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 48 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 13 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.

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 was named one of Intellectual Property Today’s most influential people in IP law, in May of 2018 he was named one of Managing Intellectual Property’s “IP stars,” and he was also recognized by IAM Patent 1000 in the field of Patent Law. Most recently he has been again named among both Best Lawyers and International Advisory Experts leading attorneys in the field of Intellectual Property for 2020.


Upcoming Speaking Engagements


Representative Patent Expert Witness Engagements

  • Afilias PLC v. Architelos, Inc., et al.* (No. 1:15cv0014 (LMB/JFA)), United States District Court, Eastern District of Virginia [report, deposition & trial]
  • American Sales Company, LLC, Rochester Drug Co-Operative, Inc. v. Pfizer, Inc., G.D. Searle LLC and Pfizer Asia Pacific PTE, Ltd.* (Civil Action Nos. 2 :14-cv-00361-AWA-DEM), United States District Court, Eastern District of Virginia [rebuttal report & deposition]
  • Amgen Inc. et al. * v. Sanofi-Aventis et al. (Civil Action No. 1:14-CV-01317-SLR), United States District Court, District of Delaware [report & deposition]
  • Amneal Pharmaceuticals, LLC v. Supernus Pharmaceuticals, LLC* (Case Nos. IPR2013-00368,00371 and 00372) USPTO PTAB [declarations and deposition]
  • Bal Seal Engineering, Inc.* v. Nelson Products, Inc., Carl Nelson, and DOES 1-5 (Case No. SACV13-01880 JLS (KESx), United States District Court for the Central District of California [declaration & deposition]
  • Cave Consulting Group, Inc.* v. OptumInsight, Inc. (Case No. 3:15-cv-03424). U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, San Francisco Division [report, amended report, supplemental report & deposition]
  • 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 & depostion]
  • Elbit Systems Land and C4I Ltd., et al.* v. Hughes Network Systems, LLC et al., (C.A. No. 2:15-cv-00037-RWS-RSP), United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, Marshall Division [report, rebuttal report & deposition]
  • Eli Lilly & Company* v. Government of Canada, (Case No. UNCT/14/2), In the Arbitration under the Arbitration Rules of the United Nations Commission on International Trade Law and the North American Free Trade Agreement [report, reply report & arbitration]
  • Energy Heating, LLC, and Rocky Mountain Oil Field Services, LLC and Marathon Oil Corporation and Marathon Oil Company* v. Heat-On-The Fly, LLC and Superheaters North Dakota, LLC (Case No. 4:13-cv-010-RRE-ARS), United States District Court for the District of North Dakota, Northwestern Division [report, deposition & trial]
  • Enventure Global Technology, Inc.* v. Mohawk Energy Ltd., et al. (Civil Action No. 4:15-cv-1053), United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas [rebuttal report & declaration]
  • Enzo Life Science, Inc. v. Abbott Laboratories et al.* (Civil Action No. 12-274-LPS), United States District Court for the District of Delaware [report, reply report & deposition]
  • Ethox Chemicals, L.L.C. et al.* v. The Coca-Cola Company (Civil Action No. 6:12-cv-01682-TMC), United States District Court, District of South Carolina, Greenville Division [report, deposition, supplemental report & trial]
  •  Fresenius Kabi USA, LLC v. Fera Pharmaceuticals, LLC, Oakwood Laboratories, LLC and Maia Pharmaceuticals, Inc.* (Civil Action No. 2:15-cv-3654-KM-MAH), United States District Court, District of New Jersey [report, reply report & deposition]
  • 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]
  • Gilead Sciences, Inc. and Emory University v. Mylan Inc. and Mylan Pharmaceuticals Inc.*, (Case No. 1:14-cv-99-IMK-JSK), United States District Court, Northern District of West Virginia, Clarksburg [report]
  • Greg Barela v. Brock USA, LLC, d/b/a Brock International*, JAG Arbitration No. 2015-1031A (The Honorable Boyd N. Boland) [report & declaration]
  • IFM Therapeutics, Inc.* v. Lycera Corp., C.A. 17-cv-608 (LPS), United States District Court, District of Delaware [report]
  • 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]
  • Immunomedics, Inc. v. Roger Williams Medical Center, Richard P. Junghans, M.D., Ph.D., and Steven C. Katz, M.D.* (Civil Action No. 2:15-cv-04526-JLL-SCM), United States District Court for the District Of New Jersey [report]
