Surinder (Sach) Sachar

Surinder (Sach) Sachar is a partner and electrical technology patent attorney.

A former Patent Examiner with the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO), Mr. Sachar handles patents from application through prosecution and has extensive experience in all aspects of patent prosecution, including bringing cases before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB).

An electrical engineer by training, he has worked with high-technology inventions, including high-density optical recording devices and systems, semiconductors, displays, medical instruments, ultrasound devices, mobile communications systems, computers, TVs, consumer electronics, image forming equipment, and telecommunications devices.

For the past 33 years, Mr. Sachar has represented several leading global electronics companies headquartered in Japan helping to protect the intellectual property portfolios of their diverse technologies.

Mr. Sachar also offers opinions and counsels clients on the full range of patent issues, including the interplay of patents, methods to garner strategic and broad patent portfolio protection, and how to avoid infringement of competitor patents. With experience at the USPTO, where he specialized in the fields of magnetic and optical recording systems, Mr. Sachar understands its inner workings and possesses the depth of knowledge, experience, and success to craft the broadest enforceable patents to serve his clients’ business needs.


Michael R. Casey, Ph.D.

Michael R. Casey, Ph.D., is a partner with more than 25 years of experience in patent law including patent litigation, patent prosecution, post grant proceedings, and patent interferences. His practice focuses on all aspects of computer hardware and software, as well as circuit design and telecommunications.

Dr. Casey is experienced representing and counseling electronics and computer-technology clients — both foreign and domestic — on intellectual property law and related issues, including procurement, valuation, licensing and enforcement of intellectual property. His representations include patent litigations before a number of Federal District Courts; appellate arguments before the Federal Circuit; International Arbitrations; post-grant proceedings (including IPRs and CBMs); preparation of patent opinions relating to invalidity, non-infringement, and product clearances; patent preparation and prosecution (U.S. and foreign); and patent interferences.

Dr. Casey earned advanced degrees based on his research in Electrical and/or Computer Engineering, and is a co-author on numerous papers in the areas of distributed, heterogeneous, and mobile computing systems and operating system designs.

Dr. Casey’s technical background covers a variety computer-related technologies and medical device equipment. In the computer field, Dr. Casey’s experience includes circuit design (including parallel processing architectures and field programmable gate arrays); computational intelligence systems (including artificial intelligence (AI), neural networks, bioinformatics, and fuzzy logic), encryption software and applications (including blockchain, digital rights management (DRM) and PKI), computer networking software, hardware and algorithms, electronic commerce, computer graphics and animation, communications algorithms and hardware, and programming languages and methodologies. In the medical device field, Dr. Casey has represented clients in the fields of IV pumps and catheters for guidewires.


Michael J. Collins

Michael Collins has twenty-nine years of experience litigating patent, trade secret, unfair competition and other technology-related matters. In recent years, his practice has concentrated on patent litigation, representing both patent owners and defendants in federal district courts throughout the country. He has also represented clients in post-grant proceedings before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board, Section 337 investigations before the International Trade Commission and appeals before the Federal Circuit. In addition to patent litigation, Michael has substantial experience representing both plaintiffs and defendants in trade secret matters in the state courts of both Texas and Florida. He was named a “Texas Super Lawyer” in the area of Intellectual Property Litigation in each of the years from 2013 through 2018.

Michael has handled cases involving a wide range of technologies, including semiconductors, oil and gas production, materials science, software, consumer electronics, wireless telecommunications systems, LED display panels, vehicle location tracking, optics, building structures, medical devices, food processing, transportation, conventional and nuclear power, petrochemicals, industrial valves, combined cycle gas turbines, petrochemical catalyst handling methods, corrugated packaging, and flywheel energy storage systems.


Stephen Kunin

Mr. Kunin is a Partner at Maier & Maier PLLC, where he specializes in all areas of patent practice. His expertise includes post-issuance proceedings at the United States Patent Office, opinions of counsel, advising attorneys and our clients on complex patent prosecution matters, patent litigation strategy, and United States Patent Office patent policy, practice and procedure, for which he is highly sought after for expert testimony. Mr. Kunin has presented expert testimony covering numerous subjects, including:

  1. Duty of candor and good faith (inequitable conduct)
  2. Subject matter eligibility and utility
  3. Restriction practice and double patenting
  4. Inventorship
  5. Declaration/affidavit practice
  6. Certificates of correction
  7. Petitions practice
  8. Reexamination and reissue
  9. Interferences
  10. Ownership
  11. Statutory disclaimers
  12. Written description
  13. Date of public availability of abandoned applications referenced in prior art publications
  14. Prosecution laches
  15. Right of priority under Paris Convention

In addition to serving as an expert witness, Mr. Kunin has vast experience in providing lectures on recent US patent law developments across the USA, Europe and the Far East.  He has more than 52 years of experience in the patent profession.

