Allan Bullwinkel

Partner
609 Main Street, Suite 3200 | Houston, TX 77002
Phone: (713) 221-2024
Download vCard
Home > Attorneys > Allan Bullwinkel

About Allan Bullwinkel

Allan Bullwinkel’s practice focuses on patent litigation related to computer and electrical engineering technologies in federal district courts and inter partes review proceedings. He has also handled cases involving patent-related antitrust litigation, trade secrets disputes, and intellectual property-related appeals before the Federal Circuit. With his engineering degree and many years of prior work experience as an engineer, Allan brings a robust understanding of technical issues and an ability to engage with the technical aspects of cases.

Prior to joining HPC, Allan served as a judicial law clerk to Judge Leonard Davis at the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas.

While attending the University of Houston Law Center, Allan served as the Managing Editor of the Houston Law Review. He was also a member of the UHLC Moot Court Team as a writer and speaker. Allan continues to coach UHLC Moot Court teams that compete in the Giles Rich Moot Court competition.

Before attending law school, Allan worked as a software developer for over 10 years in both small start-up companies and large research institutions. During this time, his work experiences ranged from developing software in a variety of programming languages to leading development teams for commercial software products.

Current & Recent Cases
  • Daingean Techs. v. AT&T, No. 2:23-cv-00123 (E.D. Tex) (representing plaintiff)
  • Daingean Techs. v. T-Mobile, No. 2:23-cv-00347 (E.D. Tex) (representing plaintiff)
  • Iarnach Techs. v. AT&T, No. 2:23-cv-00231 (E.D. Tex.) (representing plaintiff)
  • Palo Alto Networks v. Packet Intelligence,, No. 19-cv-02471-WHO (N.D. Cal.) (representing defendant)
  • Packet Intelligence v. Juniper Networks, No. 3:19-cv-04741-WHO (N.D. Cal.) (representing plaintiff)
  • Packet Intelligence IPRs (P.T.A.B.) – Nos. IPR2020-00335, -00336, -00337, -00338, -00339, -00485, -00486 (representing patent owner)
  • In re Lamictal Antitrust Litigation, No. 2:12-cv-995 (D.N.J.) (representing plaintiffs)
Representative Past Cases
  • Wapp Tech. v. Wells Fargo (E.D. Tex.); Wapp Tech. v. Bank of America (E.D. Tex.) – Allan and a team of other attorneys from HPC represented Wapp in a patent infringement litigation involving mobile application development. Allan worked primarily on the infringement issues in the case. Both cases settled favorably during fact discovery.
  • Telecom Network Solutions v. T-Mobile (E.D. Tex.) – HPC and Alavi Anaipakos represented TNS regarding a patent relating to dynamic allocation of resources in a cellular network. Allan was primarily responsible for infringement issues. The case settled favorably before trial.
  • Monarch Networking Solutions v. Cisco Systems (E.D. Tex.)/(W.D. Tex.) – HPC and Susman Godfrey represented Monarch regarding four patents relating to router technology and IPv6 networks (EDTX matter) and a patent regarding two-factor authentication in networks (WDTX matter). Allan was primarily responsible for infringement issues regarding the IPv6 and two-factor authentication patents. The case settled favorably before trial.
  • Barkan v. Samsung, Verizon (E.D. Tex.); Barkan v. Sprint (E.D. Tex.); Barkan v. T-Mobile (E.D. Tex.) – HPC and Susman Godfrey represented Barkan in three patent infringement litigations involving femtocells. Allan was primarily responsible for infringement and validity issues. Each case settled favorably before trial.
  • Verint Systems Inc. v. Barkan (P.T.A.B.): Allan and a team of HPC attorneys represented Dr. Barkan in an inter partes review proceeding involving a patent owned by Dr. Barkan’s company related to cryptanalyzing and cracking GSM-based communications. The Board declined to institute trial.
  • Red Rock Analytics v. Samsung Electronics (E.D. Tex.): Allan and a team of other attorneys from HPC represented Red Rock Analytics in a patent infringement litigation involving calibration of transceivers in mobile devices. Allan worked primarily on validity issues in the case, including work on four different IPRs in which the Board declined to institute trial. The parties submitted remaining issues to the Court, and the Court determined that the asserted claims were not invalid.
  • Two-Way Media v. Dish Network (D. Col.): HPC and Susman Godfrey represented Two-Way Media in a patent infringement litigation involving streaming video. Allan was primarily responsible for infringement issues. The parties reached a confidential settlement of the case in in the fourth quarter of 2016.
  • Packet Intelligence LLC v. Cisco Systems, Inc. (E.D. Tex.): Allan and a team of attorneys from HPC and Susman Godfrey represented Packet Intelligence in a patent infringement litigation involving network traffic monitoring and classification. Packet Intelligence alleged that certain Cisco routers infringed Packet Intelligence’s packet traffic monitoring patents. Allan was involved with both infringement and validity issues in the case. The parties reached a confidential settlement of the case in the first quarter of 2015.
  • Two-Way Media v. AT&T (W.D. Tex.): HPC and Susman Godfrey represented Two-Way Media in a patent infringement litigation involving streaming video. Allan assisted with trial preparation and at trial in San Antonio, primarily focusing on infringement issues. The jury rendered a favorable verdict.
Honors & Awards
  • Lawdragon 500 Leading Litigators in America, 2023-2024, Patent Litigation
  • Best Lawyers in America, 2020-present
  • Texas Rising Stars by Thompson Reuters, 2018 – 2021
Lawdragon 500 2024

We welcome your email, but please understand that communications via email or through this website do not constitute or create an attorney-client relationship between you and Heim, Payne & Chorush LLP or any of its lawyers. Unless we reach an agreement with regard to representation, the information you provide will not be treated as confidential or privileged, and any such information may be used adversely to you and for the benefit of current or future clients of the law firm.

CancelI Agree