  • 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 Dental Implants, (Investigation No. 337-TA-934), United States International Trade Commission, Washington, D.C. [report for Nobel Biocare*, deposition, rebuttal witness statement]
  • In re Certain Recombinant Factor VIII Products (Investigation No. 337-TA-956), United States International Trade Commission Washington, D.C. [report, rebuttal witness statement for Baxter* & deposition]
  • iRadar SDN BHD v. Nuctech Company Limited and Tsinghua University*, (Guaman Sivil Ni. 22IP-61-11/2015), Dalam Mahkamah Tinggi Malaya Di Kuala Lumpur [affidavit]
  •  Janssen Biotech, Inc. & New York University* v. Celltrion Healthcare Co., LTD., Celltrion, Inc. and Hospira, (Civil Action No. 1:15-cv-10698). United States District Court, District of Massachusetts [declaration]
  • Legacy Separators, LLC v. Halliburton Energy Services, Inc. and J. Wayne Richards*, Civil Action No. 4-14-cv-02081 (Lead Case), United States District Court, Southern District of Texas [report]
  • LEO Pharma A/S, LEO Laboratories Limited, and LEO Pharma, Inc., v. Actavis Laboratories UT, Inc.*, (C.A. No. 16-333-JFB-SRF), United States District Court for the District of Delaware [report]
  • LifeNet Health* v. LifeCell Corporation, (Civil Action No. 2:13cv486-HCM-DEM), United States District Court, Eastern District of Virginia, Norfolk Division [report, deposition & trial]
  • Lifetime Products, Inc. v. Maxchief Investments, Ltd. et al.*, (American Arbitration Association Case No. 01-15-0003-4448), AAA International Centre for Dispute Resolution [ report ]
  • MacroPoint, LLC* v. FourKites, Inc, (Civil Action No. 1:15-cv-1002), United States District Court for the Northern District of Ohio [declaration]
  • Masimo Corporation* v. Mindray DS USA, INC. and Shenzhen Mindray Bio-Medical Electronics Co., LTD, (Civil Action No. 2:15-cv-0457 (SDW)(SCM)), United States District Court, Central District of California, Southern Division [rebuttal report and deposition]
  •  Nalco Company, LLC* v. Baker Hughes Incorporated and Baker Petrolite Corporation, (Civil Action No. 4:09-cv-01885), United States District Court, Southern District of Texas [report]
  • Nalu Kai Incorporated, dba “Naish Sails Hawait”* v. Hawaii Airboards, LLC, (Case No. 1:14-cv-112-LEK-RLP), United States District Court, District of Hawaii [report]
  • Nippon Steel & Sumitomo Metal Corporation* v. POSCO and POSCO America Corporation, (Civil Action No. 2:12-cv-02429-DMC-MF), United States District Court, District of New Jersey [report & deposition]
  • ORBCOMM, Inc.* v. CalAmp Corp., (Civil Action No. 3:16-cv-208), United States District Court, Eastern District of Virginia [report & deposition]
  • Papst Licensing GmbH & Co. KG v. LG Electronics, Inc. et al., Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd., et al., ZTE (USA), Inc., Lenovo (United States) Inc. and Motorola Mobility, Inc.,* (Case Nos. 6:15-cv-1099-RWS, 6:15-cv-1102-RWS, 6:15-cv-1100-RWS and 6:15-cv-1111-RWS), United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas [report]
  • 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]
  • Separation Design Group IP Holdings, LLC v. Inogen, Inc.*, Case No. 2:15-cv-08323-JAK-(JPRx), United States District Court, Central District of California [report, declaration]
  • Shire LLC* v. Amerigen Pharmaceuticals Limited, (Civil Action No. 14-6095 (RMB/JS)), United States District Court, District of New Jersey [report, & deposition]
  • TAS Energy Inc.* v. Stellar Energy Americas, Inc. (Case No. 8:14-cv-3145-T-30MAP), United States District Court, Middle District of Florida [declaration & counter-declaration]
  • The University of Utah v. Max-Planck-Gesellschaft E.V., Max-Planck-Innovation GmbH, Whitehead Institute for Biomedical Research, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Alnylam Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Robert L. Caret, James R. Julian, Christina M. Wilda and James P. McNamara*, (Civil Action No. 1:11-cv-10484), United States District Court, District of Massachusetts [report & deposition]
  •  Wisconsin Alumni Research Foundation* v. Apple Inc., (Case No. 14-cv-00062-WMC), United States District Court, Western Division of Wisconsin [report & deposition]