After graduating from Washington University (MO) with a Bachelor’s in Science in Electrical Engineering with honors in 1970, Mr. Kunin embarked on his lengthy career over nearly 35 years at the United States Patent Office. He received his JD in law degree with honors in 1975 from The National Law Center at George Washington University. He held many significant positions with the USPTO, which culminated with ten years of service as the Deputy Commissioner for Patent Examination Policy from 1994-2004. While at the USPTO, he was a leading voice in forming patent policy, in revising examination guidelines on subject matter eligibility, utility, non-obviousness and written description, and in establishing reissue and reexamination procedures. Mr. Kunin spearheaded revisions to the Rules of Practice and Manual of Patent Examining Procedure, making key changes to chapters on ex parte reexamination, reissue, and inter partes reexamination.

Since leaving the PTO, Mr. Kunin has been a practicing patent attorney for more than 18 years counseling clients in post-grant patent proceedings at the USPTO and routinely serves as an expert witness in patent litigation cases. He is a registered patent attorney with the USPTO, and admitted to practice in the Commonwealth of Virginia, before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, and before the United States Supreme Court. From 2005 through 2017, Mr. Kunin served as the Intellectual Property Program Director at the Antonin Scalia School of Law at George Mason University, while teaching patent and intellectual property law classes as an adjunct professor of law.

Recognitions and Awards

Over the course of his illustrious career, Mr. Kunin has received many notable awards, including the Meritorious Executive Presidential Rank Award, The Vice President’s Reinventing Government Hammer Award, four Gold Medals, three Silver Medals, and one Bronze Medal from the Department of Commerce, and a Career Achievement Award from the USPTO. He has been named one of Intellectual Property Today’s most influential people in IP law, he was recognized by IAM Patent 1000 in the field of Patent Law, and he has been named among both Best Lawyers and International Advisory Experts leading attorneys in the field of Intellectual Property.

Most recently:

  • In June of 2022 he was again named one of Managing Intellectual Property’s “IP stars.”
  • Mr. Kunin has been selected as a 2022 Go To Intellectual Property Lawyer by Virginia Lawyers Weekly and his profile is set to appear in the September 26, 2022 issue of Virginia Lawyers Weekly.
  • On August 18, 2022, Best Lawyers® Mr. Kunin was selected by his peers for recognition of professional excellence in the 29th edition of The Best Lawyers in America® for work in Patent Law.

