Massachusetts Institute of Technology, M.S., Mechanical Engineering, 1996
Massachusetts Institute of Technology, M.S., Nuclear Engineering, 1996
Manhattan College, B.S., magna cum laude, Mechanical Engineering, 1994
New York, 2001
U.S. Court of Appeals, Fed. Cir., 2004
U.S. District Court, S.D. N. Y., 2001
U.S. District Court, E.D. N Y., 2001
U.S. District Court, D. Conn., 2005
U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, 2000
I work with my clients to create as much value for them as I can by implementing a comprehensive intellectual property protection and enforcement strategy. While I primarily focus on implementing patent protection strategies, I regularly leverage some combination of patent, trademark and copyright strategy to achieve comprehensive protection. I take a holistic approach to each client’s needs to achieve protection that is both comprehensive and sensible. I have a considerable background in various technological disciplines that has helped me to protect the interests of many clients in diverse industries.
I have defended many clients against charges of patent infringement in various technological areas spanning from MRI scanners to industrial chemistry and manufactured goods. My approach to intellectual property strategy and tactics has been shaped by that experience on a fundamental level. By knowing how intellectual property rights can be dissected and defeated, I am better prepared to obtain protection that is difficult for my clients’ competitors to thwart.
Outside of work, I enjoy spending time with my family and breathing new life into old cars.
Practicing Patent Law & Prosecution
I represent clients in all aspects of patent law and prosecution covering all types of technology, including physical sciences and biomedical technologies applicable to the life sciences. I work with managing portfolios, patent applications and intellectual property due diligence for companies of all sizes. I also have an excellent track record litigating patent disputes in Federal Court on behalf of my clients.
Developed domestic and international patent portfolio for company pioneering new approaches in laparoscopic surgical ports acquired in 2016 for $265,000,000
Vastly expanded domestic and international patent portfolio for medical device company pioneering advances in laparoscopic suturing devices to block Fortune 50 competitor that later stopped selling product.
Performed extensive patent due diligence and freedom to operate analyses in the field of spinal implants for Global Healthcare Company in support of acquisitions of spinal implant companies for $170,000,000 and $60,000,000.
Secured patents for client’s revolutionary tamper evident packaging product that became foundation of client’s multimillion dollar annual revenue stream; patents successfully asserted in multiple litigations to exclude competitors from market.
Developed domestic and international patent strategy for client in nanocomposite electroplating technologies; successfully provoked patent Interference in the United States Patent and Trademark Office on behalf of the client against aerospace giant, resulting in lucrative settlement for client.
Developed University patent portfolios in various fuel cell technologies.
Counseled and developed strategic patent portfolio for well-known engine valve-train manufacturer in support of multimillion dollar patent monetization program.
Developing and expanding domestic and international patent portfolio for engine company pioneering advances in rotary engines.
Executing domestic and international patent portfolio strategy for client pioneering advances in MR Imaging.
Represented social media companies in various stages of development in intellectual property matters relating to patent landscaping, patent preparation and prosecution, and trademark and copyright counseling.
Developed and expanded domestic and international patent and trademark portfolio for company pioneering advances in extremity MRI systems, later acquired by General Electric.
Union Oil Co. of California v. Atlantic Richfield Co. et. al. (C.D. Cal.) Represented defendants in patent infringement action involving reformulated gasoline; overturned $365 M judgment.
Medrad, Inc. v. MRI Devices Corporation (W.D. Pa.) Represented defendant in patent infringement action involving transmit/receive phased array radio frequency imaging coils.
ScanMed of Medic, Inc. v. General Electric Medical Systems (D. Nebr.) Represented defendant in patent infringement action involving phased array radio frequency imaging coils.
MCW Research Foundation, Inc. v. MRI Devices Corporation (E.D. Wisc.) Represented defendant in patent infringement action involving functional MRI (“fMRI”) imaging technology.
FP International v. Pactiv Corporation et al., (D. Del.) Represented defendants in patent infringement action involving inflatable packaging cushion technology.
General Hospital Supply Corp. v. Velmed, Inc. (W.D.N.C.) Represented plaintiff in patent infringement action involving protective inserts for sterilization wraps for surgical instrument trays.
GeneralHospital Supply Corp. v. Aspen Surgical Prods., Inc. (W.D.N.C.) Represented plaintiff in patent infringement action involving protective inserts for sterilization wraps for surgical instrument trays.
Velmed, Inc. v. General Hospital Supply Corp. (W.D.N.C.) Represented defendant in patent infringement action involving protective inserts for sterilization wraps for surgical instrument trays.
