Overview
Nathan Reeves practices intellectual property law, with an emphasis on litigation and USPTO trial proceedings such as inter partes reviews. He has experience representing clients in fields including software and web services, medical devices, and automotive technology.
Nathan received his Bachelor’s degrees from Walla Walla University, where he also conducted research in materials science. Nathan received his J.D. from Harvard Law School, where he worked as a clinical intern in the school’s Cyberlaw Clinic and as Managing Editor of the Harvard Journal of Law & Public Policy.
Education
- Harvard Law School (J.D., 2015), Managing Editor, Harvard Journal of Law & Public Policy; Editor-in-Chief, Harvard Law Record
- Walla Walla University (B.S.E. Mechanical Engineering, 2012), summa cum laude
- Walla Walla University (B.S. Mathematics, 2012), summa cum laude
- Walla Walla University (B.A. History, 2012), summa cum laude
Representative Matters
With-U E-Commerce (Shanghai) Co., Ltd. v. Changshan Halong Zhangpeng Jiagongchang d/b/a Hlong Direct US and Ningbo Casualway Leisure Products Co. Ltd. d/b/a EzyFast Direct, 1:22-cv-03815 (N.D. Ill.)
Represented defendants in patent infringement lawsuit concerning collapsible canopies with a central lock. Obtained dismissal of all claims with prejudice.
Global Shade Corp. v. With-U E-Commerce (Shanghai) Co., Ltd., IPR2023-00580 (Pat. Trial & Appeal Bd. 2024)
On behalf of Petitioner Global Shade in an inter partes review, successfully obtained a final written decision invalidating all challenged claims and denying patent owner’s motion to amend the claims. The invalidated claims were directed to a collapsible canopy with a central lock.
Global Shade Corp. v. With-U E-Commerce (Shanghai) Co., Ltd., IPR2021-00365 (Pat. Trial & Appeal Bd. 2022)
On behalf of Petitioner Global Shade in an inter partes review, successfully obtained a final written decision invalidating each of the claims asserted in a co-pending district court litigation. The invalidated claims were directed to a collapsible canopy with a central lock.
Smith & Nephew, Inc. v. ConforMIS, Inc., IPR2016-01874 (Pat. Trial & Appeal Bd. 2018)
On behalf of Smith & Nephew in an inter partes review (IPR) trial before the PTAB, we successfully obtained a final written decision of unpatentability of all the challenged claims in ConforMIS’ foundational patent involving patient-specific instruments for knee replacement surgery.
Recognition
Awards & Honors
- Named to the Best Lawyers: Ones to Watch guide, which “recognizes lawyers who are earlier in their careers for their outstanding professional excellence in private practice” for Patent Law (2024 – 2025), Intellectual Property Litigation (2022 – 2025) and Patent Litigation (2023 – 2025)
Affiliations
– King County Bar Association
– Washington State Patent Law Association
– QLaw
– Seattle IP Inn of Court
News & Insights
Articles
Featured in Practice Perspectives: Vault’s Guide to Legal Practice Areas, 2025 Edition
FDA Expresses Priorities for Clinical Trial Efficiency, Artificial Intelligence
Seizure-Detecting Smart Watch Given FDA Approval
ICU Medical Buys Hospira Infusion Systems From Pfizer
FDA Approves First MRI-Guided Ultrasound Device to Treat Essential Tremor
FDA Medical Device Quality Inspections Drop in 2015
Litigation Blog
- Domestic Marketing and Distribution of an Imported Product May Satisfy the Economic Prong of the Domestic-Industry Requirement
- Limits of Inherent Anticipation in Product-By-Process Claims
- IPR Standing Arguments Not Presented to the Board Are Forfeited
- Reversal on Reverse Doctrine of Equivalents
- Unsupported Expert Testimony Cannot Create a Genuine Issue of Material Fact
- Bound to Happen: Inherent Property Leaves No Question of Reasonable Expectation of Success
- Falsely Claiming Patent Protection May Violate the Lanham Act
- Relying on Irrelevant Factors to Award Attorneys’ Fees Is a Red Flag
- Responding to Preliminary Guidance Is the Core Purpose of the MTA Pilot Program
- Reliably Determining Reasonable Royalty Rates From Lump-Sum Licenses
- Jury Instructions Must Describe All Relevant Objective Indicia of Non-obviousness
- Being Known Is Not Enough
- A Terminal Disclaimer Is Not an Escape Hatch
- Evidence of Commercial Success and the Prior Art
- Who Bears the Burden of Proof for IPR Estoppel?
- Claim Directed to Specific, Hardware-Based Data Structure That Enables Technological Improvement Is Eligible Under § 101
- Factual Disputes Preclude Grant of Summary Judgment of Improper Inventorship