パートナー
特許審判訴訟、大規模な特許ポートフォリオの構築及び管理を中心業務とする。170件以上の特許案件に携わった経験から、膨大な数に及ぶ地裁案件で主席弁護士を務める。テキサス州東部地区地裁案件を60件以上手掛け、Section 1498(a) に基づく米国連邦請求裁判所での特許侵害訴訟、又米国国際貿易委員会(ITC)でのSection 337紛争、仲裁、等数々の案件を手掛ける。
マークマンヒアリングの取扱件数は多数。複雑を極める特許侵害及び特許紛争のディスカバリ手続で指導者的役割を果たし、これまでに携わったデポジションの執行・弁護は200件以上に及ぶ。さらに、米国連邦巡回控訴裁判所での特許・知財案件の経験も有する。
1,000件を超える特許出願に携わった経験から、大規模な企業特許ポートフォリオの構築や管理を監督。国内外の大型特許ポートフォリオの企画・管理に数多く携わる。
業務範囲には、ビジネス方法、コンピューター、ソフトウェア、電気及び機械装置(医療機器、特に医療機器のソフトウェアアプリケーション等)関連の訴訟、特許出願、鑑定書作成を含む。膨大な数の査定系及び当事者系再審査手続きを手掛け、係争中用いられる「防衛的再審査」も75件以上取り扱った。当事者系レビュー(IPR)制度を用いて申立を行なった初めての弁護士の一人として、IPR及び対象となるビジネス方法特許特許レビュー(CBM)の請願書を75件以上提出している。
Section 1498(a) に基づく特許侵害請求を含む政府契約に関する特許紛争に豊富な知識を有し、米国連邦請求裁判所で膨大な案件を担当。「Public Trust」クリアランスを保持し、かつて「Top Secret」及び「Code Word」クリアランスを保持したことがある。
航空機、回転翼航空機、ソアリング、スカイダイビング、軽航空機に関連した特許法について各法曹協会や航空学団体に向けた講演を定期的に行なっている。現在自らが現役のパイロットとして航空機、ヘリコプターを(時にはグライダーと熱気球も)操縦し、数多くの航空学および航空宇宙に携わる企業に対して知財問題についてのカウンセリングを提供している。また、ドローン、無人航空機、無人航空機システム技術について幅広い知識を持つ。
フルブライトプログラムの学者としてドイツ、ミュンヘンのマックス・プランク研究所で外国及び国際的な特許法、著作権法、及び競争法に関する研究を中心とした客員学者プログラムに参加した。
妻とともに登山家、スカイダイバー、冒険家である。世界七大陸最高峰のうち6つの最高峰の登頂に成功(1999年アフリカ大陸 キリマンジャロ、2002年 ロシア大陸 エルブルズ、2002年 南アフリカ大陸 アコンカグア、2004年 北アメリカ大陸 マッキンリー、と南極大陸 ヴィンソン、2007年 オセアニア大陸 コジオスコ)、2018年にはチョ・オユー、そして2020年にはエベレストへの登頂を計画している。フォーメーションスカイダイビングに関連する複数の世界記録保持者。2019年には民間宇宙飛行に妻と参加する予定。
あらゆる技術分野のリーディング・イノベイターと業務を行う。航空機のソフトウェア製品に関連する特許案件でBoeingを代理;様々な電気・機械技術に関連する特許侵害訴訟で特許の権利行使及び防衛の双方においてBoschを代理;主としてテキサス州東部地区連邦地裁で、電気、機械、テレコミュニケーション技術をめぐる多数の特許侵害訴訟でLGの様々な事業団体を代理;テキサス州東部地区連邦地裁、カリフォルニア州北部地区連邦地裁、カリフォルニア州中部地区連邦地裁において、電気、ソフトウェア、機械技術をめぐる多数の特許侵害訴訟並びに日本商事仲裁委員会での裁判外紛争解決手続問題でSonyを弁護。さらに、機械、電気、ソフトウェア発明の保護、弁護、権利行使においてU.S. Postal Service (USPS)および政府団体を代理。
18-2003, Fed. Cir., Judges Newman, Prost, Chen
6:11-cv-00278, E.D. Tex., Judges Davis, Love
1:11-cv-00930, -00931, D. Del., Judge Sleet
2:13-cv-11407, -11410, E.D. Mich., Judges Duggan, Roberts, Grand, Randon
1:20-cv-01907, N.D. Ga., Judge Grimberg
IPR2017-01938, -01939, -01940, 01941, PTAB, Judges Margolies, Easthom, Zado
2:12-cv-00042, E.D. Tex., Judges Folsom, Gilstrap, Schneider, Craven
3:13-cv-01296, D. Or., Judges Hernandez, Acosta
4:08-cv-04567, N.D. Cal., Judges Wilken, Laporte, Larson
337-TA-666, ITC, Judge Gildea
After forcing Stragent to willfully concede in open court that it could not present enough evidence to prove infringement of its asserted patents, which Stragent read on the automotive communications standard AUTOSAR, Finnegan vigorously negotiated for BMW a royalty-free license to Stragent’s entire patent portfolio. Successfully invalidated multiple Stragent patents before the Patent Office, with one victory on appeal and additional IPR petitions pending at the time of case resolution.
