Erik R. Puknys
合伙人
More
vCard
  • Stanford Research Park
  • 3300 Hillview Avenue, 2nd Floor
  • Palo Alto, CA 94304-1203

Erik R. Puknys

合伙人

  • Stanford Research Park
  • 3300 Hillview Avenue, 2nd Floor
  • Palo Alto, CA 94304-1203

Erik Puknys（柏克倪）律师在25年前加入了美国专利商标局（USPTO）担任专利审查员，自此开启了他的知识产权职业生涯。

柏克倪律师的飞翰法律生涯起步于1994年的华盛顿办公室，其后在1997年搬至加州协助建立本所硅谷办公室。他代表原告也代表被告客户出席美国各个地区法院、联邦上诉法院以及最高法院的案件。他为创业公司也为财富百强的企业服务，涉足广泛的技术领域包括软件、电信、计算机硬件、半导体、医疗诊断、医疗设备以及医药等。

柏克倪律师一直被公认为专利诉讼的领军人物。他被The Legal 500 U.S.杂志和Intellectual Asset Management所高度认可并被评选为加州地区专利诉讼领军人。柏克倪律师还被The Daily Journal评选为加州75名顶尖知识产权诉讼律师之一。他被The 2015 BTI Client Service All-Stars评选为“卓越客户服务”奖。

柏克倪律师具有多年的律所领导职务，他曾担任本所上诉部门负责人；加州硅谷Palo Alto分所的管理合伙人；本所管理和薪酬委员会委员；并担任Palo Alto分所招聘工作的主管合伙人，他是该分所的创始合伙人之一。

在公益法律援助中，他曾代表光荣退伍的残疾军人对美国退伍军人办事处否认其福利提出上诉。他曾被列入首都公益组织荣誉榜（Capital Pro Bono High Honor Roll）。

相关信息

重要经历

  • Nuance Communications, Inc. 诉ABBYY USA Software House, Inc.案（加州北区法院、联邦巡回上诉法院）。作为主辩律师代理一家俄罗斯软件生产商ABBYY（在硅谷设有分公司）。该公司制造光学字符识别技术软件，并为Lexmark International（一家打印机和扫描仪的领先生产商）。原告Nuance Communications指控被告的几条产品线侵犯了其八项专利权，主张的赔偿超过260万美元。陪审团判定ABBYY和Lexmark获得全胜，地区法院的最终判决不利于Nuance。该案正在联邦巡回法院上诉阶段。
  • Innovative Therapies, Inc.诉 Kinetic Concepts, Inc.案（德拉维尔州地区法院、联邦巡回法院）。作为主辩律师代表Kinetic Concepts (KCI)公司提起上诉。该判决肯定了地区法院由于缺少管辖权而驳回案件的判决。最终联邦法院肯定了地区法院的判决并驳回此案。
  • Uniloc USA, Inc.诉微软案（联邦巡回法院）。同其他小组成员合作推翻地区法院未经陪审团而做出的不侵权的法律判决，而恢复了陪审团审理并判定微软侵犯Uniloc专利。联邦巡回法院也肯定了微软不能证明Uniloc专利为无效。
  • i4i Ltd. P’ship诉微软案（联邦巡回法院）。同其他小组成员合作获得联邦巡回法院的一致决定，肯定了地区法院做出的故意侵权的判决并维持了约9亿赔偿金的判决。此案是所有上诉案件中获赔最高的专利案件。该判决也维持了针对微软标志性的Word软件的永久性禁令。同时联邦巡回法院肯定了专利的有效性。
  • Kinetic Concepts, Inc.诉BlueSky Med. Group, Inc.案（联邦巡回法院）。代表客户在上诉中，成功获得对有效性的陪审团裁决。
  • SanDisk诉Memorex Prods., Inc.案（联邦巡回法院）。推翻了地区法院作出的非侵权判决。
  • Harris Corp.诉Ericsson Inc.案（联邦巡回法院）。推翻了判定客户Ericsson赔付450多万美元的判决。
  • Power Integrations, Inc.诉BCD Semiconductor Corp.案（德拉维尔州地区法院）。代表被告成功驳回临时禁令动议。由于对专利是否无效存有关键问题，法庭否定了临时禁令。随后，案件和解，我方代理客户未付任何赔偿金。
  • Roche诉 Home Diagnostics, Inc.案（印第安纳州南区地区法院）。获得有利判决。该判决肯定了指控我方客户，HDI的一项专利因不正当行为而不具有可执行性，且其它专利未被侵权。 

经验

Nuance Communications Inc,. v. Abbyy USA Software House Inc.
Represented ABBYY and Lexmark in a jury trial for a patent and trade dress case involving  optical character recognition technology, obtaining complete defense jury verdict on all issues, and client not liable for $260 million in alleged damages. The Federal Circuit affirmed the district court’s judgment.

