Mel Bostwick

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.

• Incarichi

  • Procopio v. Wilkie (Fed. Cir. No. 17-1821) (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."
  • Flamm v. Micron (Fed. Cir. No. 18-2322): Successfully argued on behalf of Micron and other semiconductor manufacturers and obtained summary affirmance of PTAB's decision holding challenged patent obvious on multiple grounds.
  • Innovative Memory Systems, Inc. v. Micron Technology, Inc. (Fed. Cir. No. 18-1348): Successfully argued on behalf of Micron and obtained affirmance of PTAB’s invalidation of all challenged claims in a patent related to analog-to-digital converters.
  • PurePredictive, Inc. v. H2O.ai, Inc. (Fed. Cir. No. 17-2544): 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. 17-1466): 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. 16-2540): 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.
  • The Chamberlain Group, Inc. v. Techtronic Industries Co. (S. Ct. 19-1299): Representing Chamberlain in seeking certiorari review of Federal Circuit's ruling that patent claims to an innovative garage door opener are ineligible as "abstract."
  • Bio-Rad Laboratories, Inc. v. 10x Genomics Inc. (Fed. Cir. No. 19-2255): Representing 10x in appeal from infringement verdict involving 10x’s groundbreaking microfluidics platform.
  • North Star Innovations, Inc. v. Micron Technology (Fed. Cir.): Representing Micron in appeals arising from near-complete elimination of North Star's asserted patents in IPR proceedings.
  • Boom! Payments, Inc. v. Stripe, Inc. (Fed. Cir. No. 20-1274): Representing Stripe in defending dismissal under Section 101 of patent claims challenging Stripe's innovative payment-processing technology.
  • Juno Therapeutics, Inc. v. Kite Pharma, Inc. (Fed. Cir. 20-1758): Representing Gilead subsidiary Kite in challenging infringement verdict involving Kite's lifesaving cancer therapy.
  • In re Apple Inc. (Fed. Cir. Nos. 20-104, -111, -115, -127): Representing Apple in series of mandamus petitions challenging Texas trial courts' unlawful application of venue-transfer statute.
  • Nite Glow Industries Inc. v. Central Garden & Pet Co. (Fed. Cir.): Representing Central in challenging adverse verdict on state-law claims related to intellectual property dispute and defending JMOL on patent infringement claim involving pet medicine applicators.
  • Plastic Omnium v. Donghee America, Inc. (Fed. Cir. No. 18-2087): Successfully represented Donghee in obtaining affirmance of summary judgment of non-infringement of Plastic Omnium's patents through Donghee's use of innovative fuel-tank manufacturing technology supplied by Kautex-Textron.
  • AARC v. DENSO International America, Inc. (D.C. Cir. No. 18-7141): Successfully represented DENSO as part of multi-defendant appeal securing unanimous affirmance of summary judgment rejecting copyright challenge involving in-vehicle entertainment systems.
  • Oracle America, Inc. v. Google LLC (Fed. Cir. Nos. 17-1118, -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.
  • Rembrandt Patent Innovations v. Apple, Inc. (Fed. Cir. No. 16-2324): Successfully represented Apple in obtaining unanimous affirmance of summary judgment of non-infringement by Apple's iOS devices.