|
Profile Visibility  | | #253 in weekly profile views out of 1,456 lawyers in Stamford, Connecticut | | #162,002 in weekly profile views out of 958,293 total lawyers Overall |
|
|
| |
| Practice Areas | Life Sciences and Healthcare; Patent Prosecution; Patent Litigation | | | Education | Harvard Law School, J.D., magna cum laude, 1991, Harvard College, A.B., Biochemistry, magna cum laude, 1988 | | | Admitted | 1991, Connecticut; 1992, U.S. District Court, District of Connecticut; 1996, U.S. District Court, Northern and Southern Districts of New York and U.S. Court of Appeals, Third Circuit; 1999, U.S. Court of Appeals, Second Circuit; 2003, U.S. Court of Appeals, Federal Circuit; 2004, U.S. District Court, District of Colorado; registered to practice before the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office | |
| Memberships | American Bar Association (Member, Sections on: Litigation; Intellectual Property; TIPS); Connecticut Bar Association (Co-Chair, Federal Practice Section; Member, Sections on: Litigation; Intellectual Property); Federal Circuit Bar Association; Federal Bar Council; Regional Bar Association. | | | Biography | Law Clerk, Hon. Robert E. Keeton, U.S. District Court, District of Massachusetts, 1991-1992. | | | ISLN | 900922778 | |
Documents by this lawyer on Martindale.com
Medical Diagnostic Claims Patent-Eligible after Bilski
Richard H. Brown, Jonathan B. Tropp, Lindsay S. Adams, Keith J. McWha, T. David Bomzer, October 14, 2009 In Prometheus Laboratories, Inc., v. Mayo Collaborative Services, 2008-1403 (September 16, 2009), the Federal Circuit, on first impression, held medical diagnostic claims to be patent-eligible subject matter under the "machine or transformation" test first elucidated in In re Bilski, 545...
Federal Circuit Closely Scrutinizes Inequitable Conduct ChargesRichard H. Brown, Jonathan B. Tropp, Catherine Dugan O'Connor, August 20, 2009 Patent cases frequently include claims that the patentee hid material information from the Patent Office, in an attempt to secure issuance of the patent. If proven, inequitable conduct can be a powerful defense, rendering the patent unenforceable. Yet the frequency with which such charges have been...
|
|
|