1:20-cv-00510, D. Del., Judge Wolson
1:23-cv-00005, D. Del., Judge Wolson
IPR2023-00333, -00334, PTAB
22-2062 , Fed. Cir.
IPR2021-00417, -00418, -00419, PTAB, Judges Galligan, Repko, White
Ericsson Inc. v. TCL Communication Technology
TCL hired Finnegan to handle the appeal of an unfavorable judgment of willful infringement at the Eastern District of Texas, which resulted in a massive damages award of over $110 million. After Finnegan tenaciously convinced the Federal Circuit that the claims were patent ineligible under 35 U.S.C. § 101, the court reversed the district court’s ruling of no invalidity, vacated the entire judgment against TCL, and awarded costs to TCL. Based on that award, Finnegan further persuaded the trial court to tax $2.35 million in costs.
18-2003, Fed. Cir., Judges Newman, Prost, Chen
Stragent, LLC v. BMW of North America, LLC
Aggressively defended BMW against Stragent in a patent infringement case involving voice recognition technology that resulted in complete dismissal with prejudice following a favorable claim construction order.
6:11-cv-00278, E.D. Tex., Judges Davis, Love
Beacon Navigation, GmbH v. BMW of North America, LLC
Wholly obtained transfer of patent infringement lawsuit from D. Delaware to E.D. Michigan (and, later, a stay of litigation) on behalf of BMW in cases involving GPS tracking and interface technology.
1:11-cv-00930, -00931, D. Del., Judge Sleet
2:13-cv-11407, -11410, E.D. Mich., Judges Duggan, Roberts, Grand, Randon
Carrum Technologies, LLC v. BMW of North America, LLC, et al.
Successfully obtained complete and total 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. Strategically 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
Patent drafting and prosecution for CentralSquare’s AI technologies
Finnegan is honored and tremendously proud to partner with CentralSquare in developing and protecting its mission-critical software and technology solutions for public sector agencies, including those serving public safety and public administration. Our dynamic team has led the drafting and prosecution of a broad portfolio of artificial intelligence (AI)-related patent applications, advancing CentralSquare’s innovations across emergency services and municipal operations. These AI technologies accelerate emergency response, streamline workflows, and strengthen data-driven decision-making for agencies and the communities they serve.
Working diligently and closely with CentralSquare’s inventors and in-house counsel, we ensure every application captures the technical depth of the invention while aligning with CentralSquare’s strategic goals. We fully prioritize clarity, enforceability, and foresight—refining claims, anticipating examiner challenges, and crafting robust Office Action responses. By anticipating industry trends in AI and preparing forward-looking applications, Finnegan thoroughly positions CentralSquare’s innovations not only to be protected, but also to drive lasting impact in public safety and beyond.
Articles
EPR Academy, Part 4 of 6: Choosing Between EPR, IPR, PGR, and Reissue EPR Academy, Part 4 of 6: Choosing Between EPR, IPR, PGR, and Reissue
July 1, 2026
IP Updates
EPR Academy: ALERT – USPTO Introduces New EPR Pre-order Procedure for Determination in Ex Parte Reexaminations EPR Academy: ALERT – USPTO Introduces New EPR Pre-order Procedure for Determination in Ex Parte Reexaminations
April 3, 2026
Articles
Preempting Surprise Injunctions in Germany and the UPC: Strategic Use of the Schutzschrift in Global Patent Litigation Preempting Surprise Injunctions in Germany and the UPC: Strategic Use of the Schutzschrift in Global Patent Litigation
March 27, 2026
Articles
Patent Ruling Shows Quiet Power of State-Law Bad-Faith Statutes Patent Ruling Shows Quiet Power of State-Law Bad-Faith Statutes
February 20, 2026
Bloomberg LawArticles
EPR Academy, Part 3 of 6: The EPR Appeals Process EPR Academy, Part 3 of 6: The EPR Appeals Process
February 19, 2026
Conference
4th Global Patent Litigation FORUM 4th Global Patent Litigation FORUM
October 29, 2026
Munich
“On the contentious side, the firm fields a formidable bench led by standout trial lawyer Lionel Lavenue, who is regularly entrusted with high-stakes, technically complex disputes and is known for his commanding courtroom presence and strategic leadership of large trial teams.”