Representative Patent Expert Witness Engagements

  • Allergan Sales* v. Sandoz, (Civil Action No. 2 :17-cv-10129-CCC-MF), United States District Court for the District of New Jersey [report & deposition]
  • Amarin Pharma* v. Hikma Pharms, (Case No. 2 :16-cv-02525-MMD-NJK), United States District Court, District of Nevada [rebuttal report & deposition]
  • AstraZeneca Canada, Inc. v. Teva Canada Ltd*, (Case No. T-592-21), Canadian Federal Court (Ottawa), [report]
  • Beacon Point Capital v. Philips Electronics North America* (AAA Case No. 50-20-0700-0029), American Arbitration Association [report, deposition, and arbitration hearing]
  • bioMerieux v, Hologic et al.*(Civil Action No. 18-21-LPS-CJB), United States District Court for the District of Delaware [reply report & deposition]
  • Black Horse Capital* v. Auxilium Pharms., Inc., (AAA Case No. 01-20-000-3951), American Arbitration Association [report]
  • Boehringer Ingelheim Pharms, Inc.* v. Aurobindo Pharms USA, Inc. et al. (Civil Action No. 17-7887 (MAS)(LHG), United States District Court for the District of New Jersey [report & deposition]
  • Boston Scientific Corp., Inc.* v. Cook Group, Inc. et al. (Civil Action No. 1:17-cv-03448-JRS-MJD, United States District Court for the Northern District of Indiana, Indianapolis Division [report & deposition]
  • Comcast Cable Communications, LLC* v. Rovi Guides, Inc., Inter Partes Review No, IPR2020-00787, USPTO PTAB [declaration]
  • DRIT LP* v. Glaxo Group Limited and Human Genome Sciences, Inc. (C.A. No. N16C-07-218 WCC CCLD), Superior Court of the State of Delaware [report, deposition & trial]
  • Genzyme Corp.* v. Synpac (AAA ICDR Case No. 01-20-000o-5081), American Arbitration Association [report, rebuttal report & Arbitration Hearing]
  • Gilbert P. Hyatt v. Joseph Matal*, (Civil Action Nos.: 1:09-cv-1864 (RCL), 1:09-cv-1869 (RCL), 1:09-cv-1872 (RCL) and 1:05-cv-2310 (RCL)), United States District Court, District of Columbia [report, rebuttal report deposition & trial]
  • Immunex Corporation, Amgen Manufacturing, Limited and Hoffman-La Roche Inc.* v. Sandoz Inc., Sandoz International GMBH and Sandoz GMBH, (Civil Action No. 2:16-cv-01118-CCC-MF), United States District Court for the District of New Jersey [report, deposition & trial]
  • In re Biogen ’755 Patent Litigation, Civil Action No. 2:10-cv-02734 (CCC)(JBC), United States District Court, District of New Jersey [report for EMD Serono, Inc. and Pfizer, Inc.* and deposition]
  • In re Certain Automated Storage and Retrieval Systems, ITC Investigation No. 337-TA-1228, United States International Trade Commission, Washington, D.C. [report for Ocado*, deposition, witness statement & trial]
  • In re Certain Knitted Footware, ITC Investigation No. 337-TA-1289, United States International Trade Commission, Washington, D.C. [report for Nike*]
  • In re Certain Vehicle Control Systems, Vehicles Containing the Same and Components Thereof, ITC Investigation No. 337-TA-1235, United States International Trade Commission, Washington, D.C. [report for Porsche & VW* & deposition]
  • Lear* v. NHK Seating, (Case No. 2:18-cv-10613-LJM-RSW), United States District Court, Eastern District of Michigan, Southern Division [report, deposition & declaration]
  • Magna Mirrors of America* v. SMR Automotive Systems, (C.A. No. 1:17-cv-00077-RJJ-PJG), United States District Court, Western District of Michigan [report & deposition]
  • Manufacturing Resources, Inc v. Civiq Smartscapes, LLC*, (Civil Action No. 17-269-RGA), United States District Court for the District of Delaware [report, reply report & deposition]
  • MasterObjects, Inc. v. Amazon.com, Inc.*, (Case No. 3:20-cv-08103-WHA), United States District Court for the Northern District of California [report & deposition]
  • Merial, Inc. v. Intervet International B.V.*, (Case No. 0047402-78.2018.4.02.5101), 31 Vara Federal da Secao Judiciaria do Rio de Janeiro (Brazil) [declaration]
  • nCap Licensing, LLC v. Apple, Inc.*, (Case No. 2:17-cv-00905), United States District Court, District of Utah, Central Division [report]
  • Novartis* v. Regeneron, (Case No. 1:18-cv-0234-DLC), United States District Court, Southern District of New York [report & deposition]
  • NuVasive, Inc.* v. Alphatec Holdings, Inc., (Case No. 3:18-cv-00347-CAB-MDD), United States District Court, Southern District of California, San Diego Division [report & deposition]
  • Omni MedSci, Inc. v. Apple, Inc.*, (Case No. 2:18-cv-00134), United States District Court, Eastern District of Texas [report]
  • Palomar Techs.* v. MSRI Systems, (Civil Action No. 1:18-cv-10236-FDS), United States District Court, District of Massachusetts [report, deposition, and trial]
  • Ravgen, Inc*. v. Quest Diagnostics, Inc., (Case No. 2:21-09011-RGK (GJSx)), United States District Court, Central District of California [report & deposition]
  • Sanofi-Aventis U.S. LLC, Genzyme Corp., and Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v. Immunex Corporation* (Case IPR2017-01879), United States Patent and Trademark Office, before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board [declaration]
  • Sanofi-Aventis U.S. LLC, Genzyme Corp., and Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v. Immunex Corporation* (Case IPR2017-01884), United States Patent and Trademark Office, before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board [declaration]
  • E. Fred Schubert v. Lumileds, LLC*, (Case No. 1:12-cv-924-MN), United States District Court, District of Delaware [report & deposition]
  • Semicaps PTE LTD v. Hamamatsu Corporation et al. (Case No. 17-cv-03440-DMR), United States District Court, Northern District of California [rebuttal report]
  • The Sherwin-Williams Co. v. PPG Industries, Inc.*, (Case No. 2:17-cv-01023-JFC), United States District Court, Western District of Pennsylvania [report & deposition]
  • Taiho Pharmaceutical Co., LTD* v. Natco Pharma LTD et al., (Civil Action No. 19-2368-CFC), United States District Court, District of Delaware [report; supplemental report & deposition]
  • Trading Technologies International, Inc.* v. IBG LLC et al., (Case No. 1:10-CV-00715), United States District Court, Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division [report & deposition]
  • Trading Technologies International, Inc.* v. IBG LLC et al., (Case No. 1:10-CV-00715), United States District Court, Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division [report & deposition]
  • Ultravision Techs., LLC v. Samsung Elecs., Co. et al*., (Case No. 2:19-CV-00252-JRG-RSP), United States District Court, Eastern District of Texas, Marshall Division [report]
  • W.R. Grace, Inc.* v. Elysium Health, (C.A. No. 1:20-1098-CFC-JLH), United States District Court, District of Delaware [report]
  • Zest Labs, Inc. v. Walmart, Inc.*, (Case No. 4;18-cv-00500-JM, United States District Court, Eastern District of Arkansas [report, deposition & declaration]

