Of Counsel
As a registered patent attorney, Anthony practices before the USPTO, managing patent portfolios; prosecuting ex parte reexaminations, inter partes reexaminations, and reissue applications; arguing ex parte appeals before the appeals section of the PTAB; and filing and defending inter partes review (IPR) proceedings before the trials section of the PTAB. Anthony's technical expertise is diverse and includes working with hydrogenation processes, tire composition and manufacturing, diesel particulate filters, polymers (including polyethylene, polypropylene, PET, and polyimides) and polymeric systems, optical/electrical cables, solar cell devices, fuel cells, liquid crystal displays, specialty steels, pharmaceuticals, lithium batteries, biofuel manufacturing, lubricants, and exchange resins.
Anthony has extensive client counseling experience, providing clearance, infringement, and validity opinions, as well as conducting due diligence investigations and portfolio reviews. He has represented clients in numerous technology areas, ranging from a leading petrochemical company regarding its metallocene PE technologies, to a variety of established and startup energy companies regarding their renewable biofuel technologies.
Anthony is also involved in all aspects of patent litigation, including coordinating fact and expert discovery; conducting depositions; and briefing discovery, summary judgment, claim construction, and post-trial motions. His litigation work spans a wide variety of technologies, including m-polyethylene, polyimides, alkaline batteries, jet engines, cosmetics, pharmaceuticals and other small molecules (including metallocene catalysts), vinyl flooring, medical devices, and battery chargers.
Prior to joining Finnegan, Anthony worked at another patent firm, representing domestic petrochemical companies in litigation and patent interferences, particularly in the field of metallocene chemistry and related polymers.
Before law school, he worked as a process-development engineer with the Eastman Kodak Co., focusing on the scale-up of photographic film manufacturing processes from laboratory to pilot plant to manufacturing. Anthony also earned a professional engineering license from the State of New York.
Anthony devotes a portion of his time to pro bono matters. He has represented several veterans in appeals before the U.S. Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims, and prisoners in appeals before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 7th Circuit and the U.S. Supreme Court. He is listed on the Capital Pro Bono Honor Roll.
Represented defendant United Technologies Corp. in a patent infringement action concerning swept fan blades for ducted gas turbine engines used on commercial and private aircraft, resulting in a favorable summary judgment ruling of noninfringement in favor of UTC.
1:10-cv-00457, E.D. Va., Judges Anderson, Brinkema
Successfully led Kaken and Bausch Health Care in inter partes review (IPR) proceedings, district court litigation, and Federal Circuit appeal related to patent covering Kaken and Bausch Health Care’s Jublia® (efinaconazole) product for the treatment of onychomycosis.
3:18-cv-13635, D.N.J., Judges Martinotti, Goodman
18-2232, Fed. Cir., Judges Newman, O'Malley, Taranto
IPR2017-00190, PTAB, Judges Mitchell, Franklin, Pollock
IPR2017-01429, PTAB, Judges Mitchell, Franklin, Pollock
Represented Tianma in a pair of inter partes review (IPR) proceedings regarding liquid crystal displays (LCD).
IPR2016-00990, -00991, PTAB, Judges Obermann, Kokoski, Kalan, Roesel
1:16-cv-01119, E.D. Va., Judges Nachmanoff, Trenga
IPR2014-00679, -00680, PTAB, Judges Crumbley, Praiss, Prats
Rolls-Royce v. United Technologies Corp.
Defended United Technologies Corp. in a patent infringement action concerning swept fan blades for ducted gas turbine engines used on contemporary commercial and private aircraft, resulting in a favorable summary judgment ruling of noninfringement in favor of UTC.
1:10-cv-00457, E.D. Va., Judges Anderson, Brinkema
Kaken Pharmaceutical Co., Ltd.; Bausch Health Care v. Zydus Pharmaceuticals (USA) Inc. et al.
Successfully led Kaken and Bausch Health Care in inter partes review (IPR) proceedings, district court litigation, and Federal Circuit appeal related to patent covering Kaken and Bausch Health Care’s Jublia® (efinaconazole) product for the treatment of onychomycosis.
3:18-cv-13635, D.N.J., Judges Martinotti, Goodman
18-2232, Fed. Cir., Judges Newman, O'Malley, Taranto
IPR2017-00190, PTAB, Judges Mitchell, Franklin, Pollock
IPR2017-01429, PTAB, Judges Mitchell, Franklin, Pollock
Tianma Micro-Electronics Co. v. Japan Display Inc.; Panasonic Liquid Display Co.
Represented Tianma in a pair of inter partes review (IPR) proceedings regarding liquid crystal displays (LCD).
IPR2016-00990, -00991, PTAB, Judges Obermann, Kokoski, Kalan, Roesel
Eli Lilly and Company v. Actavis Labs. UT Inc.
1:16-cv-01119, E.D. Va., Judges Nachmanoff, Trenga
AstraZeneca AB v. Aurobindo Pharma, Ltd.
1:14-cv-00664, D. Del., Judge Sleet
IPR2015-01340, PTAB, Judges Elluru, Paulraj, Tierney
SK Innovation Co., Ltd. v. Celgard, LLC
IPR2014-00679, -00680, PTAB, Judges Crumbley, Praiss, Prats
At the PTAB Blog
PTAB Finds No Derivation in First Derivation Proceeding PTAB Finds No Derivation in First Derivation Proceeding
March 25, 2019
At the PTAB Blog
PTAB’s First Oral Hearing in a Derivation Proceeding PTAB’s First Oral Hearing in a Derivation Proceeding
January 31, 2019
At the PTAB Blog
PTAB Institutes Its First Derivation Proceeding PTAB Institutes Its First Derivation Proceeding
March 27, 2018
IP Health Blog
PTAB Affirms Obviousness Rejection for Claims with Conditional Limitation in Ex Parte Schulhauser PTAB Affirms Obviousness Rejection for Claims with Conditional Limitation in Ex Parte Schulhauser
November 17, 2017
Prosecution First Blog
A Tale of Two Methods: Conditions Precedent and Broadest Reasonable Interpretation A Tale of Two Methods: Conditions Precedent and Broadest Reasonable Interpretation
November 15, 2016
Award/Ranking
54 Finnegan Attorneys Named to 2022 Capital Pro Bono Honor Roll 54 Finnegan Attorneys Named to 2022 Capital Pro Bono Honor Roll
July 21, 2023
Press Release
55 Finnegan Attorneys Named to 2020 Capital Pro Bono Honor Roll 55 Finnegan Attorneys Named to 2020 Capital Pro Bono Honor Roll
April 2, 2021
Media Mention
4 Takeaways From PTAB's First Derivation Decision 4 Takeaways From PTAB's First Derivation Decision
March 27, 2019
Law360Press Release
48 Finnegan Attorneys Named to 2017 Capital Pro Bono Honor Roll 48 Finnegan Attorneys Named to 2017 Capital Pro Bono Honor Roll
February 20, 2018
Press Release
42 Finnegan Attorneys Named to 2016 Capital Pro Bono Honor Roll 42 Finnegan Attorneys Named to 2016 Capital Pro Bono Honor Roll
February 17, 2017
Due to international data regulations, we’ve updated our privacy policy. Click here to read our privacy policy in full.
We use cookies on this website to provide you with the best user experience. By accepting cookies, you agree to our use of cookies. Please note that if you opt not to accept or if you disable cookies, the “Your Finnegan” feature on this website will be disabled as well. For more information on how we use cookies, please see our Privacy Policy.
Finnegan is thrilled to announce the launch of our new blog, Ad Law Buzz, devoted solely to breaking news, developments, trends, and analysis in advertising law.