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., 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.

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:

• Mr. Kunin was recently included in the 2025 edition of The Best Lawyers in America^® for Patent Law.
• Mr. Kunin was also included in the 2024 edition of The Best Lawyers in America^® for Patent Law.
• 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, 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]

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).

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.

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.

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.