Daniel J. Ehrlich

Daniel Ehrlich is a registered patent attorney and practices all aspects of intellectual property law, including the prosecution and litigation of utility patents, design patents, and trademarks. Daniel has experience working across a variety of technological disciplines, including mechanical engineering, the Internet of Things, software, electrical and computer engineering, and medical device technologies.

Daniel received his Bachelor of Science degree from Vanderbilt University, where he majored in Engineering Science with a focus in technology based entrepreneurship and minored in Economics. The confluence of his pursuits at Vanderbilt led Daniel to pursue a career in intellectual property law. After graduating from Vanderbilt, Daniel worked as a law clerk for a patent litigation firm in Chicago, Illinois. Daniel continued his education at Villanova University School of Law, graduating cum laude. While at Villanova, Daniel served on the Environmental Law Journal and was a member of the Phi Delta Phi Legal Honor Society.


Timothy J. Maier

Mr. Maier is a registered Patent Attorney and practices all aspects of Intellectual Property Law. Mr. Maier’s practice includes patent preparation and prosecution; patent and trademark litigation; design patents, trademark oppositions, patent reissue and reexamination proceedings; interference practice; strategic domestic and international patent and trademark portfolio development and management; patentability, validity, invalidity, infringement, freedom to operate, design around opinions and counseling, patent portfolio landscape analysis and due diligence opinions. Mr. Maier’s technical expertise includes various aspects of electrical engineering, electro-mechanical, mechanical, industrial, wireless technology, software enabled systems, financial systems and telecommunication engineering. Mr. Maier has serviced clients in highly competitive technical areas, including, medical devices, RFID technology, financial products, telecommunications, consumer electronics, cosmetic devices, packaging, semiconductors, e-commerce software, optics, and business methods.

Mr. Maier’s experience and expertise most recently has focused on providing a range of patent services to clients and developing patent strategies that complement the client’s business objectives. In particular, he enjoys developing and managing patent portfolios for the world market, for both start-up, middle market and Fortune 500 companies. To this end, he also analyzes competitors’ patent portfolios and products to counsel clients regarding enhancement and enforcement of their patent portfolio, potential investment of contemplated products, strategic design-around, and acquisition of technology.

Prior to founding Maier & Maier PLLC , Mr. Maier was formerly an attorney with Oblon, Spivak, McClelland, Maier & Neustadt P.C. .

Mr. Maier received his Bachelor of Science from Vanderbilt University and Masters in Telecommunications Engineering from George Mason University School of Engineering and his Law degree from George Mason University School of Law. Mr. Maier completed the Intellectual Property Law sequence while attending George Mason University School of Law, an intense concentration in intellectual property law.

Mr. Maier is licensed to practice before the United States Patent Office, Supreme Court of Virginia, Eastern District Court of Virginia, and the Court of Appeals for the 4th Circuit. He is a member of the Virginia State Bar (VSB), American Bar Association (ABA Patents, Trademarks and Copyright Divisions), Licensing Executives Society (LES), Association Internationale pour la Protection de la Propriété Intellectuelle (AIPPI, published articles) and American Intellectual Property Association (AIPLA, elected to two year committee term).

Currently Mr. Maier is a faculty member with Patent Resource Group, providing lectures around the United States to broad audiences on patent prosecution and enforcement in Asian countries, including Japan, Korea and China. and is an author for www.postgrant.com , a leading intellectual property law blog .