Andrew Ramos

Andrew Ramos is an associate at Maier & Maier, PLLC. He earned his J.D. from The George Washington University Law School where he focused on patent law, especially patent litigation and post-grant review. While in law school, he was the Executive Production Editor for the American Intellectual Property Law Association Quarterly Journal and wrote his note on the impact of changes to the Federal Rules for Civil Procedure on patent litigation. He’s studied trends in the PTAB as part of his role as a contributing editor of The PTAB Handbook, where he’s gained extensive knowledge of IPR procedure and PTAB practice. Prior to joining Maier & Maier as a full-time associate, he spent time litigating with two other firms, including trademark infringement casework, before spending six months with Maier & Maier as a student associate.

Andrew’s technical background is in Physics, which he studied at both Columbia University and George Washington University, with his research focusing on instrumentation, specifically on building a muon telescope. His coursework prepared him for a wide array of technical areas as he studied electrodynamics, mechanics, solar technology, alternative energy engineering, biophysics, organic chemistry, and computer programming.


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).


ByungWoong Park

Maier & Maier PLLC 의 associate 인 박병웅 변호사는 Washington DC Bar (1029594) 와 USPTO (L1080) 에 등록된 미국 특허 변호사 입니다.  박병웅 변호사는 주로 특허 출원 및 심사 대응, 침해 의견서 작성, 특허 포트폴리오 관련 자문 업무를 맡고 있으며, 박병웅 변호사가 주로 다루는 기술 분야는 전자, 전기 및 컴퓨터 공학으로서 display devices, mobile devices, telecommunication standards, semiconductor, computer software, and electric cars 등을 포함하고 있습니다.

Maier & Maier와 함께하기 전, 박병웅 변호사는 삼성전자에서 엔지니어로 근무 하였으며, 디지털 비디오 관련 반도체 설계 및 검증 업무를 수행하였습니다.  재직 중, 디지털 TV 를 위한 System on Chip (Soc) 개발 부서에서 근무하였으며 미국 특허(US7779174)를 출원한 바 있습니다.  삼성전자 입사 전, 박병웅 변호사는 경북대학교 전기전자 공학부를 졸업하였습니다.

아울러, Washington D.C. bar member 인 박병웅 변호사는 한동 국제 법률대학원에서 J.D. 과정을 이수하였으며, USPTO Patent Agent 자격을 함께 소지하였습니다.


Yuko Yokoyama

Yuko Yokoyama는 Maier & Maier 에서 일본인 특허 전문 기술 자문으로서 중요한 역할을 하고 있습니다. Maier & Maier 에 합류하기 전, Yuko Yokoyama는 일본의 Sony 에서 특허 출원 및 소송 담당 팀에서 핵심적인 역할을 담당했었습니다. 기계공학, Consumer Product, 네비게이션, 인쇄기술, IC카드, 네트워크 서비스, 컴퓨터 응용 Business Methods, 통신 프로토콜, 비디오 데이터 압축 기술, 보안 및 의료 장비 등의 기술 분야의 특허 업무에 심도있는 경험과 노하우를 쌓아 왔습니다.

Sony에서 근무하는 동안 Yuko Yokoyama는 미국 특허 및 소송 전략을 담당하였으며, 이러한 경험을 바탕으로 미국 외 기업의 미국 특허 전략에 대해 탁월한 조언을 해드릴 수 있습니다.

