Thomas (TJ) Gohn

TJ focuses his practice on intellectual property litigation and has represented clients in patent, copyright, and trademark disputes. His experience spans a variety of industries and technologies, including electronics, two-factor authentication, computer rendering, and data and signal processing.

Before joining Maier and Maier, TJ litigated intellectual property cases defending against non-practicing entities and provided IP counsel for mergers and acquisitions. He also practiced in the Middle East litigating international regulatory and diplomatic disputes.

TJ is registered to practice before the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office.

Experience:

  • Defense of national banks in the Eastern District of Texas relating to claims of infringement of two-factor authentication patent; obtained favorable settlement.
  • Assertion of valve and pump technology patents for oil and gas company in the Northern District of Texas; case resulted in favorable settlement.
  • Defense of large hospitality company in the Eastern District of Texas relating to claims of infringement of patents for website suggested search technology; obtained favorable settlement.
  • Assertion of trademark claims for bespoke software developer in District of Massachusetts; case resulted in favorable settlement for client with defendant agreeing to change name.
  • Defense of major western wear client against right of publicity claim in Eastern District of Arkansas; resulted in favorable settlement.
  • Defense of prolific marketing analytics company; obtained favorable settlement of patent infringement claims brought in the Eastern District of Texas.
  • Defense of one of the world’s largest computer manufacturers; obtained settlement of patent infringement claims brought in the International Trade Commission.
  • Defense of marketing firm in copyright infringement case; obtained favorable settlement.
  • Pro Bono representation of veteran in consumer protection lawsuit brought in Texas state court. Case resulted in favorable settlement with defendant agreeing to pay all client damages.

Kazuyuki Nakai

Kazuyuki Nakai is a highly experienced Japanese Patent Attorney and intellectual property specialist. Mr. Nakai’s experience includes all aspects of intellectual property law, including patent and trademark portfolio management.  Prior to joining Maier & Maier, Mr. Nakai served as in-house counsel and intellectual property manager for a multi-national corporation. In his prior roles, Mr. Nakai has been in charge of administration of patent and trademark rights, developing strong intellectual property positions, soliciting new inventions for protection and commercialization, intellectual property training and coordination with engineers and business units, as well as preparing intellectual property related reports, opinions, and searches. Before entering the intellectual property field, Mr. Nakai worked as a sound engineer in the United States and Japan.

Mr. Nakai is a Japanese Patent Attorney and he obtained his Bachelor of Economics degree from Chuo University in Tokyo, Japan.

Kathleen Cooney-Porter

Ms. Cooney-Porter has practiced Trademark law for almost 30 years. Most recently, she worked as a consultant providing expert advice on trademark prosecution, trademark evaluation, trademark branding, and managing outside counsel for a California-based start-up.

Prior to her position as a consultant, she was appointed as Senior Trademark Advisor to the Office of the Under Secretary and Director of The United States Patent and Trademark Office.  While serving in this role, she participated in the Under Secretary’s external and internal meetings on a regular and recurring basis ensuring that the views of the Under Secretary were communicated in an accurate, consistent, and professional manner. She also partnered with USPTO Business Units to ensure Under Secretary’s vision and goals were considered when creating and implementing trademark programs and policies and built alliances and consensus by sharing knowledge and responding to, addressing, and elevating high level concerns promptly. Ms. Cooney-Porter also worked with Department of Commerce, other Administration agencies and Congress to ensure that all groups were notified timely and provided accurate pre-briefs, as necessary, concerning any significant agency announcements. She reviewed Solicitor’ s briefs prior to filing with Federal Circuit and consulted with Solicitor’s Office and Department of Justice on two significant Supreme Court cases. She reviewed all documents pertaining to any trademark matter including but not limited to operations, examination, trademark rules of practice, legal briefs, and memoranda for final review by the Under Secretary. She assisted Trademark Operations on several anti-counterfeiting efforts and policies including negotiations with the National Crime Prevention Council on a 5-year joint project to educate the public of dangers of counterfeits. Contract signed Fall 2020. She attended the Office of Policy and International Affairs (OPIA) round table with other government officials on anti-counterfeiting efforts and policies.

Prior to her position at the United States Patent and Trademark Office, she was a Principal at Muncy, Geissler, Olds & Lowe, P.C., since 2016, advising clients on how to enhance, secure, leverage and enforce their marks and brand portfolio, and as a Managing Partner at Oblon, McClelland, Maier & Neustadt, P.C., where she managed the Trademark and Copyright practice groups and represented clients before the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board (TTAB).

During her tenure in private practice, Ms. Cooney-Porter served a three-year term as an appointee to the USPTO’s Trademark Public Advisory Committee (TPAC) where she advised the Under Secretary of Commerce for Intellectual Property and the Director of the USPTO on matters relating to trademark policies, goals, performance, budget and user fees.

Prior to working in private practice, Ms. Cooney-Porter worked as a Trademark Examining Attorney for over eight years.

Ms. Cooney-Porter has a Bachelor’s degree from Vanderbilt University and a J.D. from the Catholic University of America, Columbus School of Law. She resides in McLean, Virginia with her husband and twin teenage daughters.

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 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]

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 J. Maier

Chris Maier是注册专利律师并在专利申请和专利诉讼的所有领域执业，包括在USPTO的多方复审程序和单方复审程序，国际专利组合开发与管理，以及意见工作。Chris具有多个技术领域的经验，包括电子工程，计算机工程，软件，机械工程和医疗设备技术。

在成为专利律师前，Chris是美国专利商标局的专利审查员。Chris擅长平板显示技术以及驱动软件与计算机控制和外围设备的关联设备。

Chris经常为美国和国际听众提供有关知识产权最新策略和趋势的讲座。Chris之前是美国知识产权法律协会（AIPLA）的委员会成员并受托参加许多AIPLA的国内和国际会议。此外，他曾经是专利资源组（PRG）的教职人员。

 

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。