Christopher J. Maier

Chris Maier is a registered patent attorney and practices all aspects of patent prosecution and patent litigation, including inter partes review proceedings and ex parte reexamination at the USPTO, international patent portfolio development and management, and opinion work. Chris has experience working across a variety of technologies, including electrical and computer engineering, software, mechanical engineering, and medical device technologies.

Prior to becoming a patent attorney Chris worked at the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) as a patent examiner. Chris specialized in flat panel display technology as well as associated device driving software and computer control and peripheral devices.

Chris is a frequent lecturer on the latest strategies and trends in intellectual property for both U.S. and international audiences. Chris previously acted as a committee chair for the American Intellectual Property Law Association (AIPLA) and as delegate for numerous AIPLA domestic and international meetings. Additionally, he previously served as a faculty member for the Patent Resources Group (PRG).


Sid V. Pandit

Mr. Pandit’s practice focuses on patent litigation, where his experience includes jury trials, mediations, International Trade Commission Investigations, and Federal Circuit appeals.  Mr. Pandit has litigated cases on a diverse range of technologies, including telecommunications, E-911, location based services, board games, children’s tricycles, credit card systems, do-not-call lists, vehicle tracking systems, snake anti-venoms, and wireless power management and interference.  While Mr. Pandit has litigated in a number of venues around the country, he appears most frequently in the Eastern District of Texas, District of Delaware, and the Eastern District of Virginia.

Mr. Pandit is registered to practice before the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, and has filed post-grant requests (including ex parte reexaminations and Inter Partes Reviews) of patents asserted in litigation matters in which he represents alleged infringers.  Earlier in his career, Mr. Pandit used his background in Electrical Engineering to prepare and prosecute patent applications and draft opinions of counsel.

Outside the context of litigation, Mr. Pandit has represented clients with intellectual property issues related to bankruptcy proceedings and mergers and acquisitions.  Most notably, in a prior position, Mr. Pandit represented a client in a $500 million acquisition of an open-source virtualization company.  Through this and other representations, Mr. Pandit has acquired substantial experience with open-source copyright issues, trade secrets, standards setting bodies, and FRAND issues.  Mr. Pandit also represented Grand Central Communications until it was purchased by Google, where its services are now known as Google Voice.

Mr. Pandit has also served as the de facto in-house IP counsel for a telecommunications company, where he supervised outside counsel for both patent prosecution and litigation.  In doing so, Mr. Pandit worked directly with the General Counsel and Chief Technology Officer to supervise and guide strategy related to the company’s patent prosecution and litigation.  Additionally, Mr. Pandit handled typical in-house duties, including reviewing intellectual property related contract issues, billing issues, press-releases, and best practices.

Mr. Pandit enjoys mentoring younger attorneys and law students, and has served as a Clinical Adjunct Professor at the University of Maryland Law School, where he taught a Patent Law Clinic.

Mr. Pandit currently serves on the Advisory Board of a health care technology company.

Prior to entering the legal field, Mr. Pandit worked at the National Institutes of Health in the Laboratory of Cellular and Molecular Neurophysiology, where he researched and wrote on signaling modalities between neurons and glial cells in the nervous system.  In 2002, Mr. Pandit co-authored the article, “Astrocytes in Adult Rat Brain Express Type 2 Inositol 1,4,5-Trisphosphorate Receptors.” (Glia, May 10, 2002).

Mr. Pandit received his B.S.E.E. from the George Washington University in 2001 and his J.D. from the Catholic University of America Columbus School of Law in 2006. Mr. Pandit is admitted to practice in the District of Columbia, Virginia, the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit.  He is also registered to practice before the United States Patent and Trademark Office.

