Coby Nixon is a Shareholder and Chair of the Litigation Practice Group in the Firm’s Atlanta office and a member of the Intellectual Property Practice Group. For nearly twenty years, Mr. Nixon’s practice has focused primarily on patent infringement litigation.

Mr. Nixon has repeatedly delivered favorable results for his clients in and out of the courtroom. He has won at trials in federal district court and at the International Trade Commission, argued successfully on appeal at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit and at the USPTO’s Patent Trial and Appeal Board, won oral arguments at hearings on various motions in district court including motions to dismiss and motions for preliminary injunction, and obtained favorable rulings through argument at numerous Markman (claim construction) hearings.

Mr. Nixon’s practice is national in scope. He has litigated matters in all the popular patent courts such as Delaware, California, Texas, and New Jersey, in district courts throughout the country, including New York, Virginia, Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, Georgia, Florida, and Tennessee to name a few, in post-grant proceedings such as inter partes reviews (IPRs) before the USPTO, and in the International Trade Commission.

Mr. Nixon’s experience before the judges in the Northern District of Georgia is particularly deep, having served as lead or local counsel in over 50 IP cases in the district. If you consider only the cases where both sides made an appearance, Mr. Nixon has been selected to represent clients in about 15 percent of all patent infringement cases filed in the district since 2016.

An engineer by training and lifelong student of science and technology, Mr. Nixon enjoys being entrusted to handle complex IP disputes for his clients. He is committed to providing efficient, high-quality representation that focuses on what matters most for his clients and what aligns with their business goals and interests.

Awards and Honors

• Georgia Super Lawyers, 2024, Rising Stars, 2009, 2011-2012
• Georgia Trend‘s Legal Elite, Intellectual Property, 2021-2022
• The Best Lawyers in America®, 2023-2025
• Shortlisted as one of five finalists for “IP Litigator of the Year – Georgia” award by Managing Intellectual Property, 2024

Professional Involvement

• Member, Atlanta Bar Association, Intellectual Property Section
• Atlanta Intellectual Property Inn of Court
• Federal Bar Association, Intellectual Property Section
  • Chair, 2019-2020
  • Treasurer, 2017-2018
  • Secretary, 2015-2017
  • Member, 2015-present
• Member, Intellectual Property Owners Association
• Member, State Bar of Georgia, Intellectual Property Section

