Meredith Martin Addy

Practice Areas

Patent Litigation

Appellate

IPRs (PTAB)

Intellectual Asset Mgmt.

Technology Licensing

Career

Practicing in today’s highly complex technical environment, Meredith Martin Addy is a deeply experienced intellectual property litigator who has won plaudits from Chambers USA interviewees for many years. They describe her as “an exceptionally skilled lawyer,” a “key figure, who knows the courts inside and out,” and that she is “extremely pro-business. She really understands business and how it’s run.”

Addy has spent her career counseling companies in the software, technology, biotechnology, and pharmaceutical industries. Her clients have included Fortune 1000 companies, middle-market entrepreneurial companies, solo inventors and patent assertion entities. After 25 years at AmLaw100 firms, Addy in 2019 co-founded AddyHart P.C., where she specializes in patent litigation in the district courts and appeals before the Federal Circuit.

Addy focuses on strategies to achieve the most efficient approach to realizing her clients’ IP goals. She has first-chaired some of the best-known patent litigations and appeals, including Thales Visionix v. United States and Elbit, Abbott v. Sandoz, and Chiron v. Genentech. Her experience includes more than 80 federal district court cases and more than 100 appeals to the Federal Circuit. Addy has guided ANDA cases under Hatch-Waxman and has handled cases in the US Court of Federal Claims (CFC) and before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB).

In 2021, Addy prevailed on behalf of her defense contractor client in a long-running case against the US government and another contractor relating to infringement of patented avionics technology for the Lockheed Martin F-35 joint-strike fighter. In a case dating to 2014, Addy won before the PTAB and twice on appeal at the Federal Circuit—which notably overturned a decision on patent eligibility under 35 U.S.C. § 101 in the CFC, during an extremely difficult period for patentees asserting such claims. Following that win, the case was remanded and the parties settled. In 2021, the US paid a multimillion-dollar settlement to her client.

In 2022, in Cooperative Entertainment, Inc. v. Kollective Technology, Inc. (Fed. Cir. 2022), Addy successfully appealed an adverse decision from the N.D. Cal. that had dismissed Cooperative’s patent relating to peer-to-peer content distribution as not satisfying 35 U.S.C. § 101. In a precedential opinion, the Federal Circuit vacated and remanded, holding that the pleadings satisfied FRCP 12(b)—a rare case in which the Court overturned a decision in N.D. Calif., a jurisdiction typically deferential to the arguments of larger technology companies.

This case and many others demonstrate Addy's passion for defending innovation and evidence her innate ability to explain complex legal and technical issues to jurists and laypeople alike—an ability that in part depends on her training as an electrical engineer.

Notes Chief Judge Paul R. Michel (Ret.) of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, "When you ask Addy a difficult question, as we often do in oral arguments, she fires right back with a very crisp, clear answer that is totally responsive to the question. And it’s factual and accurate and fair. The contrast with other attorneys is stark. Most other attorneys duck the questions. Addy answers them head-on."

Addy has held high management positions at AmLaw100 firms and IP boutiques, including serving as managing partner of the Chicago office of an AmLaw100 firm; serving as chair of the national patent litigation practice at another AmLaw100 firm; and serving as chair of the national appellate practice at one of the nation’s largest IP law firms. She has served on firms’ Executive Committees and Boards of Directors as well as on the Federal Circuit Advisory Council for ten years. She also is a co-founder and the first president of the Richard Linn American Inn of Court, directed to intellectual property. Addy served on the Board of Directors for the Federal Circuit Bar Association and as chair and co-chair of the Amicus Committees for the American Intellectual Property Law Association (AIPLA) and the Intellectual Property Law Association of Chicago (IPLAC).

Experienced in protecting and monetizing corporate intellectual asset portfolios, Addy in 2015 also earned her M.B.A. from the University of Chicago’s Booth School. She has been appointed both as a Special Master under F.R.C.P. § 706 in federal district court litigation, and as a Court-Appointed Expert under F.R.C.P. § 53. She has handled various aspects of complex patent cases about technologies ranging from software and search algorithms to encryption, from pharmaceutical and molecular compounds to medical devices, from avionics to guided vehicles. Addy has advised courts on all aspects of the discovery process; claim construction and patent validity; summary judgment proceedings; pre-trial proceedings, and trial.

Addy is identified in “Gender Inequality in Patent Litigation,” an empirical study conducted by two Temple University law professors relating to gender diversity among patent litigators focusing on litigation at the Federal Circuit and the US Supreme Court, as one of five female private-sector litigators who has argued most frequently before the Federal Circuit in the past decade—and one of only two of those who is five licensed to practice before the USPTO. It testifies to Addy’s strategic savvy and record of success that she is relied on so frequently by litigants.

