Customer Support: 800-526-4902
 

Jonathan B.

Jonathan B. "Jon" Tropp

LinkedIn
Partner
Stamford,  CT  U.S.A.
Phone(203) 977 7337

Peer Rating
 5.0/5.0
AV® Preeminent

Client Rating

Featured AV Peer Review Rated Lawyer IconFeatured AV Peer Review Rated Lawyer Icon
Printer Friendly VersionEmail this PageDownload to My Outlook ContactsAdd lawyer to My FavoritesCompare this lawyer to other lawyers in your favorites

Experience & Credentials Ratings & Reviews
 

Practice Areas

  • Patent Litigation
  • Life Sciences and Healthcare
  • Patent Prosecution and Counseling
 
University Harvard College, A.B., Biochemistry, magna cum laude, 1988
 
Law SchoolHarvard Law School, J.D., magna cum laude, 1991 executive editor, Harvard Journal of Law & Technology
 
Admitted1991, Connecticut; U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit; U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit; U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit; U.S. District Court, District of Colorado; U.S. District Court, District of Connecticut; U.S. District Court, Northern District of New York; U.S. District Court, Southern District of New York; U.S. Supreme Court; U.S. Patent and Trademark Office
 
Biography

Professional Experience

Jon Tropp's complex commercial litigation practice includes patent, trademark, copyright, and trade secret litigation. Jon has represented both plaintiffs and defendants ranging from international corporations in nine-figure cases to closely held businesses. In addition to intellectual property cases, Jon has defended, among others, antitrust, insurance coverage, and shareholder litigation matters, including class actions. Jon is a registered patent attorney.

Representative Matters

· Representing publisher of world famous book series in a complex commercial dispute

· Defending manufacturer of organic coolant and flavor compositions against patents claiming topical and ingestible coolants and flavorants

· Defending manufacturer of digital televisions against claims of patent infringement

· Obtained summary judgment, affirmed on appeal, dismissing trade secret misappropriation and fraud claims against international instrument manufacturers; partial summary judgment of invalidity of patent

· Successfully defended manufacturer of optical fibers against patent infringement claims

· Defeated motion for preliminary injunction, after hearing, against a major reinsurer in the defense of a trademark infringement action; case settled favorably after denial of injunction was affirmed on appeal

· Overturned Connecticut Sunday-closing law through constitutional challenge before the Connecticut Supreme Court

News, Publications & Presentations

· "Marine Polymer V. HemCon: New Breed Of Intervening Right," Law360, December 22, 2011

· Featured, "Fifty Day Pitney Attorneys Recognized as Super Lawyers," Day Pitney Press Release, October 24, 2011

· Quoted, "New Patent Law To Create Jobs - For Attorneys," Connecticut Law Tribune, October 10, 2011

· Co-author, "The Supreme Court Reaffirms the Clear-and-Convincing Standard for Patent Invalidity," Day Pitney Alert, June 15, 2011

· Co-author, "The Supreme Court Retools the Test for Induced Patent Infringement," Day Pitney Alert, June 3, 2011

· Co-author, "The Federal Circuit Redefines Inequitable Conduct," Day Pitney Alert, June 2, 2011

· Co-author, "Federal Circuit Defines Framework for Pre-Suit Spoliation Inquiry," Day Pitney Alert, May 17, 2011

· Co-author, "District Court Finds Qui Tam Provision of Patent Marking Statute Unconstitutional," Day Pitney Alert, February 28, 2011

· Co-author, "The Machine-Or-Transformation Test Reaffirmed As Useful And Important," Day Pitney Alert, December 20, 2010

· Featured, "Fifty-seven Day Pitney Attorneys Recognized as Super Lawyers; Six Additional Lawyers Recognized as 'Rising Stars'," Day Pitney Press Release, November 12, 2010

· Co-author, "U.S. Supreme Court Leaves Door Open for Some Business Method Patents," Day Pitney Alert, June 30, 2010

· Quoted, "Knock It Off," Connecticut Law Tribune, May 17, 2010

· Co-author, "Federal Circuit Upholds Separate Written Description Requirement," Day Pitney Alert, March 23, 2010

· Co-speaker, "Patent Marking: Profits, Perils, and Pitfalls," Day Pitney Webinar, February 4, 2010

· Co-author, "Federal Circuit Issues Important Reversal," Connecticut Law Tribune, October 12, 2009

· Co-author, "Medical Diagnostic Claims Patent-Eligible After Bilski," Day Pitney Alert, October 5, 2009

· Co-author, "Federal Circuit Closely Scrutinizes Inequitable Conduct Charges," The Metropolitan Corporate Counsel, September 2009

· Co-author, "Considering Summary Judgment After KSR," Law 360, August 25, 2009

· Co-author, "Federal Circuit Closely Scrutinizes Inequitable Conduct Charges," Day Pitney Alert, August 7, 2009

· Speaker, "Launching a Product in a Competitive Market: Avoiding IP infringement and developing a product that immediately differentiates itself," Medical Design and Manufacturing Conference, June 8, 2009

