Robert M. Pollaro

Special Counsel
New York,  NY  U.S.A.
Phone212 504 6484

Peer Rating

Client Rating

Printer Friendly VersionEmail this PageDownload to My Outlook ContactsAdd lawyer to My FavoritesCompare this lawyer to other lawyers in your favorites

Experience & Credentials

Practice Areas

  • IP Due Diligence
  • ITC Litigation
  • Intellectual Property
  • Trademark & Copyright Protection
  • Litigation
  • Patent & Trade Secret Litigation
  • Patent Preparation & Prosecution
Contact InfoTelephone: 212 504 6484
Fax: 212 504 6666
University University of Cincinnati, B.S.C.E., 1996
Law SchoolSeton Hall University, J.D., 2000
Admitted2001, New York; U.S. District Court, Southern District of New York; U.S. District Court, Eastern District of New York; U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit; registered to practice before U.S. Patent and Trademark Office

Mr. Pollaro handles cases for clients in diverse fields, including telecommunications, computer hardware and software, consumer electronics, trademark and copyright. He frequently advises clients on domestic and international intellectual property strategy, and often leads efforts to identify IP assets that can be effectively used for offensive or defensive purposes. He also advises clients on intellectual property matters related to licensing, mergers and acquisitions, joint ventures and appeals.

Robert received his J.D. from Seton Hall University School of Law and a B.S. in Civil Engineering from the University of Cincinnati. He is admitted to practice before the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, the State of New York, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, and the U.S. District Courts for the Southern and Eastern Districts of New York. Before graduating from law school, Robert was a structural engineer for Dames & Moore.

News Releases

• The Legal 500 Recognizes More than 15 Cadwalader Practices and 47 of the Firm's Lawyers Across U.S. Offices Jun 06, 2012

• Cadwalader Names Five Special Counsel Sep 01, 2009


• 2012 Legal 500 US Jun 06, 2012


• NYIPLA Young Lawyers Roundtable Feb 06, 2014


Mr. Pollaro has extensive experience litigating complex intellectual property matters for both plaintiffs and defendants. He recently represented a leading Canadian art publisher as lead counsel in a copyright and unfair business competition matter in the Southern District of New York. The case settled on favorable terms after the court denied a motion to dismiss but invited a motion for Judgment on the Pleadings. Mr. Pollaro recently represented image sensing and processing technology company in patent infringement matter. He also regularly advises clients regarding confidential patent acquisition, licensing and defensive matters in all areas of technology.

In the past, Mr. Pollaro has handled numerous other significant intellectual property matters including:

•Represented telecommunications client in a patent infringement action related to wireless communications hardware.
•Represented technology company at the ITC in action related to computer hardware and software.
•Represented Sony Electronics on appeal in a declaratory judgment action involving parental rating control (V-chip) technology. The case was successfully remanded to the district court and subsequently dismissed in Sony's favor.
•Defended Sony Electronics in a patent infringement action involving optical disc technology. The case was dismissed on summary judgment of non-infringement based on the recommendation of a special master.
•Represented respondent Bombardier Inc. in a proceeding before the International Trade Commission brought by complainants Yamaha Motor Co. and Sanshin Industries alleging infringement of 11 patents directed to various aspects of personal watercraft including jet propulsion systems, ignition switches, aerodynamics, and noise reduction. The team obtained dismissal of six of the patents before trial through successful motions for summary determination of non-infringement, invalidity or lack of jurisdiction (no domestic industry). Following trial, the matter was settled on the remaining five patents.
•Also represented defendants Bombardier Inc., Bombardier Corporation and Bombardier Motor Corporation in a district court action brought by plaintiffs Yamaha Motor Co. and Sanshin Industries Co. involving allegations of infringement of 33 patents related to propulsion systems, electronics, handling and exhaust systems. The case was settled as part of the settlement of the companion ITC proceeding.