3:08-cv-02912, N.D. Cal., Judge White

Innovative Therapies, Inc. v. Kinetic Concepts, Inc.
Lead counsel for Kinetic Concepts (KCI) on appeal. Argued the appeal from a district court judgment dismissing the case for lack of declaratory judgment jurisdiction. The Federal Circuit affirmed the judgment and dismissed the case.

09-1085, Fed. Cir., Judges Michel, Newman, Prost

i4i v Microsoft Corp.
Obtained a unanimous decision from the Federal Circuit affirming a district court judgment of willful infringement and a damages award of approximately $290 million (the second largest patent damages award ever affirmed on appeal), and the entry of a permanent injunction against Microsoft’s flagship Word software. The Federal Circuit also upheld the validity of the patent. The Supreme Court affirmed on all counts.

10-290, S. Ct., Judges Alito, Breyer, Ginsburg, Kagan, Kennedy, Roberts, Scalia, Sotomayor, Thomas
09-1504, Fed. Cir., Judges Moore, Prost, Schall

Kinetic Concepts, Inc. v. Smith & Nephew 
Appeared at trial and argued numerous motions, including JMOL, jury charge, and evidentiary motions. Jury returned verdict for client KCI. Successfully defended jury verdict of validity on appeal.

11-1105, Fed. Cir., Judges Bryson, Dyk, O'Malley
5:08-cv-00102, W.D. Tex., Judges Furgeson, Rodriguez

SanDisk v. Memorex Prods., Inc.
Represented SanDisk in appeal involving flash memory patents. Obtained reversal of district court's non-infringement finding.

04-1422, Fed. Cir., Judges Dyk, Gajarsa, Rader

Harris Corp. v. Ericsson Inc.
Obtained reversal of a more than $45 million dollar judgment against client Ericsson.

03-1625, -1626, Fed. Cir., Judges Prost, Clevenger, Gajarsa

FOX Factory, Inc. v. SRAM, LLC
Successfully convinced the Federal Circuit to vacate and remand adverse PTAB decisions, with the Federal Circuit finding the patent owner was not entitled to any presumption that the patented invention (related to bicycle chainring technology) was responsible for the alleged secondary considerations. On remand, the PTAB ruled in favor of client FOX Factory, finding all of SRAM’s claims unpatentable.

18-2024, -2025, Fed. Cir., Judges Prost, Wallach, Hughes
IPR2017-00118, -00472, PTAB, Judges Kim, Ippolito, Cherry

Two-Way Radio Equipment and Systems, Related Software, and Components Thereof
Represented respondents in investigation involving two-way radios and related audio features, including obtaining favorable decision on new designs.

337-TA-1053, ITC, Judge McNamara

Cepheid v. Roche Molecular Systems, Inc.
Lead counsel representing Cepheid in this declaratory judgment challenging the validity and enforceability of certain patents belonging to Roche Molecular Systems.

3:12-cv-04411, N.D. Cal., Judge Chen

Gerber Scientific International, Inc. v. Roland DG Corp.

Represented Roland DG of Japan in patent infringement lawsuit over large-format printers used for making indoor/outdoor banners, displays, and signs and vehicle graphics. The case was dismissed after the parties reached a mutually agreeable settlement shortly before case was in ready for trial. 

3:06-cv-02024, D. Conn., Judges Covello, Martinez

Roche Molecular Systems, Inc. v. Cepheid
Represented Cepheid in lawsuit filed by Roche Molecular Systems alleging infringement of a patent directed to diagnostic testing.

3:14-cv-03228, N.D. Cal., Judge Laporte

Nuance Communications Inc,. v. Abbyy USA Software House Inc.
Represented ABBYY and Lexmark in a jury trial for a patent and trade dress case involving  optical character recognition technology, obtaining complete defense jury verdict on all issues, and client not liable for $260 million in alleged damages. The Federal Circuit affirmed the district court’s judgment.

