Steven Hartsell is a recognized intellectual property litigator and registered patent attorney with nearly two decades of experience handling complex patent disputes. He represents clients in high-stakes patent infringement litigation, licensing negotiations, and inter partes review (IPR) proceedings involving cutting-edge technologies.

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. He has played a key role on trial teams that have successfully tried cases to verdict and has obtained substantial wins in both district court and before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB). His practice also includes related appeals to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit.

A trusted advocate in IPR proceedings, Steven has a strong record of results before the PTAB, including multiple discretionary denials of institution and obtaining favorable Final Written Decisions for his clients. His experience encompasses representing both petitioners and patent owners in proceedings involving Fortune 500 companies, global technology leaders, and innovative startups.

Before entering the legal profession, Steven worked as a research engineer developing combustion chemical vapor deposition (CCVD) technologies and performing advanced materials characterization using SEM, EDX, and optical profilometry. He also supported leading semiconductor manufacturers, including Texas Instruments, as an applications engineer. This deep technical foundation allows him to communicate effectively with inventors, experts, and judges in even the most complex technical disputes.

Steven has been recognized by his peers for inclusion in The Best Lawyers in America® for his excellence in patent law.

When not in the courtroom, Steven can be found in the viola section of community orchestras around DFW.

  • VIZIO, Inc. v. Multimedia Technologies Pte. Ltd., IPR2024-00723 (PTAB): Representing VIZIO in challenging the validity of a patent related to smart TV technology.
  • Sony Group Corp. (Japan) of Tokyo, JP v. MZ Audio Sciences, LLC, IPR2022-01544 (PTAB): Represented Patent Owner. Obtained a Final Written Decision finding no claims unpatentable.
  • 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.
  • Microsoft Corp. v. IPA Technologies Inc., IPR2019-00810, -00811, -00812, -00813, -00814, -00835, -00836, -00837 (PTAB). Represented Patent Owner in defending the validity of patents related to computer-assistant technology.
  • Microsoft Corp. v. IPA Technologies Inc., IPR2019-00838, -00839, -00840 (PTAB): Represented Patent Owner. The Board declined to institute on the petitions.
  • Google LLC v. IPA Technologies, IPR2018-00384, -00474, -00475, -00476 (PTAB): Lead counsel for Patent Owner. Convinced the Board to decline institution based on printed publication failures in the petitions.
  • Coolpad Technologies, Inc., et al. v. Bell Northern Research LLC, IPR2019-01319 and -01320 (PTAB): Lead counsel for Patent Owner in defending the validity of patents related to cell phone technology.
  • Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd. v. Bell Northern Research LLC, IPR2020-00611 and -00613 (PTAB): Lead counsel for Patent Owner. The Board declined institution on petitions related to beamforming technology.
  • Google, LLC v. IPA Technologies, IPR2019-00729, -00732, -00735, and -00736 (PTAB): Lead counsel for Patent Owner. Convinced the Board to decline institution on a series of distributed network technology patents based on technical grounds.
  • Sandvine Corp. v. Packet Intelligence, LLC, IPR2017-00450, -00451, -00629, -00630, -00769 and -00862 (PTAB): Lead counsel for Patent Owner. Successfully convinced the Board to decline institution of multiple IPRs related to data packet inspection technology for computer networks.