Intellectual Asset Management Patent 1000
“Lionel Lavenue is a seasoned first-chair trial lawyer with an exceptional track record in complex patent disputes, including leading BMW’s successful defence against multiple patent assertion entities through coordinated district court and PTAB strategies.”
Intellectual Asset Management Patent 1000
"Lionel Lavenue is a terrific patent litigator. He earnestly provides thoughtful advice and always puts his clients’ needs first. I have never been wanting for a response or document when working with Lionel. I very much appreciate his candour and creative solutions to problems. Lionel is truly one of a kind."
Intellectual Asset Management Patent 1000
“Lionel is always focused on winning a case. He manages the most complex litigation easily and is excellent at working under pressure. Lionel’s presence is comforting for the client and frightening for the adversary. In short, he enjoys fighting and winning.”
Intellectual Asset Management Patent 1000
"Lionel Lavenue is an extremely smart and experienced lead partner. A great patent attorney with impressive technical competences. Our outside impression is that he leads his case teams extremely well, and his staff enjoy working with him. We certainly do."
The Legal 500 U.S.
“James Barney, Lionel Lavenue and Doris Johnson Hines have all engaged in Section 337 investigations recently and are three of the best all-round patent litigators on deck.”
Intellectual Asset Management Patent 1000
“On the contentious side, the firm fields a formidable bench led by standout trial lawyer Lionel Lavenue, who is regularly entrusted with high-stakes, technically complex disputes and is known for his commanding courtroom presence and strategic leadership of large trial teams.”
Intellectual Asset Management Patent 1000
“Lionel Lavenue is a seasoned first-chair trial lawyer with an exceptional track record in complex patent disputes, including leading BMW’s successful defence against multiple patent assertion entities through coordinated district court and PTAB strategies.”
Intellectual Asset Management Patent 1000
"Lionel Lavenue is a terrific patent litigator. He earnestly provides thoughtful advice and always puts his clients’ needs first. I have never been wanting for a response or document when working with Lionel. I very much appreciate his candour and creative solutions to problems. Lionel is truly one of a kind."
Intellectual Asset Management Patent 1000
“Lionel is always focused on winning a case. He manages the most complex litigation easily and is excellent at working under pressure. Lionel’s presence is comforting for the client and frightening for the adversary. In short, he enjoys fighting and winning.”
Intellectual Asset Management Patent 1000
"Lionel Lavenue is an extremely smart and experienced lead partner. A great patent attorney with impressive technical competences. Our outside impression is that he leads his case teams extremely well, and his staff enjoy working with him. We certainly do."
The Legal 500 U.S.
“James Barney, Lionel Lavenue and Doris Johnson Hines have all engaged in Section 337 investigations recently and are three of the best all-round patent litigators on deck.”
Intellectual Asset Management Patent 1000
Commentary
Zync Fights Block of ITC Trade Secret Case Against BMW Zync Fights Block of ITC Trade Secret Case Against BMW
June 24, 2026
Law360Press Release
BMW Obtains Preliminary Injunction Against Zync; Federal Court Orders Zync to Halt ITC Trade Secret BMW Obtains Preliminary Injunction Against Zync; Federal Court Orders Zync to Halt ITC Trade Secret
June 23, 2026
Commentary
BMW Secures Injunction Forcing Zync to Seek Stay of ITC Trade Secret Case BMW Secures Injunction Forcing Zync to Seek Stay of ITC Trade Secret Case
June 23, 2026
MLexCommentary
U.S. Judge Rules Forum-Selection Clause Bars Zync from Pursuing ITC Trade Secret Case U.S. Judge Rules Forum-Selection Clause Bars Zync from Pursuing ITC Trade Secret Case
June 15, 2026
MLexAward/Ranking
Finnegan Earns Top Rankings in 2026 IAM Patent 1000 Guide; Nearly 60 Attorneys Ranked Finnegan Earns Top Rankings in 2026 IAM Patent 1000 Guide; Nearly 60 Attorneys Ranked
May 28, 2026
Intellectual Asset Management (IAM)Due to international data regulations, we’ve updated our privacy policy. Click here to read our privacy policy in full.