Wellman, Inc. v. Eastman Chem. Co. (D. Del.) Represented plaintiff in patent infringement action involving polyethylene terephthalate (“PET”) formulations, including characterization of thermal, optical and colorimetric properties. Obtained reversal of patent invalidation before Federal Circuit to leverage settlement agreement.
General Hospital Supply Corp. v. Cygnus Medical, et al. (D. Conn) Represented plaintiff in patent infringement action involving sterilization tray liners for surgical instruments.
S.O.I. Tec Silicon on Insulator Technologies S.A. et al v. MEMC Electronic Materials Inc. (D. Del.) Represented defendant in patent infringement action involving silicon ingot manufacturing.
E.I. Du Pont De Nemours et al. v. Macdermid, Inc. et al. (D. Del.) Represented plaintiff in patent infringement action involving flexographic printing plate technology.
Accuscan, Inc. v. Xerox Corp. (S.D.N.Y.), Represented plaintiff in patent infringement action involving circuitry for implementing grayscale reproduction on photocopiers.
Yamaha Hatsudoki Kabushiki Kaisha et al. v. Bombardier, Inc., et al. (C.D. Cal) Represented defendants in patent infringement action involving personal watercraft.
Kelly v. W.L. Gore Assocs., et al. (D. Colo.) Represented defendant in misappropriation case involving artificial vascular grafts employing expanded PolyTetraFluoroEthylene (“ePTFE”).
Plasma Physics Corp, et al v. Fujitsu Limited, et al.(E.D.N.Y.) Represented defendants in patent infringement action involving display screens manufactured using plasma enhanced chemical vapor deposition.
Tama Plastic Industry v. Karatzi Industrial and Hotel Enterprises, S.A. et al. (C.D. Cal) Represented plaintiff in patent infringement action involving plastic pallet netting.
Automated Packaging Technologies, LLC v. Tama Plastic Industry et al. (M.D. Fla.) Represented defendant in patent infringement action involving plastic pallet netting.
Rockwell Automation, Inc. et al. v. Wago Corp. et al. (W.D. Wis) Represented plaintiffs in patent infringement action involving software and hardware for automated manufacturing.
Stafford et al. v. Edwards et al. (Interference No. 105,321) Represented senior party in patent interference involving polymers having inorganic fillers for making stretch blow-molded containers with reduced coefficient of friction. Resulted in favorable settlement for client.
Provost v. Goulait et al. (Interference No. 103,718) Represented senior party in patent interference involving fastening hook and loop fasteners using non-woven fabrics. Resulted in favorable settlement for client.
Nardi et al. v. Datta et al. (Interference No. 105,889) Represented junior party in patent interference involving electroplated nanocrystalline coatings. Resulted in favorable settlement for client.
Ex Parte Reexamination of U.S. Patent No. 6,325,380, entitled “Face Seal Assembly,” assigned to Burgmann Industries GmbH & Co. Ex Parte Reexamination 90/007,875 filed on January 17, 2006, reexamination certificate issued on November 20, 2007 (claims amended during reexamination). Reexamination pursued on behalf of patent holder.
Ex Parte Reexamination of U.S. Patent No. 5,288,393, entitled “Gasoline Fuel” assigned to Union Oil Co. of California, Ex Parte Reexamination No. 90/005,924, filed February 6, 2001 and Reexamination No. 90/006,295, filed May 20, 2002, patent dedicated to the public on August 11, 2005; benefit of outcome of reexamination proceedings accorded to defendants in Union Oil Co. of California v. Atlantic Richfield Co. et. al. (C.D. Cal.) on May 16, 2002. Reexaminations filed on behalf of defendant litigants.
IPR2016-00071 – Institution denied against client’s patent
IPR2015-01234 – Institution denied against client’s patent.
IPR2015-01337 – Institution denied against client’s patent.
IPR2015-01370 – Petition Dismissed pursuant to joint motion.
IPR2015-01338 – Petition Dismissed pursuant to joint motion.
IPR2015-01229 – Petition Dismissed pursuant to joint motion.
IPR2015-01336 – Petition Dismissed pursuant to joint motion.
Communications sent to Winthrop & Weinstine via e-mail may not be secure, do not create an attorney/client relationship, are not and should not be considered to be confidential and may not be protected by attorney/client privilege. We will not take any action in response to your e-mail unless and until we have expressly agreed to be engaged by you, which is typically done in writing. If you are looking for legal representation, you should contact us by phone.
If you understand and agree with these terms, please click on the "I Agree" button to send us an email. Otherwise, please click "Cancel."