· Co-author, "Patent Reform Efforts Not Entirely Popular: Courts, bar split on initiatives designed to streamline process," Connecticut Law Tribune, April 20, 2009

· Co-author, "Federal Circuit in Tafas Invalidates the U.S. Patent Office's Continuation Rule but Does Not Render a Final Decision on the Remaining Rules," Day Pitney Alert, March 27, 2009

· Featured, "Day Pitney's Jonathan Tropp to be Honored by Anti-Defamation League," Day Pitney Press Release, March 10, 2009

· Co-author, "Federal Circuit Clarifies the Test for Patent Eligibility in Process Claim," Day Pitney Alert, January 12, 2009

· "Federal Circuit Continues to Lower the Bar for Filing a Declaratory Judgment in Patent Cases," Day Pitney Alert, May 1, 2008

· Co-author, "Divided and Conquered? The Precarious Standing of Patent Licensees," Patent & Strategy Management, April 2008

· Co-author, "Divided and Conquered? The Precarious Standing of Patent Licensees," The Intellectual Property Strategist, January 2008

· Co-author, "Bringing Trade Secret Thieves to Justice," Connecticut Law Tribune, August 13, 2007

· "Supreme Court Decision Will Alter the Patent Landscape - Reaffirmation Should Facilitate Patent Validity Challenges Based on Obviousness," Day Pitney Alert, May 14, 2007

· "What Should You Do When You Receive a Cease-and-Desist Notice?" DBH Breakfast Briefing, July 24, 2006

· "Early Strategies to Position Your Trade Secrets Case for a Win," ABA Business Torts Journal, Spring 2006

· "Copyright Infringement -- Not Just for Direct Infringers Anymore," DBH Alert, June 29, 2005

· "Significant Rulings in Trademark Law," DBH Alert, December 16, 2004

Professional Affiliations

· American Bar Association, Intellectual Property Section

· American Bar Association, Litigation Section

· Connecticut Bar Association, Intellectual Property Section, executive committee

· Connecticut Bar Association, Litigation Section

· Connecticut Bar Association, Federal Practice Section, past chair

· Connecticut Bar Association, Federal Judiciary Study Committee

· Connecticut Bar Association, Federal Judiciary Committee

· Connecticut Bar Association, House of Delegates, past delegate

· Fairfield County Bar Association

· Intellectual Property Owners Association (IPO), Litigation Committee

· District of Connecticut, Ad Hoc Committee on Local Patent Rules

Outside Interests

· Anti-Defamation League member, Connecticut Executive Committee and Regional Board; Chair, Connecticut Civil Rights Committee

Awards and Achievements

· Recognized as a Connecticut Super Lawyer, 2006, 2011/2012

· Recipient of the Anti-Defamation League Daniel R. Ginsberg Leadership Award, 2009

 
ISLN900922778
 

Documents by this lawyer on Martindale.com

Subscribe to this feed

The Supreme Court Reaffirms the Clear-and-Convincing Standard for Patent Invalidity
Elizabeth A. "Beth" Alquist,T. David Bomzer,Richard H. Brown,Gerald Levy,Keith J. McWha,Jonathan B. "Jon" Tropp, June 17, 2011
In Microsoft v. i4i (S. Ct., June 9, 2011), the Supreme Court unanimously affirmed that clear and convincing evidence is needed to prove the invalidity of a U.S. patent. The Court rejected Microsoft's requests to apply the lower preponderance-of-evidence standard, either in general or at least when...

The Supreme Court Retools the Test for Induced Patent Infringement
T. David Bomzer,Richard H. Brown,Jonathan B. "Jon" Tropp, June 6, 2011
In Global-Tech Appliances, Inc. v. SEB S.A. (S. Ct., May 31, 2011), the Supreme Court adjusted the requirements for active inducement liability for patent infringement under 35 U.S.C. § 271(b). Induced infringement requires proof of actual knowledge that a patent is infringed, including actual...

Federal Circuit Defines Framework for Pre-Suit Spoliation Inquiry
T. David Bomzer,Jonathan B. "Jon" Tropp, May 20, 2011
In Micron Technology v. Rambus, 2009-1263 (Fed. Cir., May 13, 2011), and its companion decision, Hynix v. Rambus, Nos. 2009-1299, -1347(Fed. Cir. May 13, 2011), the Federal Circuit defined a framework for determining when a litigation has become "reasonably foreseeable," thereby giving...



View Ratings & Reviews
Profile Visibility
#340 in weekly profile views out of 2,219 lawyers in Stamford, Connecticut
#185,926 in weekly profile views out of 1,447,639 total lawyers Overall

Office Information

Jonathan B. "Jon" Tropp
Day Pitney LLP

Stamford, CT 06901




Loading...
 

Professional Networking for Legal Professionals Only

Quickly and easily expand your professional
network - join the premier global network for legal professionals only. It's powered by the
Martindale-Hubbell database - over 1,000,000 lawyers strong.
Join Now
 

Affiliations

Lex Mundi