IP Insight

International Trade Commission

• ITC Proposed New Procedures for Electronic Filing Sep 26, 2011

• ITC Opinion Sets Standards for Analyzing Portfolio Licenses and the Domestic Industry Requirement Sep 26, 2011

• Electronic Discovery at the ITC: Current Challenges And Possible Improvements Sep 26, 2011

• ITC Chief Administrative Law Judge Paul J. Luckern Retires Sep 26, 2011

• ITC Delegating to ALJs Fact Finding Responsibilities on Public Interest May 09, 2011

• Federal Circuit Review of ITC Determinations: General Protecht Group, Inc. v. ITC and Vizio, Inc. v. ITC May 09, 2011

• Federal Circuit Decision in GE v. ITC re: Allocation of Argument Time in Favor of Intervenors Rather Than ITC May 09, 2011

• ITCTLA Trip to Beijing, Nanjing, Shanghai and Guangzhou, China on May 23-27, 2011 to Present a Program on Section 337 Proceedings Before The U.S. International Trade Commission May 09, 2011

• ITC Litigation & Enforcement Conference Held in New York on February 23-24, 2011 -- Summary of Judges' Panel on “The View from the Bench” May 09, 2011

• More Insight On ITC Claim Construction Procedures From The ITC Investigation of Certain Digital Set-Top Boxes And Components Thereof, Inv. No. 337-TA-712 Feb 14, 2011

• Federal Circuit Addresses Multiple Issues In Affirming The Commission's Final Determination In Spansion, Inc. v. International Trade Commission Feb 14, 2011

• ITC Publishes Study on Chinese Intellectual Property Infringement Feb 14, 2011

• ITC Proposes New Pleading Rules to Address Public Interest Issues Nov 22, 2010

• ITC Urges Federal Circuit to Refrain from Deciding Section 337 Appeals on Grounds “Not Presented” by the Parties Nov 22, 2010

• New ITC Procedure for Public Release of Final ITC Decisions on the Merits of Section 337 Cases Nov 22, 2010

• Review of SEB S.A. v. Montgomery Ward & Co. and Recent Section 337 Investigations Involving Inducement Nov 22, 2010

• Inaugural Quarterly Meeting with James Holbein, Supervisory Attorney-Advisor, and Lisa Barton, Attorney-Advisor, of ITC Docket Services, Office Of Information Technology Services Nov 22, 2010

• Important New Decision by United States International Trade Commission on the Procedure for Pretrial Claim Construction in Section 337 Investigations Nov 22, 2010

• ITC Investigations Not Subject To Bankruptcy Stays -- District Court Decisions Reverse Bankruptcy Court Stays Of ITC Investigations 648 And 685 Sep 24, 2010

• ITC Domestic Industry Requirement - ITC Opinion In Coaxial Cable Connectors Case Outlines Standard For Demonstrating A “Domestic Licensing Industry” By Non-Practicing Entities Sep 24, 2010

• ITC To Solicit Public Interest Comments Upon Receipt Of Complaint Sep 24, 2010

• ITC Judge E. James Gildea Joins The Ranks Of ITC Judges Holding Pre-Trial Markman Hearings Sep 24, 2010

• ITC's Mediation Program For Section 337 Investigations Gaining Momentum Sep 24, 2010

• ITC Reviews First Ever Markman Claim Construction Made By Summary Determination Sep 24, 2010

• IP Czar Aims At Enhancing Section 337 Enforcement Of IP Rights Sep 24, 2010

U.S. Federal Courts

• Supreme Court, in FTC v. Actavis, Rejects the “Scope of the Patent” Test, Holding that Antitrust Law's “Rule of Reason” Analysis Can Pierce the Shield of Patent Rights Jul 09, 2013

• Supreme Court Rules that a Naturally Occurring DNA Segment Is Not Patent Eligible, But cDNA May Be Patent Eligible Jul 09, 2013

• Federal Circuit Rules on Patentability of Business Method Patent Jul 09, 2013

• The Federal Circuit Has Jurisdiction over Appeals in Which Damages and Willfulness Remain Unresolved Jul 09, 2013

• Federal Circuit Clarifies Standards for a Clinical Trial to Be Public Use Jul 09, 2013

• Federal Circuit Opens Reissue Proceedings to Add New Claims to Hedge Against Patent Invalidity Sep 26, 2011

• Federal Circuit Holds Isolated DNA Is Statutory Subject Matter Under s101 Sep 26, 2011