Addy has been tapped multiple times by the American Intellectual Property Law Association (AIPLA) and the Intellectual Property Law Association of Chicago (IPLAC) to submit briefs as amicus curiae on writs of certiorari at the US Supreme Court in high-profile patent cases—most recently in support of nonprofit inventor advocacy organization Fair Inventing Fund in Jump Rope Systems v. Coulter Systems, and including Athena Diagnostics v. Mayo Collaborative, Synopsis v. Mentor Graphics, Evolutionary Intelligence v. Sprint Nextel et al., RecogniCorp v. Nintendo, and TC Heartland v. Kraft Foods Group Brands. She was a perennial editor of Claim Construction in the Federal Circuit (West LegalWorks,) is a frequent speaker at legal and industry events, has taught CLE-credit courses on patent litigation, and has written numerous articles.

Representative Cases at the Federal Circuit

• Cooperative Entertainment, Inc. v. Kollective Technology, Inc. (2022)

• Wildcat Licensing WI LLC v. Atlas Copco and Assembly Systems, LLC, General Motors, LLC, Faurecia Automotive Seating, LLC and Magna Int’l Inc. (2022)

• Sisvel International S.A. v. Cradlepoint Inc., Dell Inc., Sierra Wireless, Inc. Thales DIS AIS Deutschland GmbH, ZTE Corp., & ZTE (USA) Inc. (2022)

• Mexichem Amanco Holding S.A. v. Honeywell Int’l.)

• Honeywell Int’l. v. Mexichem Amanco Holding S.A.

• RideApp v. Lyft

• In re Fatigue Fracture Tech.

• Navistar v. Fatigue Fracture Tech.

• Shure v. Clear One

• Sophos v. RPost

• DiStefano Patent Trust III v. LinkedIn

• Athena Diagnostics v. Mayo Collaborative

• Evolutionary Intelligence v. Sprint Nextel et al.

• Elbit Sys. Am. v. Thales Visionix

• In re Openings dba Total Door

• Thales Visionix, v. Elbit Systems

• HTC v. IPCom

• Zoltek v. US

• Continental Automotive Systems US, v. Schrader-Bridgeport International

• Industrial Technology Research v. ITC

• Allergan v. Apotex

• AstraZeneca v. Sandoz

• Randall Mfg. v. Rea

• Iris v. Japan Airlines Int’l.

Representative Cases in the Trial Courts

• Sisvel Int’.l S.A. v. Cradlepoint et al. (D. Del.)

• PerDiemCo v. RM Acquisition d/b/a Rand McNally (N.D. Ill.)

• Centre de Recherche Medico Dentair v. Digital Smile Design et al. (S.D. Fla.)

• Thales Visionix v. United States and Elbit Systems of America (C.F.C.)

• Triple T Enterprises v. KFC, Grubhub, and Postmates (D. Idaho)

• Kavod Pharma. & Kavack Pharma. v. Apex Pharmaceuticals (D. N.J. Bank.)

• PerDiemCo v. GPS Insight (N.D. Ill.)

• In re Aceto Corp. et al. (D. N.J. Bank.)

• Gebo Cermex USA et al v. ACMI USA (N.D. Ga.)

• Apex Pharmaceuticals v. Pack Pharmaceuticals and Rising Pharmaceuticals (Cir. Ct. Cook Cty.)

• Gebo Cermex USA, et al. v. Alliance Industrial (W.D. Va.)

• Synopsys v. RPost Holdings; Trend Micro v. RPost Holdings; and RPost Holdings v. Trend Micro (N.D. Cal.)

• Veraseal v. Wal-Mart Stores et al. (E.D. Tex.)

• Gebo Cermex USA v. Descon Conveyor Systems & Consultants (N.D. Ga.)

• Watlow v. Continental Automotive Systems (E.D. Mo.)

• Cascades v. CCH (N.D. Ill.)

• Eli Lilly v. Sun Pharmaceuticals (D. Ind.)

• APP Pharma v. Navinta (D.N.J.)

• Allergan v. Apotex et al. (M.D. NC.). (Hatch-Waxman)

• Pfizer v. Sandoz (D.N.J.). (Hatch-Waxman)

• Allergan v. Sandoz (D. Del.). (Hatch-Waxman)

• Novo Nordisk et al. v. Sandoz (D.N.J.)

• Sandoz v. Novo Nordisk et al. (E.D. Mich. 2011).

Representative PTAB Litigations

• Meta Platforms Inc. v. Thales Visionix, Inc.

• Cradlepoint et al. v. Sisvel International S.A. et al.

• Alliance Indus. & ACMI v. Gebo et al.

• Navistar v. Fatigue Fracture Tech.

• LinkedIn v. DiStefano Patent Trust III

• In re Fatigue Fracture Tech

• Elbit Sys. US v. Thales Visionix

Awards