3:08-cv-02912, N.D. Cal., Judge White

Industrial Technology Research Institute v. Pacific Biosciences of California, Inc. 
Lead counsel in an appeal from an adverse decision in an interference concerning DNA sequencing technologies.

15-1200, Fed. Cir., Judges Lourie, Prost, Wallach

Asetek Danmark A/S v. CMI USA, Inc.
Member of trial team that secured successful jury verdict for client, Asetek, in a case against a competitor selling infringing computer cooling systems. Jury awarded damages at 14.5% royalty rate and rejected all of CMI USA’s invalidity defenses. Judge imposed enhanced damages for post-trial willful infringement.

3:13-cv-00457, N.D. Cal., Judges Chen, Corley, Tigar

ParkerVision, Inc. v. Qualcomm Inc.
Member of appellate team seeking to reverse the district court's decision to vacate a $170 million jury infringement verdict.

14-1612, -1655, Fed. Cir., Judges Bryson, Chen, Lourie

Highmark, Inc. v. Allcare Health Management System, Inc.
Represented respondent in a case regarding standards for awarding attorneys’ fees; previously succeeded in convincing the district court to lift all sanctions against counsel and obtained a reversal of four of the five grounds on which the district court found the case exceptional at the Federal Circuit.

12-1163, S. Ct., Judges Alito, Breyer, Ginsburg, Kagan, Kennedy, Roberts, Scalia, Sotomayor, Thomas
11-1219, Fed. Cir., Judges Dyk, Mayer, Newman
4:03-cv-01384, N.D. Tex., Judges Lancaster, Means

Digital Imaging Systems, Inc. v. ABBYY USA Software House, Inc. 
Lead counsel defending software manufacturer ABBYY against allegation of infringement brought by plaintiff, Digital Imaging Systems.

3:07-cv-01274, N.D. Tex., Judges Godbey, O'Connor

Brooks Automation, Inc. v. Telemark, Inc.
Represented Brooks Automation in asserting patents related to cryogenic refrigeration and successfully negotiating an early conclusion to the litigation that resulted in a license.

3:11-cv-05776, S.D. Cal., Judges Ryu, Seeborg

James L. Greene v. Dept. of Veterans Affairs
Represented Mr. James Greene, an honorably discharged, disabled veteran, in an appeal from a denial of benefits from the U.S. Department of Veterans affairs.

11-7084, Fed. Cir., Judges Linn, Dyk, Reyna

Juniper Networks, Inc. v. S. Vasanthkumar
A Juniper former employee downloaded numerous sensitive files from Juniper in the days and hours leading up to his resignation. On Juniper’s behalf, Finnegan sued for trade secret misappropriation and related causes of action.

2010-1-CV-178564, Sup. Ct. of Cal., Santa Clara County, Judge Kirwan

Uniloc USA v. Microsoft Corp.
Obtained a reversal of a district court’s grant of JMOL for noninfringement, thereby reinstating the jury verdict finding that Microsoft infringed Uniloc’s patent. The Federal Circuit also affirmed that Microsoft failed to prove Uniloc’s patent invalid.

10-1035, -1055, -1326, Fed. Cir., Judges Linn, Moore, Rader

Goodman v. Winbond Electronics Corp.
Lead counsel for Winbond in this patent infringement case concerning semiconductor memory devices.

5:10-cv-03738, N.D. Cal., Judge Lloyd

Certain Dynamic Random Access Memory Semiconductors
Represented Elpida and 18 other respondents in this ITC investigation, which involved four Infineon semiconductor processing patents and some of Elpida's most important and successful products.

337-TA-707, ITC, Judge Essex

Elpida Memory, Inc. v. Infineon Technologies AG
Represented Elpida in these two offensive actions against Infineon, which were filed after Infineon sued Elpida in the ITC.

1:10-cv-00327; 2:10-cv-00152, E.D. Va., Judges Lee, Jones; Friedman, Stillman

Innovative Therapies, Inc. v. Kinetic Concepts, Inc.
Lead counsel for Kinetic Concepts (KCI) on appeal. Argued the appeal from a district court judgment dismissing the case for lack of declaratory judgment jurisdiction. The Federal Circuit affirmed the judgment and dismissed the case.

09-1085, Fed. Cir., Judges Michel, Newman, Prost

Power Integrations, Inc. v. BCD Semiconductor Corp.
Represented the defendant by successfully arguing against preliminary-injunction motion. After the court denied the PI (on the basis that there was a substantial question of patent invalidity) the case settled without our client paying any damages.

