Mel Bostwick is a partner of the firm's Supreme Court and Appellate practice. Her practice focuses on high-stakes appeals, with a particular emphasis on patent appeals before the Federal Circuit.

Mel’s practice capitalizes on two of her passions: technology and great writing. As an appellate lawyer, she has the opportunity to help companies protect their innovations and their intellectual property. She is adept at translating complex technology and intricate legal issues into a clear and simple presentation that judges of any background can understand. Mel brings these skills to bear in representing clients on appeal to the Federal Circuit and before the Supreme Court, and also in partnering with trial teams to address legal and strategic problems in district court, the ITC, and the PTAB. She also regularly advises technology clients on difficult IP and strategic issues facing their companies.

Mel also has the privilege of representing pro bono clients and is particularly passionate about using her Federal Circuit experience to help veterans in their appeals to the court.

Prior to joining Orrick, Mel was an associate at a litigation boutique in Washington, D.C., where she represented clients in trial and appellate litigation and before the Federal Communications Commission. Mel served as a law clerk to Judge Timothy B. Dyk of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit and Judge Thomas B. Griffith of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit.

    • Procopio v. Wilkie (Fed. Cir. No. 2017-1821) (en banc): Successfully argued pro bono en banc case on behalf of "Blue Water Navy" veterans, securing a 9-2 ruling that the Agent Orange Act unambiguously grants these veterans a presumption of exposure and service-connection based on having "served in the Republic of Vietnam."
    • PurePredictive, Inc. v. H2O.ai, Inc. (Fed. Cir. No. 2017-2544): Successfully argued on behalf of artificial intelligence innovator H2O.ai and obtained summary affirmance of Rule 12(b)(6) dismissal of patent infringement suit based on ineligibility of asserted claims under Section 101.
    • Saunders v. Wilkie (Fed. Cir. No. 2017-1466): Successfully argued pro bono on behalf of a Gulf War veteran and obtained a unanimous precedential decision undoing a longstanding VA rule that improperly denied benefits to veterans with disabling pain linked to their military service solely because a doctor could not identify a present diagnosable disease or condition associated with the pain.
    • Sweeting v. MSPB (Fed. Cir. No. 2016-2540): Argued pro bono on behalf of a Vietnam veteran challenging his post-service discharge from federal employment and the Merit Systems Protection Board’s application of res judicata to his claim of newly discovered evidence.
    • Shine v. Williams-Sonoma (Cal. Ct. App. No. B277513): Successfully argued for affirmance of the trial court’s judgment sustaining Williams-Sonoma’s demurrer, on res judicata grounds, to a putative class action wage claim filed by a former employee.
    • Oracle America, Inc. v. Google LLC (Fed. Cir. Nos. 2017-1118, -1202): Successfully represented Oracle in obtaining unanimous reversal of the district court’s denial of JMOL and persuading the Federal Circuit that Google’s copying of Oracle’s software APIs into a competing platform was not “fair use” as matter of law.
    • Bayer CropScience AG v. Dow AgroSciences LLC (Fed. Cir. Nos. 16-1530, -1623) (Bayer III): Represented DAS in its appeal from the Eastern District of Virginia’s affirmance of an arbitration award of based on patents relating to genetic resistance to the herbicide glufosinate.
    • Amgen Inc. v. Sandoz Inc., (S. Ct. Nos. 15-1039, -1195): filed merits stage amicus brief on behalf of Genentech in case involving Biologics Price Competition and Innovation Act.
    • Hughes v. United States (S. Ct. No. 17-155): Successfully represented pro bono client in obtaining reversal of Eleventh Circuit ruling that defendants who enter a specific type of plea agreement are not eligible to seek resentencing when the Guidelines applicable to their conviction are retroactively reduced.
    • Cellspin Soft, Inc. v. Panasonic Corporation et al. (Fed. Cir. Nos. 18-1817 et al.): Representing Panasonic in a multi-appellee case seeking affirmance of dismissal under § 101 of patent infringement claims involving content publishing through mobile devices.
    • Innovative Memory Systems, Inc. v. Micron Technology, Inc. (Fed. Cir. No. 18-1348): Representing Micron in seeking affirmance of PTAB’s invalidation of all challenged claims in a patent related to analog-to-digital converters.
    • Bio-Rad Laboratories, Inc. v. 10x Genomics Inc. (D. Del No. 15-cv-00152): Representing 10x as appellate counsel, assisting trial team with defense of patent infringement claims against 10x’s groundbreaking microfluidics platform.

News