• Eleanor M. Yost
  • 813.229.4395
  • Share this page
Eleanor M. Yost

Eleanor M. Yost



Eleanor Yost litigates high-stakes intellectual property disputes in state and federal courts, the U.S. International Trade Commission (ITC) and the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO). She also manages national and international patent, trademark, and domain name portfolios for some of the most recognizable brands in the world. Eleanor’s clients rely on her for a broad range of intellectual property and government contracts advice, including patent and trademark prosecution, opinions, IP and software licensing, due diligence, and transactions.

An in-demand thought leader on the subject of USPTO Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) post-grant proceedings, Eleanor has been featured on the topic in IPLaw360, AmLaw Daily, Corporate Counsel, Inside Counsel, The Recorder, Intellectual Property Magazine, Bloomberg BNA, Reuters’ IP Westlaw Journal, The Pink Sheet, Managing IP, Lawdragon, and elsewhere. She launched the PTAB practice at an AmLaw 50 firm and was selected to be a founding member of the PTAB Bar Association Board of Directors, the leading national bar association for PTAB practitioners, judges, and other stakeholders. She is also the lead author of PTAB Post Grant Proceedings: A Tactical Guide for Practitioners, and represents patent owners and petitioners in reexamination, inter partes review (IPR), post grant review (PGR), covered business method review (CBMR), and related appeals to the Federal Circuit.

In addition to her intellectual property practice, Eleanor assists clients navigating government contracts and procurement issues, particularly those involving the Federal Acquisition Regulations (FARs), Defense Federal Acquisition Regulations Supplement (DFARS) and the Bayh-Dole Act, among others. She counsels clients with respect to prime awards, grants (e.g., DARPA), subcontract arrangements, contract interpretation, performance, bid protests, and potential claims.

Featured Insights


Patent Infringement - Select Cases

  • Hunt Construction, the United States Tennis Association, and USTA National Tennis Center in Uni-Systems Inc. v. USTA, et al., a multi-party patent litigation concerning retractable stadium roofs (E.D.N.Y.).
  • Conair and Rite Aid in Tonytail Company, Inc. v. Conair Corporation, et al., (N.D. Cal.), patent and trade dress litigation; obtained a complete victory on all disputed claim construction issues following Markman hearing.
  • Patent owner in trial, appellate and contempt proceedings in ePlus Inc. v. Lawson Software, Inc. (E.D. Va.).
  • JPMorgan Chase in JPMorgan Chase & Co. v. Affiliated Computer Services, Inc. (D. Del.), a declaratory judgment action involving 10 patents related to financial services and payment processing systems.
  • Textron Innovations and Bell Helicopter in Bell Helicopter Textron, Inc. v. Airbus Helicopters (D.D.C.), cases involving patented helicopter landing gear.
  • Patent owner in NTP, Inc. v. Sprint Nextel Corp. (E.D. Va.) and NTP, Inc. v. AT&T Mobility (E.D. Va.), a suit concerning wireless email technology.
  • Patent owner in Personalized Media Communications v. Motorola, Inc., EchoStar Corp., and DISH Network Corp. (E.D. Tex.), a suit concerning telecommunications technology.
  • Raisecom in Magnacross LLC v. Raisecom Inc. (M.D. Fla.).
  • International Dental Supply Co. in Midmark Corp. v. Int'l Dental Supply Co. (S.D. Fla.).
  • Patent owner in Augme Technologies, Inc. v. Yahoo! Inc. (N.D. Cal.; Fed. Cir.).
  • Patent owner in Augme Technologies, Inc. v. Gannett Co., Inc. (S.D.N.Y.).
  • Patent owner in LucidMedia Networks, Inc. v. Augme Technologies, Inc., concerning online advertising technology. (E.D. Va.).
  • Fresenius in Cadence Pharmaceuticals, Inc., et. al. v. Fresenius Kabi USA, LLC, an ANDA litigation. (S.D. Cal.).
  • Patent owner in Crutchfield Corporation v. Focusrite Plc et al, a patent litigation involving speaker technology. (W.D. Va.).
  • Anika in Glycobiosciences, Inc. v. Anika Therapeutics, Inc. (D.D.C.), a multiple-patent case concerning wound treatment products.

Trademarks, Trade Secrets, Copyrights, and False Advertising 

  • Trademark owner GoFundMe in GoFundMe, Inc. v. CMG Mortgage, Inc., a trademark infringement, dilution, and unfair competition litigation (N.D. Cal.).
  • Trademark owner Cigar City Brewing in Cigar City Brewing, Inc. v. Cigar City Smoked Salsa, a trademark infringement action that settled favorably (M.D. Fla.).
  • CCA in K.E.L.K. Corp. v. CCA Industries, Inc., a trademark infringement litigation (M.D. Fla.).
  • Competitor in Purple Innovation LLC v. Honest Reviews, LLC, a false advertising litigation (D. Utah).
  • Delta Products in SAE Power Inc. v. Avaya Inc. and Delta Products (D.N.J.), a trade secret litigation.
  • Celentano Food Products Inc. in Celentano Food Products, Inc. v. Dominick Celentano et al. (D.N.J.), a trademark infringement and trade secret misappropriation action.
  • Thomas Aaron Billiards and The Billiard Connection in Douglas Kelly d/b/a Liberty Billiards v. Thomas Aaron Billiards, et al. (D.Md.), defense of trademark infringement action, successfully won on summary judgment.