1:07-cv-0063, D. Del., Judges Farnan, Stark

Freedom Wireless v. Boston Communications Group, Inc. 
Represented lead defendant, Boston Communications, in appealing a judgment that resulted in damages of more than $125 million and an injunction that would have eliminated the majority of Boston Communications' revenue.

06-1020, -1078, -1079, -1098, -1099, -1194, -1195, Fed. Cir.

MOSAID v. Infineon
Represented MOSAID in an appeal from an adverse judgment finding that none of the patents MOSAID asserted against Infineon were infringed.

06-1115, Fed. Cir.

Roche Diagnostics Corp. v. Home Diagnostics Inc.
Defended Home Diagnostics, a manufacturer of blood testing equipment, against infringement allegations by competitor. Obtained summary judgment of noninfringement of one patent and a holding of unenforceability of the other patent following a bench trial.

1:04-cv-00358, S.D. Ind., Judges McKinney, Shields

Housey Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v. Otsuka Pharmaceutical Co. Ltd.
Represented Otsuka Pharmaceuticals in a patent infringement suit concerning cell-based assay methods and kits. Housey requested that judgment be entered against it after the district court issued a Markman ruling favorable to the defendants. The Federal Circuit later affirmed the judgment.

1:01-cv-00401, D. Del., Judge Robinson

Bell Communications v. Fore Systems Inc.
Counsel for Bellcore in a patent infringement action involving patents directed to communications technology, including ATM, SONET, and IEEE 802 networking.

1:98-cv-00586, D. Del., Judge Farnan

Zircon Corp. v. Ryobi Technologies, Inc. 
Lead counsel for Ryobi in a patent infringement suit concerning electronic beam-finders used in construction.

3:03-cv-04446, N.D. Cal., Judge Illston

Hamilton v. Placeware, Inc. 
Represented Placeware in a patent infringement suit concerning remote conferencing software.

1:02-cv-02438, D. Md., Judge Garbis

Alcon Corp. v. LaserSight, Inc. 
Represented LaserSight in a patent infringement suit concerning corrective laser eye surgery.

2:03-cv-00678, E.D. Va., Judges Doumar, Miller

Insight Development Corp. v. Hewlett-Packard

Represented a major computer and computer-peripheral manufacturer accused of stealing trade secrets relating to internet and printer technologies by a former developer. The plaintiff was asking for more than $1,500,000,000 in damages. Obtained a rare summary judgment of independent development from the district court, which was affirmed on appeal.

4:98-cv-03349, N.D. Cal., Judge Wilken
01-1459, -1548, Fed. Cir., Judges Michel, Plager, Rader

Aesculap AG v. Walter Lorenz Surgical, Inc.
Counsel for Lorenz in a patent infringement suit concerning skull fixation devices.

3:00-cv-02394, N.D. Cal., Judges Jenkins, Spero
3:01-cv-00778, M.D. Fla., Judge Melton

Finnegan provides appellate relief for manufacturer of oil & gas equipment manufacturer hit with $70 million district court judgment

Handled an appeal for an oil-refining equipment manufacturer accused by a rival of misappropriating trade secrets. The district court had found that the manufacturer had hired away the rival’s employees and encouraged them to use their former employer’s trade secrets to design refinery equipment. The district court awarded nearly $70,000,000 in damages. After a one-sided oral argument in which all three judges on the panel repeatedly criticized the district court’s reasoning, the case settled for a tiny fraction of the original award.

Nuance Communications Inc,. v. Abbyy USA Software House Inc.

Lead counsel representing software manufacturer ABBYY, a Russian company (with a Silicon Valley subsidiary) that makes software for optical character recognition technology, and Lexmark International, a leading manufacturer of printers and scanners. The plaintiff, Nuance Communications, asserted eight patents against several different product lines, claiming damages in excess of $260 million. A jury found for ABBYY and Lexmark on all issues and the district court entered final judgment against Nuance. The Federal Circuit affirmed the district court's judgment.

3:08-cv-02912, N.D. Cal., Judge White

Innovative Therapies, Inc. v. Kinetic Concepts, Inc.

Lead counsel for Kinetic Concepts (KCI) on appeal. Argued the appeal from a district court judgment dismissing the case for lack of declaratory judgment jurisdiction. The Federal Circuit affirmed the judgment and dismissed the case.  

09-1085, Fed. Cir., Judges Michel, Newman, Prost

i4i v Microsoft Corp.

