(713) 751-2365


Joshua Wyde


Joshua Wyde is a patent attorney whose practice emphasizes Patent and Trademark Appeal Board (“PTAB”) post-grant proceedings (PGRs and IPRs); federal patent, trademark, and copyright litigation; patent portfolio analysis; formal infringement/invalidity legal opinions,  and IP licensing.

An electrical engineer and entrepreneur, his software and hardware experience has helped inform his work for both plaintiffs and defendants from pre-complaint investigation to a jury verdict.  He formally practiced with the intellectual property team at AZA, Winston & Strawn (formerly Howrey) and ran his own firm for many years.  Mr. Wyde was named Intellectual Property “Rising Star” by Super Lawyers Magazine 2015–17.  He trained at the A. A. White Dispute Resolution Center and subsequently presided over mediations.  Prior to his legal career, he worked as an engineer, including at RadiSys Corp., Compaq Computer Corp., and NORTEL Networks Limited.

  • G & H Diversified Mfg., LP v. DynaEnergetics Europe GmbH, 6:21-cv-01046 (W.D. Tex. stayed Dec. 20, 2021); DynaEnergetics Europe GmbH et al v. NexTier Oilfield Solutions Inc., 6-20-cv-01201 (W.D. Tex. stayed Dec. 20, 2021); G&H Diversified , LP v. DynaEnergetics Europe GmbH, PGR2021-00078 (PTAB Instituted Nov. 1, 2021) In a very rare instance, got the Western District of Texas to stay the litigations after getting the PGR instituted. PTAB final written Decision estimated in October 2022.
  • Repeat Precision, LLC v. G&H Diversified Manufacturing, LP, No. 6:21-cv-00125 (WDTX) Avoided protracted and costly litigation with negotiated early business resolution
  • Alaska Fuel Distributors Inc. v. Frac Shack Inc., IPR2019-00995 (PTAB decision Oct. 15, 2020) Against heavy odds (only 2 in 10 are successful), successfully amended patent claims in the IPR.
  • Frac Shack Inc. v. Atlas Oil Co., No. 4:18-cv-2566 (S.D. Tex filed July 24, 2018); Frac Shack Inc. V. Atlas Oil Co., No. 1:16-cv-02275 (D. Colo. filed Sept. 9, 2016); Fuel Automation Station v. Frac Shack Inc., No. IPR2017-01349 (PTAB denied Dec. 05, 2017) After years of litigation regarding an innovative frac fueling system and method, including defeating defendants’ IPR petition, Mr. Wyde forced a favorable settlement agreement soon before trial in the Colorado case and the weekend before the Monday where defendants were to be sanctioned in Texas. Mr. Wyde handled all aspects of these cases with one other lawyer.
  • In-Depth Test LLC in IPR2015–00421, CBM2015–00060, IPR2015–01627, IPR2015–01994, IPR2015–01998; IPR2016–01833; IPR2017–02009 (denied Mar. 9, 2018); and IPR2017–02094 (pending) Mr. Wyde defended the same patent against eight sequential attacks in the USPTO against large multinational law firms. He defeated all but one proceeding via convincing preliminary responses, whereby the Board denied institution and settled the remaining proceeding after deposing petitioner’s expert.
  • Mishan & Sons, Inc v. Avenue Innovations, Inc., No. IPR2017-00140 (PTAB denied May 8, 2017) Mr. Wyde represented patent owner against IPR petition regarding a mechanical device known as the “HandyBar” for helping persons get in and out of a vehicle seat. He removed his client from the proceeding when the Board denied institution of the IPR trial on the merits.
  • Hailo Tech., LLC v. Mobisoft Infotech, LLC, No. 4:17-cv-00076 (S.D. Tex. dismissed Mar. 3, 2017) Mr. Wyde defended a small company against allegations of patent infringement, by cost-effectively implementing a strategy of simultaneously signaling small reward and great risk to continue to pursue his client. Plaintiff “blinked,” dismissing his client two days before defendant’s answer was due.
  • Fathers & Daughters Nevada, LLC v. Does 1–13, No. 4:16-cv-1968 (S.D. Tex. filed July 05, 2016) Mr. Wyde filed this copyright litigation for a movie producer, Voltage Pictures, against anonymous persons who had used BitTorrent to illegally copy his clients’ movies. He issued subpoenas to obtain the names of account holders at the time of infringement and negotiated settlements from many represented defendants while preparing to litigate if negotiations failed.
  • Reflectix, Inc. v. Promethean Insulation Tech. LLC, Nos. IPR2015-00039,-42,-44,-45,-47 (PTAB 2015) By closely following the PTAB case law, Mr. Wyde recognized that petitioner failed to name a real party-in-interest in these five IPRs, and the panel agreed, declining to institute trial against any of his client’s patents.
  • NovelPoint Security LLC v. Dell Inc., No. 2:12-cv-00105 (E.D. Tex. filed Mar. 09, 2012); Dell Inc. v. NovelPoint Security LLC, IPR2013-00202 (PTAB) Corresponding litigation dismissed immediately after filing IPR petition with “killer art”
  • Fujitsu Ltd. v. Belkin Int’l, No. 10–cv–03972 (N.D. Cal. trial Dec. 2012) This case was listed on San Francisco and Los Angeles Daily Journal’s list of Top California Defense Verdicts of 2012. Fujitsu’s patent was widely considered “bullet proof” because the U.S. Patent Office reexamined the patent’s validity two times after issuance, and the judge had ruled on summary judgment that our client had infringed the patent. After a three-week trial, the jury deliberated for less than five hours, concluding that there was no willful infringement, no damages, and that Fujitsu’s asserted claims were invalid. Mr. Wyde’s role was to oversee the winning invalidity aspect of the case.
  • D. (magna cum laude), University of Houston Law Center, Law Review, Order of the Coif, Tutor, Lex Award for Highest Grade in Contracts and Legal Writing
  • B.A., University of Houston C.T. Bauer College of Business, Certified Financial Planning Specialty, Certificate of Leadership from Dept. of Accountancy & Taxation
  • S., Electrical Engineering (magna cum laude), Cullen College of Engineering, 2005, Honors College, Tau Beta Pi, Eta Kappa Nu; Texas Society of Professional Engineers Outstanding Senior
  • State Bar of Texas
  • United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
  • United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas
  • United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas
  • United States District Court for the Western District of Texas
  • United States District Court for the District of Colorado
  • Patent Bar – USPTO
  • Patent Office Post Grant Proceedings (4th ed.), ISBN 978-1-7321136-4-0 (285 pgs.)
  • U.S. Patent No. 8,051,303 re Secure Read and Write Access to Configuration Registers 
  • U.S. Patent No. 6,138,222 titled Accessing High Capacity Storage Devices

Alavi & Anaipakos, PLLC

3417 Mercer St., Suite C

Houston, TX  77027

Phone (713) 751-2362

Fax (713) 751-2341

Subscribe to hear our latest news!

* indicates required