  • OSRAM, as trial counsel, in suit involving eight LG patents concerning LED technology. The case settled favorably prior to initial determination. In re Certain Light-Emitting Diodes and Products Containing the Same.
  • Complainant against several semiconductor chip packaging companies. In re Certain Semiconductor Chips With Minimized Chip Packages Size and Products Containing Same.
  • Complainant against suppliers of Ground Fault Circuit Interrupter (GFCI) technology. In re Certain Ground Fault Circuit Interrupters and Products Containing Same.


  • Unwired Planet, LLC v. Square, Inc. (Fed. Cir. 2016).
  • IPR2016-00254, Petition for Inter Partes Review by J. Kyle Bass.
  • Unwired Planet, LLC v. Google, Inc. (Fed. Cir. 2016).
  • CBM2014-0015 and CBM2014-00160, Petition for Covered Business Method Patent Review by J.P. Morgan Chase & Co.
  • IPR2014-01164 and IPR2014-01165, Petition for Inter Partes Review by Square Inc.
  • IPR2014-01527, IPR2014-01528, IPR2014-01530, IPR2014-01531, IPR2014-01532, IPR2014-01533, and IPR2014-01534 Petition for Inter Partes Review by, Inc.
  • IPR2015-00239, IPR2015-00240, IPR2015-00241, IPR2015-00242, IPR2015-00243, and IPR2015-00247, Petition for Inter Partes Review by 2Wire, Inc.
  • IPR2015-00503, Petition for Inter Partes Review by Agila Specialties Inc.
  • IPR2015-00520 and IPR2015-00521, Petition for Inter Partes Review by Unified Patents Inc.
  • IPR2015-00715, Petition for Inter Partes Review by Dr. Reddy’s.
  • IPR2015-00643, IPR2015-00644, and IPR2015-00830, Petition for Inter Partes Review by Mylan Pharmaceuticals, Inc.

Featured Insights

All Insights



  • Selected for inclusion in Washington, D.C. Super Lawyers Rising Stars (2014-2018)

Professional & Community Involvement

  • PTAB Bar Association
    • Co-Chairman, Women’s Committee 
    • Founding Director, Board of Directors
  • Intellectual Property Owners Association (IPO)
    • Vice-Chair, Post Grant Patent Office Practice Committee 
    • Lead Author, IPO's Response to the USTPO's Request for Comments concerning America Invents Act post-grant proceedings
    • Committee of the Year honoree 2018
  • Ferguson-White American Inn of Court
  • U.S. Court of Federal Claims Bar Association
  • U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit Bar Association
  • International Trademark Association (INTA) 

Speaking Engagements

  • "Navigating the Interplay of Parallel Litigation with a PTAB Proceeding,” PTAB Bar Association Annual Meeting, Washington (March 22–23, 2018)
  • "Advice of Counsel Defense in Patent Litigation: Protecting Attorney-Client Privilege" Webinar (March 16, 2017)
  • "PTAB Bootcamp – Nuts and Bolts of IPRs, PGRs, and CBMs” PTAB Bar Association Inaugural Annual Meeting, Washington (March 1-3, 2017)
  • "Advanced Licensing Agreements" Program Faculty, Practicing Law Institute
  • "Patent Law" Program Faculty, Practicing Law Institute 
  • "Interpreting What the Past 12 Months of CBM Challenges and IPR and PGR Proceedings Reveal About Party Successes and Failures Across Industries," IP Counsel Exchange on Post-Grant Patent Challenges at the PTAB, San Jose, CA, (March 30-31, 2015)
  • "Oyez, Oyez, Oyez!: Analyzing the Impact of the Supreme Court’s Decisions in Alice Corp. and Nautilus on AIA Post-Grant Proceedings," ACI’s inaugural conference on Post-Grant PTO Proceedings, New York (March 25-26, 2015)
  • IP Strategy Summit: Enforcement, New York, (June 10, 2014) 
  • Licensing Executive Society's Life Sciences Sector Conference (2014)
  • "Software Licensing Boot Camp: Drafting Contracts that Meet Current Business Needs While Avoiding Unwanted Outcomes," Annual The Practical and Tactical Art of the Deal in Software Agreements – Cloud, SaaS, Open Source & Licensing
  • "Patent Infringement: Structuring Opinions of Counsel: Leveraging Opinion Letters to Reduce the Risks of Liability and Enhanced Damages," Strafford
  • "Trademark Transactions: Doing Deals - From Due Diligence to Ink. An International Perspective," IPO Annual Meeting, Los Angeles, (September 11-13, 2011)


  • St. John's University School of Law (J.D.)
  • State University of New York at Stony Brook (B.A.)
Bar Admissions
  • District of Columbia
  • Florida
  • New Jersey
  • New York
Court Admissions
  • U.S. Court of Federal Claims
  • U.S. Patent and Trademark Office
  • U.S. Court of Appeals, Federal Circuit
  • U.S. Court of Appeals, Tenth Circuit
  • U.S. District Court, Middle District of Florida
  • U.S. District Court, Southern District of Florida
  • U.S. District Court, District of Columbia
  • U.S. District Court, District of New Jersey
  • U.S. District Court, Northern District of New York
  • U.S. District Court, Western District of New York
  • Florida State Courts
  • New Jersey State Courts
  • New York State Courts
  • District of Columbia Courts


  • Partner, Goodwin Procter LLP, Washington
  • Associate, Hiscock & Barclay, LLP, Rochester, NY


The information on this website is presented as a service for our clients and Internet users and is not intended to be legal advice, nor should you consider it as such. Although we welcome your inquiries, please keep in mind that merely contacting us will not establish an attorney-client relationship between us. Consequently, you should not convey any confidential information to us until a formal attorney-client relationship has been established. Please remember that electronic correspondence on the internet is not secure and that you should not include sensitive or confidential information in messages. With that in mind, we look forward to hearing from you.