Member of the team that obtained a unanimous decision from the Federal Circuit affirming a district court judgment of willful infringement and a damages award of approximately $290 million (the second largest patent damages award ever affirmed on appeal), and the entry of a permanent injunction against Microsoft's flagship Word software. The Federal Circuit also upheld the validity of the patent.

10-290, S. Ct., Judges Alito, Breyer, Ginsburg, Kagan, Kennedy, Roberts, Scalia, Sotomayor, Thomas
09-1504, Fed. Cir., Judges Moore, Prost, Schall

Kinetic Concepts, Inc. v. Smith & Nephew 

Appeared at trial and argued numerous motions, including JMOL, jury charge, and evidentiary motions. Jury returned verdict for client KCI. Successfully defended jury verdict of validity on appeal.

11-1105, Fed. Cir., Judges Bryson, Dyk, O'Malley
5:08-cv-00102, W.D. Tex., Judges Furgeson, Rodriguez

SanDisk v. Memorex Prods., Inc.

Represented SanDisk in appeal involving flash memory patents. Obtained reversal of district court's non-infringement finding.

04-1422, Fed. Cir., Judges Dyk, Gajarsa, Rader

Harris Corp. v. Ericsson Inc.

Obtained reversal of a more than $45 million dollar judgment against client Ericsson.

03-1625, -1626, Fed. Cir., Judges Prost, Clevenger, Gajarsa

More

专业见解

Federal Circuit IP Blog

“2” Does Not Provide Written Description Support for “1”: Federal Circuit Affirms District Court’s Invalidation of Patent “2” Does Not Provide Written Description Support for “1”: Federal Circuit Affirms District Court’s Invalidation of Patent

July 8, 2026

Federal Circuit IP Blog

Federal Circuit Vacates and Remands Infringement and Damages Judgment After Erroneous Verdict Form and Eligibility Analysis Federal Circuit Vacates and Remands Infringement and Damages Judgment After Erroneous Verdict Form and Eligibility Analysis

July 8, 2026

Federal Circuit IP Blog

Federal Circuit Holds Defend Trade Secrets Act Claim Untimely Filed Federal Circuit Holds Defend Trade Secrets Act Claim Untimely Filed

June 22, 2026

Federal Circuit IP Blog

Spotlight on Upcoming Oral Arguments – June 2026 Spotlight on Upcoming Oral Arguments – June 2026

June 8, 2026

Conference

WIPR Trade Secrets West WIPR Trade Secrets West

May 28, 2026

San Jose

Federal Circuit IP Blog

Federal Circuit Affirms § 102(b) Invalidity; Source Code Commands Are Not Hearsay Federal Circuit Affirms § 102(b) Invalidity; Source Code Commands Are Not Hearsay

May 14, 2026

More

职业奖项

“Puknys brings seasoned trial experience and is adept at steering complex matters through to resolution…”

Intellectual Asset Management Patent 1000

"Puknys is a skilled litigator who operates flawlessly on both sides of the ‘v’."

Intellectual Asset Management Patent 1000

“Maintaining a California presence for eminent boutique Finnegan, Erik Puknys has practised in Silicon Valley for over two decades. A former USPTO examiner and polished litigator, he develops lasting protection for clients.”

Intellectual Asset Management Patent 1000

“One of its chief figures on the West Coast is Palo Alto-based Erik Puknys, a robust litigator who also leads the firm’s appellate division – which many consider to be the best in intellectual property in the country. With so much post-grant appeals activity going on right now, he and his group are in hot demand.”

Intellectual Asset Management Patent 1000

“‘Erik Puknys is a really good guy,’ says a client. ‘He has phenomenal knowledge of case law; he’s very sharp on strategy. [He has] really good client skills [and is a] great guy.’”

Managing Intellectual Property IP Stars

“‘Erik Puknys is genuinely interested in your technology and in getting the right patent for your business. He really takes the time to understand what you are doing and then works his magic. Most would fail to get the intellectual property he gets granted and he is great at coming up with creative, effective arguments when you do get a claim rejected.”

Intellectual Asset Management Patent 1000

“Erik Puknys flies the flag of celebrated boutique Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner in California. He leads the firm’s appellate practice, which is one of the best in the country.”

Intellectual Asset Management Patent 1000

“Puknys leads the firm’s appellate practice, which is one of the best in the business.”

