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.


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).


Timothy J. Maier

Maier先生是注册专利律师并在知识产权法的所有领域执业。Maier先生的执业包括专利准备和申请;专利和商标诉讼;外观专利;商标异议;专利再颁和再审程序;干预实践;战略性国内和国际专利和商标组合开发与管理;可专利性,有效性,无效性,侵权,自由使用权,回避设计意见和咨询,专利组合远景分析以及尽职意见。Maier先生技术特长包括电子工程,机电,机械,工业,无线技术,软件实现的系统,金融系统和电信工程。Maier先生所服务的客户在高度竞争的技术领域,包括机械设备,RFID技术,金融产品,电信,消费电子,美容设备,封装,半导体,电子商务软件,光学和商业方法。

Maier先生最近的经验和技能集中在为客户提供一系列专利服务并开发专利策略来服务客户实现商业目标。具体地,他为世界市场,包括初创中型市场和世界500强公司,开发和管理专利组合。为实现此目的,他也分析竞争对手的专利组合和产品以便向客户提供有关增强和实施其专利组合,预期产品的潜在投资,策略性规避设计和技术收购的建议。

在创立Maier & Maier PLLC之前,Maier先生是Oblon, Spivak, McClelland, Maier & Neustadt P.C.的专利律师。

Maier先生在范德堡大学获得理学学士学位,在乔治梅森大学获得电信工程硕士学位,并在乔治梅森大学法学院获得法学博士学位。Maier先生在乔治梅森大学法学院学习时完成了知识产权法系列课程。

Maier先生在美国专利局,弗吉尼亚州最高法院,弗吉尼亚东区法院和第四巡回上诉法院具有执业许可。他是以下组织的会员,包括弗吉尼亚州律师协会(VSB),美国律师协会(ABA专利,商标和版权分会),许可贸易工作者协会(LES),国际保护知识产权协会(AIPPI,曾发表过文章)和美国知识产权协会(AIPLA,当选两年任期的委员会成员)。

目前,Maier先生是专利资源组的教职成员,为美国各地的听众提供关于亚洲国家专利申请与实施的讲座,包括日本,韩国和中国。Maier先生是www.postgrant.com的发起者,该网站是领先的知识产权法博客。


ByungWoong Park

ByungWoong Park is an associate in Maier & Maier PLLC and a registered U.S. Patent Attorney to practice before the Washington, DC Bar (1029594) and before United States Patent Office (L1080).  He is involved in prosecuting patent applications, writing opinions regarding patentability, infringement and freedom-to-operate and IP portfolio building for large and small companies.    Byung’s work focuses Electronics and Computer technologies including display devices, mobile devices, telecommunication standards, semiconductor, computer software, and electric cars.

Prior to joining Maier & Maier, Byung was an engineer in Samsung Electronics, specializing in digital video processing and integrated chip design, verification and fabrication.  He was involved in developing the system on chip for Digital TV and is an inventor of U.S. patent (US7779174).  Byung graduated from Kyungbook National University in Korea with Bachelor of Electronic Engineering.

He is a member of the Washington D.C Bar, and he earned his Juris Doctor from Handong International law school and is recognized to practice before the USPTO.


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.


Yuko Yokoyama

Yuko Yokoyama is a Japanese Patent Engineer and technical specialist for Maier and Maier. Prior to joining the firm, Yuko was a key member of the patent prosecution and litigation groups for various technologies at Sony in Tokyo, Japan. She has high levels of experience working with video codec and security technologies, medical products, navigation products and location services, IC card and communication technology, network services, and financial services.

Additionally, Yuko is well-versed in international patent prosecution, and focused on U.S. patent prosecution and licensing while with Sony, helping to establish their patent prosecution and litigation strategies in the U.S.

Yuko assists the firm in the preparation and prosecution of U.S. patent applications covering a wide range of technical areas, including consumer electronics, network services, computer implemented business methods, communications protocols, video codecs, security, navigation, printing technology, IC-cards, and medical devices.

Yuko graduated from Sophia University in Japan with a degree in Mechanical Engineering. She is a native Japanese speaker and is also fluent in English. Yuko was also very active as a member of the Japan Intellectual Property Association.