直 Japanese PDF Font
  • Our Professionals
  • Our Work
  • Our Insights
  • Offices
  • Firm
  • Careers
Finnegan
Benjamin A. Saidman
Partner
More
vCard
  • 271 17th Street, NW
  • Suite 1400
  • Atlanta, GA 30363-6209
+1 404 653 6510
benjamin.saidman@finnegan.com benjamin.saidman@finnegan.com

Benjamin A. Saidman

Partner

  • +1 404 653 6510 +1 404 653 6510
  • benjamin.saidman@finnegan.com benjamin.saidman@finnegan.com
  • 271 17th Street, NW
  • Suite 1400
  • Atlanta, GA 30363-6209
  • vCard

Ben Saidman applies his mechanical engineering background to working with clients innovating in areas involving mechanical, electrical, computer, and medical device technologies. A former Federal Circuit law clerk, he focuses on PTAB post-grant proceedings, district court patent litigation, and Federal Circuit appeals. Ben serves as the hiring partner for Finnegan's Atlanta office.

Ben handles intellectual property disputes before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO), in U.S. district courts, and before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. He has served as backup counsel in over 40 inter partes review (IPR) proceedings and has advised on numerous others. At the trial level, his experience includes pre-suit investigation, complex fact and expert discovery, claim construction, motions practice, trial preparation,cross-examination of technical experts at trial, and post-trial briefing. At the appellate level, Ben has experience arguing before the Federal Circuit, preparing appeal briefs, and providing strategic advice regarding appeals.

Cases he works on involve many different technologies, including mechanical, electrical, and medical device technologies. Representative examples include orthopedic implants, robotic systems for medical procedures, medical fluid waste management systems, gas turbofan engines, commercial aviation lavatories, fire sprinkler systems, and robotic vacuum cleaners. In addition, prior to law school, Ben gained technical experience in upstream and downstream oil and gas production during internships for Shell Oil Company and Shell International Exploration and Production.

Et Cetera

  • Capital Pro Bono Honor Roll, 2017, 2019.
  • Served at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit as a judicial law clerk to the Honorable Alan D. Lourie, 2013-2015.
  • Received a TI:GER® Certificate in Intellectual Property and Technology Transfer, Emory University School of Law and Georgia Institute of Technology, 2012.
  • Served as Emory Law Review notes and comments editor, 2011-2012.
  • Served at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit as a field placement intern to the Honorable Frank Hull, 2011.

Experience

Auris Health, Inc. v. Intuitive Surgical Operations

Represented Intuitive Surgical Operations on appeals from petitions for inter partes review (IPR) filed by Auris Health, Inc.

21-1473, -1732, -1733, Fed. Cir., Judges Prost, Dyk, Reyna
IPR2019-01173, -01533, -01547, PTAB, Judges Franklin, Hulse, Jenks, Worth, Yang

General Electric Co. v. United Technologies Corp.

Represented patent owner in a series of inter partes review challenges and related appeals to pioneering technology on next-generation aircraft engines. Successfully secured non-institution of several proceedings and claims, and in several cases that proceeded to final written decision, persuaded the Board to confirm some or all of the challenged claims.

IPR2016-00855, -00862, -01286, -01287, IPR2017-00425, 00428, -00999, IPR2019-01489, PTAB, Judges Jung, Rice, Wood, Daniels, Weatherly, Hoskins

Zimmer Surgical, Inc. et al. v. Stryker Corporation et al.

Represented patent owner Zimmer in litigation involving surgical waste management and defended Zimmer against a counterclaim. The case settled favorably right before trial.

1:16-cv-00679, D. Del., Judges Andrews, Thynge

South-Tek Systems, LLC v. Engineered Corrosion Solutions, LLC

Argued in one appeal, served as backup counsel in another Federal Circuit appeal, and further served as backup counsel in multiple inter partes reviews on patent owner Engineered Corrosion Solutions’ innovative corrosion-prevention technology for fire protection systems.

18-1685, 17-2297, Fed. Cir., Judges Dyk, Hughes, O'Malley
IPR2018-00991, IPR2016-00136, PTAB, Judges Grossman, Plenzler, Saindon

Carrum Technologies, LLC v. BMW of North America, LLC, et al.

Obtained complete victory against Carrum on appeal of the District of Delaware’s claim construction to the Federal Circuit following Carrum’s stipulation of non-infringement under the claim construction, thereby exonerating BMW’s ACC system, first sold in 2000, against Carrum’s 2004 patents. Invalidated several asserted claims through post-grant efforts before the U.S. Patent Office, including IPRs and EPRs, and pursued claims through proceedings before the Eastern District of Virginia to vindicate BMW’s patent challenges.

1:18-cv-01645, D. Del., Judge Andrews
21-1435, 24-1480, Fed. Cir., Judges Clevenger, Cunningham, Lourie, Moore, Prost, Taranto
IPR2019-00902, -00903, -00904, -00905, -00927, 00928, PTAB, Judges Browne, Scanlon, Tornquist
90/019,010, CRU

BMW of North America, LLC and Bayerische Motoren Werke AG v. Arigna Technology Ltd.