Intellectual Asset Management Patent 1000

“Puknys brings seasoned trial experience and is adept at steering complex matters through to resolution…”

Intellectual Asset Management Patent 1000

"Puknys is a skilled litigator who operates flawlessly on both sides of the ‘v’."

Intellectual Asset Management Patent 1000

“Maintaining a California presence for eminent boutique Finnegan, Erik Puknys has practised in Silicon Valley for over two decades. A former USPTO examiner and polished litigator, he develops lasting protection for clients.”

Intellectual Asset Management Patent 1000

“One of its chief figures on the West Coast is Palo Alto-based Erik Puknys, a robust litigator who also leads the firm’s appellate division – which many consider to be the best in intellectual property in the country. With so much post-grant appeals activity going on right now, he and his group are in hot demand.”

Intellectual Asset Management Patent 1000

“‘Erik Puknys is a really good guy,’ says a client. ‘He has phenomenal knowledge of case law; he’s very sharp on strategy. [He has] really good client skills [and is a] great guy.’”

Managing Intellectual Property IP Stars

“‘Erik Puknys is genuinely interested in your technology and in getting the right patent for your business. He really takes the time to understand what you are doing and then works his magic. Most would fail to get the intellectual property he gets granted and he is great at coming up with creative, effective arguments when you do get a claim rejected.”

Intellectual Asset Management Patent 1000

“Erik Puknys flies the flag of celebrated boutique Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner in California. He leads the firm’s appellate practice, which is one of the best in the country.”

Intellectual Asset Management Patent 1000

“Puknys leads the firm’s appellate practice, which is one of the best in the business.”

Intellectual Asset Management Patent 1000

新闻

Commentary

Zync Fights Block of ITC Trade Secret Case Against BMW Zync Fights Block of ITC Trade Secret Case Against BMW

June 24, 2026

Law360

Press 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

Award/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)

Commentary

Top Trade Secrets Decisions of 2025 Top Trade Secrets Decisions of 2025

December 18, 2025

Law360

Commentary

Finnegan’s New AI Practice Is a Project in ‘Interdisciplinary’ Expertise Finnegan’s New AI Practice Is a Project in ‘Interdisciplinary’ Expertise

September 12, 2025

World Intellectual Property Review

Press Release

Finnegan Launches Comprehensive AI Practice Finnegan Launches Comprehensive AI Practice

September 9, 2025

More

会员身份

  • 美国律师基金会（American Bar Foundation）(研究员，2021 年至今）
  • 联邦巡回法院律师协会（Federal Circuit Bar Association）（规则委员会主席，2021年至今；规则委员会副主席，2020-2021年；法庭之友委员会副主席，2017-2020年；共同主席，专利诉讼协会，2011年；主席，模范陪审团指示项目主席，2011-2017年；专利诉讼委员会主席，2011-2017年）
  • 美国律师协会（American Bar Association）
Admissions and Education

律师协会

  • 加州律师协会
  • 哥伦比亚区律师协会
  • 加州中区美国联邦地区法院律师协会
  • 加州东区美国联邦地区法院律师协会
  • 加州北区美国联邦地区法院律师协会
  • 加州南区美国联邦地区法院律师协会
  • 美国联邦巡回上诉法院
  • 美国第六巡回上诉法院
  • 美国最高法院
  • 美国专利商标局

教育背景

  • 乔治梅森大学法学院 (George Mason School of Law)

优等成绩获法学博士，1997年

  • 范德堡大学 (Vanderbilt University)

材料科学硕士，1991年

  • 范德堡大学 (Vanderbilt University)

机械与材料工程学士，1989年

Erik律师的业务领域

AI + Finnegan
AI + Trade Secrets
上诉、争议和法律策略
Appeals from the PTAB
联邦巡回法院和最高法院上诉
全球知识产权维权、诉讼与审判
仲裁及其它替代性争议解决方案
联邦巡回法院和最高法院上诉
美国国际贸易委员会337调查与审判
专利诉讼与审判
审前策略
标准必要专利 (SEP)
商业秘密
专利局无效程序
PTAB无效程序：双方复审及授权后复审

Erik律师的行业领域

电子和信息科技
电子与计算机技术
电子设备及其组件
纳米技术
机器人技术
化学、工业和材料
化学
能源
清洁能源与可再生能源
服务、游戏与娱乐休闲
游戏
体育、健身及户外娱乐
生命科学
数字医疗
医疗设备与诊断
制药

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