Source: http://addylaw.com/appellate-representation
Timestamp: 2019-04-20 22:16:31+00:00

Document:
A leading figure before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, I have handled more than 50 appeals on behalf of both appellant and appellee.
I am deeply experienced in patent appeals before the Federal Circuit, our nation's highest patent court. For almost a decade, I was a member of the Federal Circuit Advisory Council that reports directly to the Chief Judge of the Federal Circuit. I have also served as a member of the Federal Circuit Bar Association’s Board of Directors. Early in my career, I was a law clerk for the Honorable Paul R. Michel, Circuit Judge, U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit.
Represented defense contractor-patentee as appellee on appeal from a favorable decision of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) holding that specific claims of its patents were not invalid based on prior art. Elbit Sys. Am. v. Thales Visionix, Inc. (Fed. Cir. 2018).
Represented American Intellectual Property Law Association (AIPLA) as amicus curiae on writ of certiorari about the proper interpretation of the patent venue statute, 28 U.S.C. § 1400(b). TC Heartland LLC v. Kraft Foods Group Brands LLC (S. Ct. 2017).
Represented Professor Raymond A. Mercado Ph.D. and Inventor Groups as amicus curiae on petition for writ of certiorari in a case about the proper application of 35 U.S.C. § 101. RecogniCorp, LLC. v. Nintendo CO., Ltd. (S. Ct. 2017).
Represented appellant defense contractor on successful appeal reversing a decision from the Court of Federal Claims that its patent was not valid as covering patent-ineligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101. Thales Visionix, Inc. v. Elbit Systems, Inc. (Fed. Cir. 2017).
Represented patentee on petition for writ of certiorari in case about scope of analysis when determining patent-eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101. Evolutionary Intelligence v. Sprint Nextel, et al. (Fed. Cir. 2017).
Represented Intellectual Property Law Association of Chicago as amicus curiae on petition for writ of certiorari in case about the scope of analysis when determining patent-eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101. Synopsys v. Mentor Graphics (S. Ct. 2017).
Represented appellant manufacturer of industrial doors on appeal of an adverse decision of the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board (TTAB) that its proposed mark is functional. In re Openings dba Total Door (Fed. Cir. 2017).
Represented patentee on appeal of an adverse decision by the PTAB that its mobile technology patent is not valid. HTC v. IPCom (Fed. Cir. 2016).
Represented international automotive company on appeal from adverse decision of the PTAB. Continental Automotive Systems U.S., Inc. v. Schrader-Bridgeport International, Inc. (Fed. Cir. 2014).
Represented an international electronics company on appeal from final determination of the U.S. International Trade Commission that patents are not infringed. The case was affirmed. Industrial Technology Research v. ITC (Fed. Cir. 2013).
Represented international pharmaceutical company on appeal of a district court decision finding infringement and validity of patents covering Latisse® treatment for thinning eyelashes. Allergan, Inc. v. Apotex (Fed. Cir. 2013).
Represented international pharmaceutical company in appeal of a trial court determination that patents on Pulmicort Respules®, generic budesonide, are either invalid or not infringed. AstraZeneca v. Sandoz (Fed. Cir. 2013).
Represented manufacturing company in successful reversal of an adverse reexamination determination by the USPTO. Randall Mfg. v. Rea (Fed. Cir. 2013).
Represented international airline company as appellee from judgment of noninfringement involving a method for manufacturing e-passports. Case was decided favorably for client. Iris Corporation v. Japan Airlines Int'l Co., Ltd. (Fed. Cir. 2014).

References: v. 
 § 1400
 v. 
 § 101
 v. 
 § 101
 v. 
 § 101
 v. 
 § 101
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.