As a partner in the firm’s Intellectual Property practice group, Jeff focuses his practice on all aspects of patent law with an emphasis on patent litigation, patent prosecution, and patent invalidity and infringement studies. He has represented both patent owners and accused infringers in patent infringement disputes involving a wide range of technologies in courts throughout the country. Jeff has the knowledge and experience to effectively and efficiently manage any patent infringement action from the pre-suit investigation through appeal at the Federal Circuit Court of Appeals. In addition, he is also registered to practice before the United States Patent and Trademark Office and regularly counsels clients regarding clearance of new product designs.

Technical Experience
Mechanical engineering, electro-mechanical systems, stormwater management systems, commercial food preparation equipment, medical devices, wall anchors, extruders, plant breeding, and automotive components including tensioners, vibrational dampers and power steering systems.



  • 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


  • “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 and Civic

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