Bar Admissions

• Georgia
• U.S. Patent and Trademark Office

Significant Accomplishments
<p><strong>Trials</strong></p><ul><li>Won a jury verdict finding that ASC Engineered Solutions’ pipe couplings (i) were licensed under a prior settlement agreement and (ii) did not infringe the patent of its competitor Victaulic in a case tried before Judge Williams in the District of Delaware. Earlier in the case, after extensive briefing and oral argument, we defeated Victaulic’s motion to dismiss certain of ASC’s counterclaims and obtained favorable claim construction rulings that resulted in a stipulated judgment of non-infringement as to two other, asserted patents. <em>Victaulic Company v. ASC Engineered Solutions, LLC</em>, 1:20-cv-00887 (DDE).</li><li>Obtained an Initial Determination after trial before Chief ALJ Cheney in the International Trade Commission finding that all three of our client’s, Hoshizaki America, Inc.’s, patents were infringed and recommending an exclusion order banning Hoshizaki’s competitor from importing its infringing ice machines into the U.S. <em>Certain Icemaking Machines and Components Thereof</em>, 337-TA-1369 (ITC).</li></ul><p><strong>Appeals</strong></p><ul><li>Won the dismissal of a competitor’s declaratory judgment action against our client, Contec, a provider of diagnostic testing and repair equipment, in the E.D. Pennsylvania. Then successfully represented Contec on appeal to the Federal Circuit which affirmed the dismissal. <em>Communications Test Design Inc. v. Contec, LLC</em>, 2:18-cv-04077 (EDPA) & 19-1672 (CAFC).</li><li>Obtained rulings from the USPTO’s Patent Trial and Appeal Board finding all challenged claims invalid in reexamination proceedings involving patents of a client’s competitor in the field of mechanical pipe couplings.</li></ul><p><strong>District Courts and the USPTO</strong></p><ul><li>Defending a subsidiary of Mueller Water Products in a patent infringement case concerning water meter technology brought by a nonpracticing entity (NPE) in U.S. District Court in Delaware. Initiated three related, and victorious, <em>inter partes</em> review (IPR) proceedings in the USPTO, where the plaintiff/patentee conceded the invalidity of its three asserted patents and then significantly amended them in an <em>ex parte</em> <em>Rein Tech, Inc. v. Mueller Systems, LLC</em>, 1:18-cv-01683 (DDE) & IPR2020-00098-100 (PTAB).</li><li>Represented Echologics in Delaware and California as a plaintiff in patent infringement cases involving leak detection technology for hydrants. After reaching a confidential settlement and dismissal of the initial case in Delaware involving two patents, we filed a new case in California against the same competitor, alleging infringement of another, recently issued patent. Achieved a major procedural victory by defeating the defendant’s motion to transfer the second case to another district and a major substantive victory by successfully arguing for the client’s proposed constructions of claim terms in the asserted patent. Right before trial, the parties reached a confidential settlement favorable to our client. <em>Echologics, LLC et al v. Orbis Intelligent Systems, Inc.</em>, 3:21-cv-01147 (SDCA).</li><li>Brought suit on behalf of Echologics against a competitor in a patent case involving acoustic technology used to detect leaks in, and assess the condition of, underground water mains. Successfully defeated the defendant’s motion to dismiss in which it argued that the asserted patent was directed to an abstract idea, i.e., subject matter ineligible for patent protection under 35 U.S.C. § 101. The parties reached a confidential settlement shortly thereafter. <em>Echologics, LLC et al v. Aquarius Spectrum, Ltd.</em>, 1:20-cv-04956 (NDGA).</li><li>Handled the defense of a case for Comverge, in which the plaintiff, a NPE, claimed that Comverge infringed a patent related to premises-monitoring technology. Successfully obtained a stay pending <em>inter partes</em>  The case was ultimately dismissed with prejudice, with no recovery from our client.  <em>Joao Control & Monitoring Systems, LLC v. Comverge, Inc.</em>, 1:14-cv-03862 (NDGA).</li><li>Defeated motions seeking a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction, and then obtained dismissal of all claims that client BattleFrog, a company that organizes and stages obstacle-course races, infringed its adversary’s patents. <em>ModTruss, Inc. v. BattleFrog LLC</em>, 1:16-cv-01317 (NDGA).</li><li>Took over the defense of Comverge in a hotly-contested patent infringement case brought by Nxegen involving remote monitoring of commercial energy usage. Working within tight deadlines, we conducted probing discovery that enabled Comverge to allege that Nxegen’s patents were unenforceable due to inequitable conduct, which led to a favorable settlement a short time later. <em>NXEGEN, LLC v. Comverge, Inc.</em>, 3:12-cv-00528 (DCT).</li><li>Obtained dismissal with prejudice of patent infringement action against client Boat Dock Innovations after filing re-examination petitions, which resulted in the cancellation of all claims of one asserted patent and significant narrowing of another patent’s claims. <em>Adair v. Boat Dock Innovations, LLC</em>, 1:12-cv-01930 (NDGA).</li><li>Represented VeriCheck, a leading ACH payment processor, in E.D. Texas litigation against a NPE.  As part of our defensive strategy, we prepared and filed a petition with the USPTO for covered business method review and argued that the asserted patent claims were invalid under Section 101 for being directed to patent ineligible subject matter.  The parties reached a confidential settlement shortly after the CBM petition was filed.  <em>Lyssa Networks, LLC v. VeriCheck, Inc.</em>, 2:15-cv-01759 (EDTX) & CBM2016-00061 (PTAB).</li></ul><p><strong>Arbitrations</strong></p><ul><li>Represented entrepreneur in international AAA arbitration over earnout provisions in purchase agreement for the sale of his technology company. Successfully obtained award from the arbitrator, after an evidentiary hearing involving several fact witnesses, finding that purchaser’s new technology used the client’s software solutions, thus entitling our client to certain earnout royalties.</li></ul>