Associate
Anthony works with various technologies, including mechanical and electrical systems, amusement rides, automotive systems, medical devices, gaming technology, consumer goods, welding systems, and pharmaceuticals. He has a technical background in mechanical and biomedical engineering.
Over the years in handling patent litigation, Anthony has taken cases from inception through jury trials and beyond, securing favorable results for clients. He has experience in all aspects of trial preparation, including developing infringement and validity analyses; drafting pleadings and discovery motions; taking complex discovery; working with technical and economic experts; drafting claim construction, Daubert, and summary judgment motions; preparing motions in limine and pre- and post-trial briefs; and conducting examinations at trial.
At the USPTO, Anthony asserts and defends against patentability challenges before the PTAB, representing both petitioners and patent owners. He helps clients navigate patent rights by providing strategic advice through freedom-to-operate analyses, opinions addressing patent validity and infringement, and other intellectual property issues.
Before law school, Anthony worked for a university technology transfer office, managing a portfolio of technologies in various fields, including mechanical and electrical arts, consumer goods, materials, nanotechnology, medical and veterinary devices, clean and renewable energy, and software. Anthony routinely worked with inventors to develop and license technologies. He conducted patentability evaluations, prepared provisional patent applications, and reviewed license agreements and term sheets.
Transcend Shipping Systems, LLC v. FedEx Corp.
2:22-cv-00110, E.D. Tex., Judges Gilstrap, Payne
Pavemetrics Systems., Inc. v. Tetra Tech, Inc.
2:21-cv-01289-MCS-MAA, C.D. Cal., Judge Scarsi
Cambria Company LLC v. Cosentino SA
6:20-cv-00894, -00895, -00896, -00897, W.D. Tex., Judge Albright
6:20-cv-01080, W.D. Tex., Judge Albright
IPR2021-00214, -00215, -00216; PGR2021-00010, -00090, PTAB, Judges Kalan, Ross, Kaiser
ProSlide Technology, Inc. v. WhiteWater West Industries, Ltd.
6:20-cv-02189, M.D. Fla., Judge Mendoza
Articles
A Promise Not to Challenge the Validity or Enforceability of a Patent in a Settlement Agreement May Be Unenforceable When the Parties Are Not Settling Actual Litigation A Promise Not to Challenge the Validity or Enforceability of a Patent in a Settlement Agreement May Be Unenforceable When the Parties Are Not Settling Actual Litigation
June 6, 2022
LES InsightsArticles
Evidence of Negotiations May Be Admissible When the Evidence Is Not Inconsistent with the Executed Agreement and Is Offered to Rebut Trial Testimony Evidence of Negotiations May Be Admissible When the Evidence Is Not Inconsistent with the Executed Agreement and Is Offered to Rebut Trial Testimony
April 12, 2022
LES InsightsArticles
LESI Global Licensing Report LESI Global Licensing Report
Winter 2022
Licensing Executives Society InternationalArticles
A Lawsuit Seeking an Injunction Did Not Waive the Right to Arbitration Provided by an Earlier Agreement A Lawsuit Seeking an Injunction Did Not Waive the Right to Arbitration Provided by an Earlier Agreement
October 28, 2021
LES InsightsPress Release
Finnegan Secures Jury Verdict for ProSlide Ahead of IAAPA Expo Finnegan Secures Jury Verdict for ProSlide Ahead of IAAPA Expo
November 10, 2023
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.