  • IPA Technologies Inc. v. Microsoft Corp. (D. Del.): Represented patent owner in infringement litigation on computer-assistant technology as it relates to Microsoft Cortana. Part of the trial team that obtained a jury verdict for $242 million.
  • Multimedia Technologies Pte. Ltd. v. VIZIO, Inc. (C.D. Cal.): Representing VIZIO in defending against claims of patent infringement on ten patents related to smart TV technology.
  • Ortiz & Associates Consulting LLC v. VIZIO, Inc. (N.D. Tex.): Lead counsel representing VIZIO. Case dismissed with prejudice at the pleading stage with an award of fees.
  • Packet Intelligence v. NetScout et al. (E.D. Tex.): Part of the trial team that obtained a jury verdict of willful patent infringement, enhanced damages, as well as a bench trial rejecting unclean hands and inequitable conduct defenses.
  • Robertson Transformer Co. v. General Electric Co. et al. (N.D. Ill.): Represented Robertson against multiple defendants in a patent infringement lawsuit related to electronic ballasts that operate compact and linear fluorescent lighting. Successfully obtained summary judgment dismissing Defendants’ equitable defenses before trial as well as a finding of infringement. See Robertson Transformer Co. v. GE, 149 F. Supp. 3d 919, 921 (N.D. Ill. 2015).
  • Wave Sense, LLC v. Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd. et al. (E.D. Tex.). Representing patent owner in litigation involving DSP technology.
  • MyPort Inc. v. Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd. et al. (E.D. Tex.): Represented patent owner in litigation involving network interface devices.
  • Bell Semiconductor, LLC v. Texas Instruments (E.D. Tex.): Represented patent owner in litigation related to multiple semiconductor patents.
  • Bell Semiconductor, LLC v. Renesas Electronics Corp. et al. (M.D. Fl.): Represented patent owner in litigation related to multiple semiconductor patents.
  • Bell Semiconductor, LLC v. Microchip Technology, Inc. (W.D. Tex.): Represented patent owner in litigation related to multiple semiconductor patents.
  • Bell Semiconductor, LLC v. NXP Semiconductors, N.V., et al. (W.D. Tex.): Represented patent owner in litigation related to multiple semiconductor patents.
  • Bell Northern Research LLC v. Coolpad Technologies, Inc., et al. (S.D. Cal.): Represented patent owner in infringement litigation on a portfolio of cell phone technology patents.
  • Bell Northern Research LLC v. ZTE Corp. et al. (S.D. Cal.): Represented patent owner in infringement litigation on a portfolio of cell phone technology patents.
  • Bell Northern Research LLC v. Huawei Technologies Co. Ltd. et al. (S.D. Cal.): Represented patent owner in infringement litigation on a portfolio of cell phone technology patents.
  • Bell Northern Research LLC v. Kyocera Corp. et al. (S.D. Cal.): Represented patent owner in infringement litigation on a portfolio of cell phone technology patents.
  • Bell Northern Research LLC v. LG Electronics Inc., et al. (S.D. Cal.): Represented patent owner in infringement litigation on a portfolio of cell phone technology patents.
  • Bell Northern Research LLC v. Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd. et al. (E.D. Tex.): Represented patent owner in infringement litigation on a portfolio of cell phone technology patents.
  • IPA Technologies Inc. v. Google LLC (D. Del.): Representing patent owner in infringement litigation on computer-assistant technology as it relates to Google Assistant.
  • LoggerHead Tools, Inc. v. Sears Holding Corporation, et al. (N.D. Ill.): Represented LoggerHead in litigation alleging patent infringement, trademark infringement, and several tort claims arising from sales of Craftsman Max Axess Locking Wrenches.
  • GPNE Corp. v. Amazon.com, Inc., et al. (D. Haw., N.D. Tex., and N.D. Cal.): Represented patent owner in litigation involving GPRS and LTE technology.
  • Celltrace LLC v. AT&T Inc., et al. (E.D. Tex.): Represented patent owner in infringement claims involving SMS messaging.
  • Catheter Flushing, LLC v. Angiodynamics, Inc., et al. (D. Utah): Represented patent owner in infringement matter involving Peripherally Inserted Central Catheters against multiple medical device manufacturers.
  • Sony Electronics Inc. v. Guardian Media Technologies, Ltd. (S.D. Cal.): Represented patent owner in litigation involving parental control technology.
  • Guardian Media Technologies, Ltd. v. Philips Electronics North America Corporation(C.D. Cal.): Represented patent owner in litigation involving parental control technology.
  • Guardian Media Technologies, Ltd. v. Westinghouse Digital Electronics, LLC(C.D. Cal.): Represented patent owner in litigation involving parental control technology.
  • Mirror Imaging LLC v. Suntrust Banks, Inc., et al. (E.D. Tex.): Represented patent owner in infringement claims involving check storage and archiving technology.
  • Thermal Scalpel v. Covidien, Ltd. et al. (E.D. Tex.): Represented patent owner in infringement lawsuit involving surgical devices.
  • Transauction LLC v. Bidz.com, Inc., et al. (E.D. Tex. and N.D. Cal.): Represented patent owner in infringement matter involving bonded online technology against multiple auction websites.
  • Cognex Corporation v. VCode Holdings, Inc., et al. (D. Minn.): Represented patent owner in patent infringement action involving 2-D bar code technology.
  • Peer Communications Corporation v. Skype Technologies SA, et al. (E.D. Tex.): Represented patent owner in litigation involving peer-to-peer network technology.
  • Theodore Whitney and High Resolution Optics Corporation v. The United States and Raytheon Company(Federal Court of Claims): Represented patent owner in infringement litigation involving specialized diffractive optical elements used in certain thermal weapon sights procured by the United States government.
  • James Romano and Secure Access Corporation v. The United States(Court of Federal Claims): Represented patent owner in infringement matter involving card-based physical access control security systems.