Partner
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.
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.
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.
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
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
September 24, 2024
The Patent LawyerArticles
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
December 18, 2023
Articles
Trending at the PTAB: Administrative Procedure Trending at the PTAB: Administrative Procedure
November 9, 2023
Law360Articles
Southeast Litigation Update: August 2023 Southeast Litigation Update: August 2023
October 13, 2023
Articles
Southeast Litigation Update: May 2023 Southeast Litigation Update: May 2023
August 17, 2023
Commentary
CBP Clears Redesigned Innoscience Chips After ITC Case CBP Clears Redesigned Innoscience Chips After ITC Case
March 12, 2026
Law360Commentary
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
Law360Press 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 DailyAward/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 LawyersPress 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
Due to international data regulations, we’ve updated our privacy policy. Click here to read our privacy policy in full.