Focus Areas
Representative Patent Infringement Cases
- Spectrum Dynamics Medical Limited v. General Electric Co. et al., 1:18-cv-11386, S.D.N.Y., US Patent 9,295,439
- Dümmen NA, Inc. v. Proven Winners North America, LLC et al., 2-16-cv-00709, S.D. Ohio, US Patent No. 9,313,959
- Signify North America Corp. et al. v. Delta Light (USA) LLC et al., 1:19-cv-02877, S.D.N.Y., US Patents 6,577,512; 7,178,941; 7,262,559; 7,352,138; and 8,070,328
- MacroPoint, LLC v. Ruiz Food Products, Inc., 6:16-cv-01133, E.D. Tex., US Patents 8,275,358 and 9,429,659
- Celgard, LLC v. Targray Technology International, Inc., 5:19-cv-02401, N.D. Cal., US Patents 6,692,867 and RE47,520
- Brantley v. Contech Stormwater Solutions Inc., 4:07-cv-489, N.D. Fla., US Patents 5,707,527 and 6,027,639
- Stormceptor Corporation et al v. Vortechnics, Inc. et al., 1:04-cv-3158, D. Md., US Patents 4,985,148 and 5,498,331
- Contech Stormwater Solutions Inc. v. Baysaver Technologies, Inc. et al., 1:07-cv-358, D. Md., US Patents 5,707,527 and 6,027,639
- Dayton Superior Corporation v. Edmar Manufacturing, Inc., 3:11-cv-00380, S.D. Oh., US Patent 5,381,636
- Dayton Superior Corporation v. Polylok, Inc., 3:11-cv-00382, S.D. Ohio, US Patents 5,279,941; 5,824,253 and 5,946,871
- General Technologies, Inc. v. Dayton Superior Corporation, 1:08-cv-00646, E.D. Tex., US Patent 5,664,390
- Dayton Superior Corporation v. General Technologies, Inc., 3:09-cv-00114, S.D. Oh., US Patents 5,729,949 and 6,925,771
- Sorkin v. Dayton Superior Corporation, 4:06-cv-1318, S.D. Texas, US Patent 5,729,949
- Promotional Containers, Inc. v. Aztec Concrete Accessories, Inc., 5:04-cv-00336, E.D. Ky., US Patent 4,942,714
- Dayton Superior Corporation v. CONCRETEACCESSORIES.COM, 3:12-cv-00263, S.D. Oh., US Patent 5,729,941
- Xeikon International N.V. v. Gamut, Inc., et al., 03-cv-6123L(F), W.D. N.Y., US Patent 5,545,501
- Punch Graphix International, N.V. v. Color Imaging, Inc. et al., 07-cv-6189, W.D. N.Y., US Patent 5,545,501
- Winn Incorporated, et al. v. Eaton Corporation, et al., 03-cv-1568, C.D. Cal, US Patents 5,695,418 and 5,797,813
- Polypro, Inc. v. Ultra Flex Packaging Corporation, 2006-1497, Fed. Cir., US Patents 6,186,934B1 and 6,428,208
- Total Seal, Inc. v. Performance Motorsports, Inc., et al., 2:08-cv-01832, D. Ariz., US Patents 7,267,602; 7,207,870 and 6,899,595
- PCM Pompes v. Robbins & Myers, Inc., et al., 4:09-cv-01993, S.D. Tex., US Patent 6,082,980
- Buckhorn Inc. v. Orbis Corporation et al., 3:08-cv-00459, S.D. Oh., US Patent 5,199,592
- Berry Plastics Corporation v. Intertape Polymer Corporation, 3:10-cv-00076, S.D. Ind., US Patent 7,476,416
- Multilayer Stretch Cling Film Holdings, Inc. v. Intertape Polymer Group, Inc., 2:12-cv-02109, W.D. Tenn., US Patent 6,265,055
- Barton et al. v. Manitowoc Ice, Inc., 1:07-cv-754, S.D. Oh., US Patent 6,688,134
- Kroger Co. et al. v. Excentus Corporation, 1:10-cv-00161, S.D. Oh., US Patents 6,321,984; 6,332,128; 6,732,081; 6,741,968; 6,778,967; 6,885,996; 7,383,204; and 7,653,571
- Pythagoras Intellectual Holdings LLC et al. v. Stegall, et al., 8:08-cv-00087, C.D. Cal., US Patent 5,409,500
- Meadwestvaco Corporation v. Beaux Merzon Inc., 3:05-cv-00106, S.D. Oh., US Patent 6,558,062
- Adventus Americas Inc. et al. v. AST Environmental, et al., 3:08-cv-00497, W.D. N.C., US Patents 5,266,213; 5,534,154; 5,411,664; 5,480,579; 5,618,427 and 6,083,394
- Advanced Marketing Systems, LLC v. The Kroger Co., 3:14-cv-02065, N.D. Tex., US Patents 8,219,445; 8,370,199 and 8,538,805
- “Patent Marking – Federal Circuit Clarifies Noncompliance is not Cured by Ceasing to Sell Products or by Willful Infringement,” March 2020
- Co-author, “A Quick Guide to Patent Damages Discovery,” Law360, August 2016
- “Supreme Court Rules on Inter Partes Review of Patent Claims,” Thompson Hine Intellectual Property Update, June 2016
- “A Problematic Pat on the Back for the PTO: Dickinson v. Zurko,” 50 Case W. Res. 797
- “Raising the Defense of Procedural Default Sua Sponte: Who Will enforce the Great Writ of Liberty?”, 50 Case W. Res 869
- “Technical Advisors: Welcome Scientific Education, But at What Cost to a Patent’s Notice Function?”, IP Litigator, March/April 2003
- “Recent Patent Law Developments – One Litigator’s Perspective,” Dayton Intellectual Property Law Association, January 2016
- “Patent Law Overview,” University of Dayton Engineering Department, October 2009
- “Don’t Destroy Your Patent During Prosecution,” Cincinnati Bar Association, April 2009
- “Southern District of Ohio Proposed Patent Local Rules,” Cincy IP Law Assoc., March 2009
- “Patent Marking,” Pressure Sensitive Tape Council, Baltimore, Maryland, 2008
- “Enforcing Patents,” Casting Industry Suppliers Association, Marco Island, Florida, 2007
- “Obtaining Defensible Patents,” PSTC Technical Seminar XXIX, Las Vegas, May 2006
- “Pay No Attention to That Man Behind the Curtain: Using Technical Advisors in Patent Cases,” 2006 Best Practices: Claim Construction and the Doctrine of Equivalents, December 2005
- “Estoppel by Claim Cancellation – Honeywell International v. Hamilton Sundstrand,” Best Practices in Patent Prosecution for 2005, December 2004
- Selected for inclusion in 2010, 2012 to 2015 Ohio Super Lawyers® as a Rising Star
Professional Associations
- Intellectual Property Owners Association, Litigation Committee, Member
Community Activities
- 2014 Girls Coach of the Year Award, for the Miami Valley Youth Soccer Association
Education
- Case Western Reserve University School of Law, J.D., 2000, magna cum laude,
Order of the Coif, contributing editor, Law Review
- University of Dayton, B.S., 1997, summa cum laude,
Mechanical Engineering
Bar Admissions
- Ohio
Court Admissions
- U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Florida
- U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Ohio
- U.S. Patent and Trademark Office
- U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
- Patent Marking – Federal Circuit Clarifies Noncompliance is not Cured by Ceasing to Sell Products or by Willful Infringement,
Intellectual Property Update
, March 16, 2020