Bryce A. Johnson

Bryce Johnson is a partner of The Buche Law Firm, PC in the Austin, Texas office, and his practice focuses on patents and intellectual property. Bryce has extensive experience as a registered patent attorney both in acquiring patents and in litigating patent disputes in federal court and at the Patent Trial & Appeal Board (“PTAB”).

Bryce’s experience with patent prosecution is wide-ranging. He has been actively involved in the prosecution of over 400 hundred patents and named as an attorney of record on over 190 patents spanning a range of technologies from oil field, firearms, software, to sports equipment, manufacturing, household devices and cannabis. Some of the patents Bryce has achieved are listed here.

Outside of patent prosecution, Bryce has been involved with dozens of patent infringement and other intellectual property matters in federal court, and in administrative venues at the Patent Trial & Appeal Board (“PTAB”). In many cases, Mr. Johnson’s input has been instrumental to the successful resolution or victories in these matters. Bryce is extremely familiar with the critical interplay between the administrative forums and those in federal courts. Just some of the cases Bryce has worked on for plaintiffs and defense include:

• Oakley v. Global One Sales and Distribution Sportsman Eyewear (Southern District of California, 2012), Litigation support for a defendant accused of infringing U.S. Des. Pat. No. D523,461 entitled “Eyeglass component.”  The case resolved successfully.
• Lifeproof v. Seidio (Southern District of California, 2013), Litigation support for a defendant accused of infringing U.S. Pat. No. 8,342,325 entitled “housing for receiving and encasing an object” (e.g., cellphone). The case was successfully resolved.
• Matson. v. Cowboy Containments (Northern District of Texas (Dallas Division), 2013), Worked in defense versus alleged infringement of an oilfield related patent, namely U.S. Pat. No. 8479,946 entitled “Portable drip containment device apparatus and method.”The case resolved favorably after claim construction briefing and a successful request for Ex Parte Reexamination Cont. No. 90/013,192 (filed May 9, 2014) of the asserted patent.
• Seidio v. Boxwave et al.(Southern District of California, 2013), Worked for plaintiff to enforce U.S. Des. Pat. Nos. D681,624 & D682,815 for a “protective cover” and “case” for cell phones.The case successfully settled prior to Markman briefing.
• Mad Dogg Athletics v. Multisports (Central District of California, 2014), Worked in defense against alleged infringement of U.S. Pat. No. 6,155,958 entitled “Stationary exercise bicycle having a rigid frame.” The case was resolved successfully. 
• Warwick Gmbh & Co. Music Equipment KG v. ProStage (USPTO, 2015), Participated in successful request for Ex Parte Reexamination Cont. No. 90/013,536 (filed Jun. 22, 2015) of U.S. Pat. No. 6,459,023 entitled “Mounting board for guitar effects.” The proceeding favorably ended via narrowing amendments of the relevant patent rights.
• Doe Plaintiff v. Doe Defendant (Northern District of Alabama, 2015), Second Chair in case for the Plaintiff enforcing U.S. Pat. No. X for a wireless electrical apparatus controller and a related family of patents.  The case successfully settled after Markman order.
• Doe Plaintiff v. Doe Defendant (Southern District of California & USPTO, 2016), Worked for a defendant accused of infringing U.S. Pat. for camera mouth mounts, for, e.g., surfers to hold a camera in their mouth while surfing. Successfully requested Ex Parte Reexamination and prosecuted two submissions under 37 CFR 1.501 against the validity of the asserted patent.  The case terminated favorably after all relevant patent rights were canceled by the USPTO.
• Merino v. Igloo Products Corp. et al (Southern District of California, 2016), Worked with plaintiff to enforce U.S. Pat. No. 8,459,492 entitled “Ice trap for straws.” The case favorably settled prior to Markman briefing.
• Greenbroz v. Laeger Built, (Southern District of California, 2016), Worked for the plaintiff enforcing U.S. Des. Pat. No. D755,263 entitled “Bud trimmer.” The case successfully settled prior to Markman briefing.  Obtained judgment against Defendant.
• Patent Holder v. Doe Defendant (Southern District of California, 2017), Defended against allegations of infringement of U.S. Pat. No. X for trigger control connector for Glock® firearms. Case settled favorably at early neutral evaluation (ENE).
• Wheel Pros v. Lonestar Wheels et al (Southern District of Texas & USPTO, 2017), U.S. Des. Pat. No. D711,808 & D736,137 for truck wheels and related family of design patents. Prosecuted submissions under 37 CFR 1.501 in both D’808 and D’137 against the validity of the patents. The case favorably settled. 
• Doe Petitioner v. Anonymous Resp. (PTAB, 2017), Co-lead counsel for the petitioner in Post Grant Review PGR X of U.S. Pat. No. X for laser Christmas themed lighting. The case successfully settled prior to any institution decision by the PTAB.
• Arredondo v. Jag Clamp (Southern District of California, 2018), Worked with plaintiff to enforce U.S. Des. Pat. No. D594,726 entitled “Guide line clamp.” Case favorably settled.
• Doe LLC v. Doe Defendant (Southern District of California & USPTO, 2018), Defended against allegations of infringement of U.S. Pat. No. X  for a camera mouth mount, e.g., surfers to hold a camera in their mouth while surfing.  Successfully requested Ex Parte Reexamination Cont. No.X of the asserted patent.  The case was favorably resolved with termination of the original case from 2016. 
• Jefferson St. Holdings v. Seidio (Southern District of Texas (Laredo), USPTO & PTAB, 2018), Worked in defense against allegations of infringement of U.S. Pat. No. 9,480,319 entitled “Protective case for portable electronic device,” e.g., a cell phone.  Successfully resolved.
• Jasco Products Co. v. Prime Wire & Cable  (Western District of North Carolina, USPTO & PTAB, 2018), Worked for defense against allegations of infringement of U.S. Pat. No. 9,320,122 entitled “Programmable light time and a method of implementing a programmable light timer.” Co lead counsel for petitioner in Inter Partes Review IPR2018-01592 of the asserted patent.  Prosecuted two submissions under 37 CFR 1.501 against the validity of asserted patent rights.  The case favorably settled.
• IPCOMM v. Group Rossignol USA et al, (Southern District of California, 2020), Worked to defend against allegations of infringement of U.S. Pat. No. 8,612,181 entitled “wireless system for monitoring and analysis of skiing.” The case successfully settled prior to a Markman hearing.
• Nexus Perforating v. Nextier Oilfield Solutions et al. (Southern District of Texas (Houston) & PTAB, 2020), Worked for the plaintiff to enforce U.S. Pat. No. 10,352,136 entitled “Apparatus for electromechanically connecting a plurality of guns for well perforation.” Co-lead counsel for the Patent Owner in Inter Partes Review case IPR2021-00082 of the asserted patent.  The case favorably settled prior to trial at the PTAB.

Bryce attended the University of San Diego School of Law, where he graduated cum laude and Order of the Coif in 2008. Mr. Johnson earned his B.S. in Chemical Engineering from Brigham Young University in 2005.

Prior to attending law school, Bryce worked as a chemical engineer in the construction and development of a heavy metal treatment site that removed Selenium from farm irrigation runoff.

Outside of the practice of law, Mr. Johnson is an avid yoga practitioner and weightlifter.

Bryce A. Johnson’s Core Practice Areas Include:

• Intellectual property consultation
• Patent applications and appeals
• Trademark and copyright litigation
• Patent, copyright and trademark infringement prosecutions