Representative Engagements

  • Cassidian Communications, Inc. v. microDATA GIS, Inc., et al., E.D.Tex., 2:12-cv-162 (before Judge Gilstrap, on behalf of microDATA GIS, Inc. and TeleCommunication Systems, Inc.) – After a five day trial, obtained a jury verdict of invalidity and non-infringement in a case involving 9-1-1 call routing technology.
  • TracBeam, L.L.C. v. T-Mobile US, Inc., E.D.Tex., 6:14-cv-678 (on behalf of Defendant) – Represent Defendant in suit involving commercial and 9-1-1 location based services technology.  The case is currently pending.
  • Certain Antivenom Compositions and Products Containing the Same, 337-TA-903 (on behalf of one of the Respondents) – settled favorably before trial.
  • TracBeam, L.L.C. v. AT&T Inc. et al., E.D.Tex., 6:14-cv-680 (on behalf of MetroPCS Communications, Inc. and MetroPCS Wireless, Inc.) – Represented defendants in a suit involving commercial and 9-1-1 location based services technology.  The case was dismissed without prejudice.
  • Levine v. Samsung Telecommunications America, LLC, et al., E.D.Tex., 2:09-cv-372 (on behalf of Cellco Partnership d/b/a Verizon Wireless) – Represented one of several defendants in a suit involving navigation technology on mobile devices.  Settled favorably before trial.
  • TeleCommunication Systems, Inc. v. Alfred B. Levine, E.D.Tex., 2:11-cv-430 (before Judge Gilstrap) – Represented the Declaratory Judgment Plaintiff in a suit involving navigation technology on mobile devices.  Settled favorably before trial.
  • Tendler Cellular of Texas, LLC v. MetroPCS Communications, Inc., et al., E.D.Tex., 6:11-cv-178 and 6:11-cv-619 (on behalf of MetroPCS Communications, Inc. and MetroPCS Wireless, Inc.) – Represented defendants in a patent case involving navigation functionality of mobile devices. Settled favorably before trial.
  • Traffic Information, LLC v. Yahoo! Inc. et al., E.D.Tex., 2:09-cv-246 (on behalf of The American Automobile Association, Inc. and RM Acquisition, LLC d/b/a Rand McNally & Company) – Represented defendants in a patent case involving location based services related to mobile devices.  Settled favorably before trial on behalf of six defendants.
  • Traffic Information, LLC v. Huawei Technologies, Co., Ltd. et al., E.D.Tex., 2:10-cv-145 (on behalf of MetroPCS Wireless, Inc. and Cellular USA Inc.) – Represented defendants in a patent case involving location based services related to mobile devices.  Settled favorably before trial on behalf of six defendants.
  • Traffic Information, LLC v. Cricket Communications, Inc. et al., E.D.Tex., 2:10-cv-226 (on behalf of Cricket Communications, Inc. and Networks In Motion, Inc.) – Represented defendants in a patent case involving location based services related to mobile devices.  Settled favorably before trial on behalf of six defendants.
  • Smart Trike USA, LLC v. Heinz Kettler GmbH, et al., New Jersey, Civil Action No. 2:10-cv-02063 (FSH) (on behalf of Plaintiff / Counterclaim-Defendant) – Representing U.S. tricycle distributor in declaratory judgment action for non-infringement, invalidity, and unenforceability against patent holder of four patents related to the steering mechanisms in tricycles.  Case settled favorably after four days of trial.
  • In re Certain Modified Vaccinia Ankara (MVA) Viruses and Vaccinations made therefrom, ITC, Inv. No. 337-TA-550 (on behalf of Complainant) – Provided litigation support in this hotly contested patent infringement case brought in the International Trade Commission, which ultimately led to a settlement with the accused infringers, who agreed to vacate the market for the patented small pox vaccines.
  • Gryphon Networks Corp. v Contact Center Compliance Corp., D. Mass., 1:10-cv-10258 (on behalf of Contact Center Compliance Corp.) – Represented defendant in a suit involving a national do-not-call list.

Other Publications

Lecturer, Patent Prosecution And Litigation, University of Maryland Technology Development Center (November 2008).


Christopher Ohslund

Chris Ohslund is a registered patent attorney and practices all aspects of patent prosecution and patent litigation, including post-grant proceedings at the USPTO, patent portfolio landscape analysis, management, and development, and opinion work. Chris has experience prosecuting patents in a variety of technological fields, including mechanical engineering, robotics and mechatronics, electrical and computer engineering, software, computer-implemented business methods, and medical device technologies.

Prior to becoming a patent attorney, Chris clerked for Maier and Maier as a technical advisor.


Timothy M. Harbeck

Tim Harbeck is a registered patent attorney and practices all aspects of patent prosecution and patent litigation, including inter partes review proceedings and ex parte reexamination at the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO), patent application drafting and prosecution, intellectual property transactions, portfolio management, and opinion work. Tim has experience working across a variety of technologies, including mechanical engineering, software, medical device, and automotive technologies.

Prior to becoming a patent attorney Tim worked at the USPTO as a patent examiner. Tim examined a variety of business method and software patents pertaining to finance, banking and investment, portfolio selection, electronic trading, and securities bid matching.