Associate
Alissa Green focuses on patent litigation, specifically before U.S. district courts and the International Trade Commission (ITC), as well as post-grant review proceedings before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO). She draws from her experience as a former middle and high school math and AP physics teacher to provide clear guidance to clients and craft persuasive arguments in district courts as well as before the PTAB.
Alissa is experienced in all stages of district court litigation, including identifying validity and infringement strategies, drafting dispositive briefings, drafting and arguing motions, and developing and arguing claim construction positions. Several of her cases have involved co-pending district court litigation and post-grant proceedings, and Alissa regularly aids clients in navigating the interplay between these forums.
Having litigated numerous post-grant review proceedings from filing to resolution, Alissa has experience developing validity strategy, crafting effective briefing, deposing expert witnesses, and participating in oral hearings, including as arguing counsel. Alissa represents both petitioners and patent owners before the PTAB, including in derivation proceedings.
Alissa also performs domestic and international counseling in the design, mechanical, and electrical spaces, including in the heavy machinery and consumer products industries. Her technical experience encompasses both mechanical and electrical technologies, including those in the artificial intelligence, networking systems, search engine optimization, and electronic banking industries.
Prior to law school, Alissa taught middle school and high school math and science in Arizona. She independently created an advanced placement (AP) physics curriculum and co-led a robotics team that placed second in the state competition.
Alissa maintains a pro bono practice, aiding immigrants seeking asylum and serving as a guardian ad litem. She has been recognized on the Capital Pro Bono High Honor Roll.
1:20-cv-00510, D. Del., Judge Wolson
1:23-cv-00005, D. Del., Judge Wolson
IPR2023-00333, -00334, PTAB
22-2062 , Fed. Cir.
IPR2021-00417, -00418, -00419, PTAB, Judges Galligan, Repko, White
Bright Data Ltd. v. NetNut Ltd.
Represented NetNut in litigation in the Eastern District of Texas against Bright Data, related to Bright Data’s patents and trade secrets involving proxy server technology. The case resulted in a favorable dismissal for the client.
2:20-cv-00188, E.D. Tex., Judges Gilstrap, Payne
Auth Token LLC v. Fidelity National Information Services, Inc.
3-22-cv-00268, M.D. Fla., Judges Howard, Richardson
Universal Arbor LLC v. Robert Bosch GmbH
2:22-cv-00155, E.D. Tex., Judges Gilstrap, Payne
Nested Bean, Inc. v. Big Beings USA Pty. Ltd. et al.
Representing Big Beings dba Love To Dream in an IPR before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) involving baby swaddle suits.
IPR2020-01234, PTAB, Judges Weatherly, Cherry, Pinkerton
In the Matter of Certain Semiconductor Devices and Products Containing the Same
Achieved a comprehensive victory for respondent Innoscience, a global leader in gallium nitride (GaN) power devices, in a high-profile patent dispute before the U.S. International Trade Commission (ITC). The ITC’s Final Determination confirms that Innoscience avoided all patent claims asserted by Infineon.
337‑TA‑1414, ITC, Judge Moore
Podcasts
Inventorship & the AIA: The Federal Circuit’s First Derivation Decision - Part 2 Inventorship & the AIA: The Federal Circuit’s First Derivation Decision - Part 2
October 13, 2025
Podcasts
Inventorship & the AIA: The Federal Circuit’s First Derivation Decision - Part 1 Inventorship & the AIA: The Federal Circuit’s First Derivation Decision - Part 1
October 8, 2025
Articles
Key Takeaways from BMW’s Victory Against NorthStar Key Takeaways from BMW’s Victory Against NorthStar
April 30, 2024
Articles
Is Hedonic Regression a Viable Damages Framework? The Federal Circuit Leaves this Question Open in VLSI Technology LLC v. Intel Is Hedonic Regression a Viable Damages Framework? The Federal Circuit Leaves this Question Open in VLSI Technology LLC v. Intel
January 30, 2024
Webinar
Patent Damages and Valuation, Part II: Geographic Scope Patent Damages and Valuation, Part II: Geographic Scope
August 29, 2023
Webinar
Webinar
Patent Damages and Valuation, Part I: Value Apportionment Patent Damages and Valuation, Part I: Value Apportionment
August 15, 2023
Webinar
Press Release
Finnegan Secures Decisive ITC Victory for Innoscience in Final Determination Finnegan Secures Decisive ITC Victory for Innoscience in Final Determination
May 11, 2026
Commentary
ITC Bars Import of Innoscience Chips Made Before Redesign ITC Bars Import of Innoscience Chips Made Before Redesign
May 8, 2026
Law360Commentary
CBP Clears Redesigned Innoscience Chips After ITC Case CBP Clears Redesigned Innoscience Chips After ITC Case
March 12, 2026
Law360Press Release
Finnegan Secures Major ITC Victory in Initial Determination for Innoscience Finnegan Secures Major ITC Victory in Initial Determination for Innoscience
January 29, 2026
Commentary
ITC Judge Clears Innoscience's Redesigned Semiconductor ITC Judge Clears Innoscience's Redesigned Semiconductor
January 29, 2026
Law360Announcement
Finnegan Announces 2025 Mentors of the Year Finnegan Announces 2025 Mentors of the Year
December 19, 2025
Due to international data regulations, we’ve updated our privacy policy. Click here to read our privacy policy in full.