Taylor Pfingst is an intellectual property litigator who focuses her practice on patent and trade secret litigation, complex commercial litigation, and other intellectual property disputes. She represents plaintiffs and defendants in a range of industries including technology, entertainment, medical devices, software, and consumer goods. Ms. Pfingst is experienced in all phases of litigation including fact and expert discovery, claim construction, motion practice, pre-trial and post-trial proceedings, and trial. Ms. Pfingst also has extensive courtroom experience in state and federal court and has examined witnesses at multiple jury trials.
Most recently, Ms. Pfingst was a member of the trial team representing GREE, Inc. in a series of patent infringement suits against Supercell, resulting in over $100 million jury verdicts in GREE’s favor following two jury trials in 2020 and 2021.
Prior to joining the firm, Ms. Pfingst served as a judicial extern for the Honorable Charles R. Breyer in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California. She also worked as a law clerk in the Public Rights Division in the California Department of Justice, Office of the Attorney General, and was a summer associate at a trial and appellate litigation boutique firm in Washington, D.C.
While attending law school, she was the Executive Notes Editor of the Hastings Constitutional Law Quarterly.
Ms. Pfingst was recognized as a Northern California “Rising Star” in 2019, 2020, and 2021 for Intellectual Property Litigation by Super Lawyers magazine.
Representing GREE, Inc., a Japanese gaming and internet media company in a large-scale patent battle with Supercell, a Finnish mobile game development company. Kilpatrick Townsend launched suits involving more than 20 patents against Supercell. The case has led to a complex series of litigations in district court resulting in more than $100 million in jury verdicts in favor of GREE, as well as at the PTAB and before the Federal Circuit. The Kilpatrick Townsend team obtained a jury verdict for GREE in the Eastern District of Texas of willful infringement, asserting five patents and an award of at least $8.5 million for damages against Supercell in September 2020, and a second jury verdict of willful infringement in favor of GREE and an award of at least $92 million in damages in May 2021. GREE, Inc. v. Supercell Oy, Nos. 2:19-cv-00237, 2:19-cv-00310, 2:19-cv-00311, 2:19-cv-00070, 2:19-cv-00071 (E.D. Tex.) (Judge Gilstrap)
Insights View All
University of California, Hastings College of the Law J.D. (2017)
University of California, Santa Barbara B.A. (2012) Political Science
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
U.S. District Court for the Central District of California
U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California
U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas
U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California
San Francisco Intellectual Property Law Association, Board Member (2020-2022)
Los Angeles Intellectual Property Law Association, Member
ChIPs Member and Mentor
American Bar Association, Member
500 Hour Certified Yoga Teacher
While we are pleased to have you contact us by telephone, surface mail, electronic mail, or by facsimile transmission, contacting Kilpatrick Townsend & Stockton LLP or any of its attorneys does not create an attorney-client relationship. The formation of an attorney-client relationship requires consideration of multiple factors, including possible conflicts of interest. An attorney-client relationship is formed only when both you and the Firm have agreed to proceed with a defined engagement.
DO NOT CONVEY TO US ANY INFORMATION YOU REGARD AS CONFIDENTIAL UNTIL A FORMAL CLIENT-ATTORNEY RELATIONSHIP HAS BEEN ESTABLISHED.
If you do convey information, you recognize that we may review and disclose the information, and you agree that even if you regard the information as highly confidential and even if it is transmitted in a good faith effort to retain us, such a review does not preclude us from representing another client directly adverse to you, even in a matter where that information could be used against you.