• Prometheus Redux Sep 26, 2011

• In Section 145 Civil Actions, Patent Applicants Are Not Limited To The PTO Record and May Introduce New Evidence Jul 14, 2011

• En Banc Federal Circuit Overhauls Inequitable Conduct Law Jul 14, 2011

• Supreme Court Rules that Clear and Convincing Evidence Is Required to Establish the Invalidity of a Patent Jul 14, 2011

• En Banc Federal Circuit To Review Joint (Divided) Infringement Jul 14, 2011

• Supreme Court Rules that Induced Infringement Under Section 271(b) Requires Knowledge or 'Willful Blindness' that the Induced Acts Constitute Patent Infringement Jul 14, 2011

• Rule 9(b) Applies To The False Marking Statute May 09, 2011

• Largest Patent Infringement Verdict Ever Affirmed On Appeal Feb 14, 2011

• Federal Circuit Requires Principal/Agent Relationship or Contractual Obligation for Joint Infringement Feb 14, 2011

• Supreme Court To Review The 27 Year Old Clear and Convincing Evidence Requirement for Invalidity Feb 14, 2011

• Federal Circuit Applies Bilski And Reaffirms Decision That Methods Of Optimizing Drug Dosages Are Patentable Under 35 U.S.C. 101 Feb 14, 2011

• Federal Circuit Reverses Judgment that Insurance Companies Infringed Patent on Computerized Method for Administering Variable Annuities Nov 22, 2010

• Federal Circuit Approves Use Of Industry Standards To Prove Infringement Nov 22, 2010

• The Supreme Court Grants Certiorari to Determine the Intent Required for Inducement of Infringement - Its Tenth Patent Case Since 2005 Nov 22, 2010

• Supreme Court To Review Rights to Inventions Arising From Federally-Funded Research Nov 22, 2010

• En Banc Decision by Federal Circuit Addresses Scope of Patent Misuse Doctrine Nov 22, 2010

• Federal Circuit Addresses Definiteness Requirement For Means-Plus-Function Claims Nov 22, 2010

• The Federal Circuit Sets Forth Standards for Protective Orders Containing a Patent Prosecution Bar Sep 24, 2010

• Preserve Your Claims, or Else - The Federal Circuit Warns - You Will Not Get “A Second Bite” At The Apple Sep 24, 2010

• Plaintiffs in “Myriad Genetics” Case Move for Recusal of Chief Judge Rader Sep 24, 2010

• “Plain Errors” In Jury Instructions, Verdict Form, Require New Trial On Individual Liability For Corporation's Infringement; Damage Award Vacated As Product Of “Speculation Or Guesswork” Sep 24, 2010

• District Court Dismisses False Marking Actions Based On Plaintiff's Failure To Meet Heightened Pleading Standard of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 9(b) Sep 24, 2010

• Federal Circuit Rejects Accused Infringer's “Divided Infringement” and Standing Defenses; Holds Claims Cover Patent-Eligible Subject Matter Sep 24, 2010

• Recent Federal Circuit Decision May Affect Inequitable Conduct Determinations Jul 13, 2010

• Applying Inwood to Online Market Place, Second Circuit Finds Generalized Knowledge of Counterfeiting Insufficient for Contributory Trademark Infringement Jul 13, 2010

• District Court Rules That Isolated Genes Are Unpatentable Products Of Nature Jul 13, 2010

• Without Affirmative Act By Patentee, Federal Circuit Rejects Declaratory Judgment Suit By Potential Infringer Jul 13, 2010

• Patent Held Unenforceable On Grounds Of Equitable Estoppel Jul 13, 2010

• Federal Circuit Affirms En Banc a Separate Written Description Requirement under 35 U.S.C. 112, Paragraph 1 Jul 13, 2010

• Implied Assertion of Rights by Patent Licensing Company Supports Declaratory Judgment Jurisdiction Jul 13, 2010

Profile Visibility
#10,271 in weekly profile views out of 99,803 lawyers in New York, New York
#133,404 in weekly profile views out of 1,587,858 total lawyers Overall

Office Information

Robert M. Pollaro

New YorkNY 10281-0006


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