Yuko Yokoyama는 일본의 Sophia University에서 기계공학 학사 학위를 취득하였으며, 일본어와 영어를 능통하게 구사할 수 있습니다.

또한, Yuko Yokoyama는 Japan Intellectual Property Association의 멤버로서 활발히 활동하고 있습니다.


Christopher Ohslund

Chris Ohslund는 미국 특허청에 등록된 특허 변호사로서 특허 출원, 소송, 무효심판, 특허 포트폴리오 분석, 개발 및 관리, 다양한 특허 의견서 작성 등을 포함하는 특허 전반의 업무를 수행하고 있습니다.

Chris Ohslund 변호사는 기계, 로봇 및 메카트로닉스(mechatronics), 전자 및 컴퓨터, 소프트웨어, Business Method, 의료 장비 등 다양한 기술 분야의 특허 업무를 수행한 바 있습니다.


Timothy M. Harbeck

Tim Harbeck 변호사는 미국 특허청에 등록된 특허 변호사로서 특허 출원, 재심사, 소송, 무효심판, 특허 유효성 및 침해여부 분석 특허 로드맵 분석 및 작성, 지적재산권 매매 등을 포함하는 특허 전반의 업무를 수행하고 있습니다.

Tim Harbeck 변호사는 기계, 소프트웨어, 의료 장비, 자동차 등의 기술 분야에서 특허 업무 경험을 쌓아 왔습니다. 특히, Tim Harbeck 변호사는 미국 특허청 심사관 경력을 가지고 있으며, 심사관으로서 Business Method 및 소프트웨어 특허심사를 담당했었습니다.


Daniel J. Ehrlich

Daniel Ehrlich 변호사는 미국 특허청에 등록된 특허 변호사로서, 실용특허, 디자인특허, 상표권의 출원 및 소송을 포함하는 지적재산권 전반의 업무를 수행하고 있습니다. 또한, 기계, 인터넷, 소프트웨어, 전자 및 컴퓨터, 의료장비를 포함하는 다양한 기술 분야의 특허업무에 경험을 쌓아 왔습니다.

Daniel Ehrlich 변호사는 Vanderbilt University에서 이학사(Bachelor of Science degree)자격을 취득했습니다. 학부과정에서 그는 주 전공으로 공학 기술을 근간으로 한 기업가 정신에 대해 연구했으며, 부전공으로 경제학을 공부했습니다. 그러한 과정에서 Daniel Ehrlich 는 지적재산권의 중요성을 인식하게 되었고 이것이 특허분야의 경력을 시작하게 된 동기가 되었습니다.

Vanderbilt 를 졸업한 후 Daniel Ehrlich는 일리노이주 시카고의 한 로펌에서 로클럭(law clerk)으로서 특허 소송 업무 경험을 쌓았습니다. Daniel Ehrlich변호사는 Villanova 로스쿨을 우수생(cum laude)으로 졸업하였습니다. Villanova 로스쿨 재학 중 Daniel Ehrlich변호사는 Environmental Law Journal, Phi Delta Phi Legal Honor Society 멤버로 활동하였습니다.


Christopher J. Maier

Christopher Maier 변호사는 미국 특허청에 등록된 특허 변호사로서 특허 출원, 재심사, 소송, 무효심판 등을 포함한 지적재산권 전반에 대한 업무를 수행하고 있습니다. 또한 지금까지 전자 및 컴퓨터, 소프트웨어, 기계, 의료 장비 등을 포함하는 다양한 기술 분야에서 특허 경험을 쌓아 왔습니다.

Christopher Maier 변호사는 특허 심사관으로서 미국 특허청에 근무한 경력을 가지고 있습니다. 심사관으로서 재직할 당시 담당했던 분야는 디스플레이 및 컴퓨터 관련 기술이었습니다.

또한, Christopher Maier 변호사는 지재권 최신 트렌드와 전략에 대해 다양한 국가에서 강사로 활동하고 있습니다. 그는 American Intellectual Property Law Association (AIPLA) 의 위원장을 역임했으며, 재직 중 AIPLA의 다양한 국내외 미팅을 주관한바 있습니다. 또한, Patent Resources Group (PRG) 의 교수진으로 재직했습니다.