Secured a covenant-not-to-sue and zero-dollar walkaway for BMW Group in a declaratory judgment action, concluding Arigna’s high-profile patent enforcement campaign involving current amplification technology. This outcome follows a decisive ITC victory, the dismissal of parallel District Court litigation, and multiple concurrent patent office challenges pending at the time of resolution.

1:23-cv-01190, D.D.C., Judge Contreras
2:21-cv-00173, E.D. Tex.
IPR2021-01531, PTAB, Judges Baer, Fenick, Iftikhar
23-1931, Fed. Cir.
90/019,261, USPTO

More

Insights

Articles

Relentless Pursuit of Victory: BMW Group Prevails in Arigna Patent Litigation Saga

Relentless Pursuit of Victory: BMW Group Prevails in Arigna Patent Litigation Saga Relentless Pursuit of Victory: BMW Group Prevails in Arigna Patent Litigation Saga

September 24, 2024

The Patent Lawyer

Articles

Southeast Litigation Update: December 2023

Southeast Litigation Update: December 2023 Southeast Litigation Update: December 2023

February 12, 2024

Articles

Southeast Litigation Update: September and October 2023

Southeast Litigation Update: September and October 2023 Southeast Litigation Update: September and October 2023

December 18, 2023

Articles

Trending at the PTAB: Administrative Procedure

Trending at the PTAB: Administrative Procedure Trending at the PTAB: Administrative Procedure

November 9, 2023

Law360

Articles

Southeast Litigation Update: August 2023

Southeast Litigation Update: August 2023 Southeast Litigation Update: August 2023

October 13, 2023

Articles

Southeast Litigation Update: May 2023

Southeast Litigation Update: May 2023 Southeast Litigation Update: May 2023

August 17, 2023

More

News

Commentary

CBP Clears Redesigned Innoscience Chips After ITC Case CBP Clears Redesigned Innoscience Chips After ITC Case

March 12, 2026

Law360

Commentary

Delaware Federal Court Patent Decisions Clearing BMW Upheld by Fed. Circ. Delaware Federal Court Patent Decisions Clearing BMW Upheld by Fed. Circ.

October 15, 2025

Law360

Press Release

Seven-Year Legal Battle Concludes with BMW’s Victory Over Carrum Technologies Seven-Year Legal Battle Concludes with BMW’s Victory Over Carrum Technologies

October 15, 2025

Media Mention

Summary Judgment of Noninfringement Affirmed in Cruise Control System Patent Suits Against BMW Summary Judgment of Noninfringement Affirmed in Cruise Control System Patent Suits Against BMW

October 15, 2025

IP Law Daily

Award/Ranking

Best Lawyers Recognizes 44 Finnegan Attorneys in its 2026 Edition of The Best Lawyers and Ones to Watch Best Lawyers Recognizes 44 Finnegan Attorneys in its 2026 Edition of The Best Lawyers and Ones to Watch

August 21, 2025

Best Lawyers

Press Release

BMW Victory in United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia against PTO – In Reexaminations, PTO Director Must State a Ground-By-Ground Basis for a Discretionary EPR Denial BMW Victory in United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia against PTO – In Reexaminations, PTO Director Must State a Ground-By-Ground Basis for a Discretionary EPR Denial

April 7, 2025

More

Professional Activities

  • Order of the Coif
  • PTAB Bar Association
Admissions and Education

Admissions

  • U.S. Patent and Trademark Office
  • District of Columbia
  • Georgia
  • U.S. Court of Appeals, Federal Circuit
  • U.S. Court of Appeals, Veterans Claims

Education

Emory University School of Law
J.D., with honors, 2012
Rice University
B.S., Mechanical Engineering, 2008

Clerkships

  • U.S. Court of Appeals, Federal Circuit, Hon. Alan Lourie

Benjamin's Practices

Appeals, Issues, and Legal Strategy
Appeals from the PTAB
Federal Circuit and Supreme Court Appeals
Diligence, Licensing, and Opinions
Due Diligence
Licensing, Pooling, and Other Transactions
Global IP Enforcement, Litigation, and Trials
Patent Litigation and Trials
Pretrial Strategies
Patent Office Invalidation Proceedings
Derivations
PTAB Invalidation Proceedings: IPR and PGR

Benjamin's Industries

AI, Electronics, and Information Technology
Electrical and Computer Technology
Robotics
Chemicals, Industrials, and Materials
Manufacturing
Consumer Goods and Services
Consumer Products
Energy
Oil and Gas
Life Sciences
Medical Device and Diagnostics
Transportation and Logistics
Aerospace, Aviation, and Unmanned Aerial Systems (UAS)
Automotive and Smart Mobility Tech

Due to international data regulations, we’ve updated our privacy policy. Click here to read our privacy policy in full.

  • Privacy
  • Disclaimer
  • Legal Notices
  • Fraud Alert
  • EEO Statement
  • Cookies
  • Contact Us

© 2026 Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner, LLP