions for his clients. His practice also includes related appeals to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit.
Before entering the legal profession, Steven put his B.S. in Materials Science and Engineering from Georgia Tech to work as a research engineer, developing combustion chemical vapor deposition (CCVD) technologies and performing advanced materials characterization. He later supported leading semiconductor manufacturers, including Texas Instruments, as an applications engineer. That technical foundation allows him to communicate effectively with inventors, experts, and judges in even the most complex technical disputes.
Representative Matters
Steven’s practice reaches every major forum in patent litigation giving him a full-spectrum view of how a case is likely to unfold at each stage.
Patent Infringement
IPA Technologies Inc. v. Microsoft Corp. (D. Del.)
Represented patent owner in infringement litigation on computer-assistant technology as it relates to Microsoft’s Cortana. Part of the trial team that obtained a jury verdict for $242 million (reported as the 3rd largest patent verdict in Delaware history).
Multimedia Technologies Pte. Ltd. v. VIZIO, Inc. (C.D. Cal.)
Defended VIZIO against claims of patent infringement on ten patents related to smart TV technology.
Ortiz & Associates Consulting LLC v. VIZIO, Inc. (N.D. Tex.)
Served as lead counsel for VIZIO, resulting in a dismissal with prejudice at the pleading stage based on a novel application of the marking statute and an award of attorney’s fees that was upheld by the Federal Circuit.
Packet Intelligence v. NetScout et al. (E.D. Tex.)
Part of the trial team that obtained a jury verdict of willful patent infringement and enhanced damages, as well as a the court rejecting unclean hands and inequitable conduct defenses following a bench trial.
Robertson Transformer Co. v. General Electric Co. et al. (N.D. Ill.)
Represented Robertson in a patent infringement lawsuit related to electronic ballasts that power compact and linear fluorescent lighting. Successfully obtained summary judgment dismissing defendants’ equitable defenses and a pre-trial finding of infringement.
Post-Grant Proceedings
Google, LLC v. IPA Technologies, IPR2019-00728, -00730, and -00731 (PTAB)
Lead counsel for patent owner on computer-assistant technology, including Request for Director Review, multiple appeals, and remand proceedings.
Google, LLC v. IPA Technologies, IPR2019-00729, -00732, -00735, and -00736 (PTAB)
Lead counsel for patent owner; persuaded the Board to deny institution on the merits across four inter partes review petitions challenging three patents related to computer-assistant technology.
Google, LLC v. IPA Technologies, IPR2018-00384, -00474, -00475, and -00476 (PTAB)
Lead counsel for patent owner; convinced the Board to deny institution on the merits across four inter partes review petitions challenging three patents related to agent-based navigation and multi-modal interface technology.
Sony Group Corp. (Japan) of Tokyo, JP v. MZ Audio Sciences, LLC, IPR2022-01544 (PTAB)
Represented patent owner and obtained a Final Written Decision finding no challenged claims unpatentable.
Sandvine Corp. v. Packet Intelligence, LLC, IPR2017-00450, -00451, -00629, -00630, -00769 and -00862 (PTAB)
Lead counsel for patent owner; persuaded the Board to decline institution of multiple IPRs related to data packet inspection technology for computer networks.
Ex Parte Reexamination Control No. 90/015,476 (PTO)
Successfully defended a DSP technology patent through ex parte reexamination, with the PTO confirming patentability of every challenged claim.
Commercial Litigation
Fortis Advisors LLC (as Stockholder Representative of Former Jennerex Inc. Stockholders) v. Sillajen, Inc., No. N18C-09-127 (Del. Super. Ct.)
Represented Fortis in breach of contract claims arising from a merger agreement related to the commercialization of the cancer drug Pexa-Vec.
Principal Aviation Group, LLC v. Chad G. Stanford, et al., No. DC-16-07658 (298th Dist. Ct., Dallas County, Tex.)
Defended Pratt & Whitney against claims including civil conspiracy, aiding and abetting tortious interference with business relationship, and fraud involving consignment deals in the aviation parts market.
Associations
Dallas Bar Association
Federal Bar Association
Awards
The Best Lawyers in America – Patent Law (2024-2026)
Admissions
Steven's
News