Charles L. Gholz - Curriculum Vitae | Oblon Spivak McClelland Maier & Neustadt, L.L.P., specializing exclusively in intellectual property law

EDUCATION: Massachusetts Institute of Technology, B.S.M.E. & B.S. Ec. (1965); Columbia University, LL.B. (1968); George Washington University, LL.M. in Patent and Trade Regulation Law (1973).

CLERKSHIP: The Honorable Giles S. Rich, United States Court of Customs and Patent Appeals (1970-72).

ACADEMIC APPOINTMENT: Lecturer in law, George Mason University School of Law (1992 to 1995).

AWARDS: Special citation from the Board of Directors of the Patent and Trademark Office Society for "many outstanding articles and letters to the editor that have appeared in the Journal of the Patent and Trademark Office Society over a sustained number of years" (2000).

(2) Patent and Trademark Jurisdiction of the Court of Customs and Patent Appeals, 40 Geo. Wash. L. Rev. 416 (1972), 55 JPOS 69, 184 (1973).

(3) Recent Developments in the CCPA Relating to the First Paragraph of 35 USC 112, 54 JPOS 768 (1972), 55 JPOS 4 (1973).

(4) The Defense of Patent Invalidity in Tariff Commission Patent Actions, 55 JPOS 791 (1973).

(5) Criminal and Disciplinary Liability for Fraud on the Patent and Trademark Office, 3 APLAQJ 177 (1975).

(6) Extraordinary Writ Jurisdiction of the CCPA in Patent and Trademark Cases, 58 JPOS 356 (1976), 69 FRD 119 (1976).

(7) "Petitions and Appeals," "Interferences," and "Correction of Issued Patents" in Patent Practice (Kayton ed., 1st ed. 1976; 2nd ed. 1983; 3rd ed. 1985; 4th ed. 1989; 5th ed. 1993; 6th ed. 1995).

(8) Co-editor of the annual revisions to Dunner, Court Review of Patent Office Decisions: CCPA (Matthew Bender 1976 to 1984).

(9) The Law of Double Patenting in the CCPA, 4 APLAQJ 261 (1976), 16 Ind. Prop. 197 (1977).

(10) "Establishing the Time the Invention Was Made" in Non-Obviousness: The Standard of Patentability in the United States (1978).

(11) Review of Decisions Striking Patent Applications for Fraud, 61 JPOS 52 (1979).

(12) Failure to Perfect Claim to Priority During Pendency of First-Filed U.S. Patent Application, 63 JPOS 59 (1981).

(13) Collateral Estoppel Effect of Decisions by the Board of Patent Interferences, 30 DePaul L. Rev. 789 (1981), 65 JPOS 67 (1983).

(14) Board of Appeals Jurisdiction Over Appeals from Decisions by Primary Examiners Refusing to Institute Interferences on Modified or Phantom Counts, 64 JPOS 651 (1982).

(16) Willful Infringement and "Magic Words" -- The Effect of Opinions of Counsel on Awards of Increased Damages and Attorney Fees, 66 JPTOS 598 (1984).

(17) Compelled Testimony, Testimony Abroad, and Protective Orders in Interference Proceedings Under the New Rules, 67 JPTOS 239 (1985).

(18) CAFC Review of Interlocutory Decisions, 67 JPTOS 417 (1985), 5 Legal Notes & Viewpoints (1985).

(19) Gholz & Pope, The Impact of Statutory Invention Registrations on Interference Practice, 67 JPTOS 645 (1985).

(20) Dunner et al.: Court of Appeals For The Federal Circuit: Practice & Procedure (Matthew Bender 1985) and annual revisions since 1985.

(21) Choice of Law in the United States Circuit Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, 13 AIPLAQJ 309 (1985).

(22) Old Rule Interferences After the Promulgation of the New Rules, 68 JPTOS 335 (1986).

(23) A Critique of Recent Opinions of the Federal Circuit in Patent Interferences, 69 JPTOS 657 (1987).

(24) Why First-to-File Should Not Mean the End of Interferences, 69 JPTOS 711 (1987).

(25) A Critique of Recent Opinions of the Federal Circuit in Patent Interferences, 71 JPTOS 439 (1989).

(26) Jurisdiction of the Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences to Decide Infringement Questions Under the Doctrine of Equivalents, 72 JPTOS 334 (1990).

(27) How the United States Currently Handles the Interference Issues That Will Remain in a First-to-File World, 18 AIPLAQJ 1 (1990).

(28) A Critique of Recent Opinions of the Federal Circuit in Patent Interferences, 73 JPTOS 700 (1991).

(29) A Critique of Recent Opinions of the Federal Circuit in Patent Interferences, 75 JPTOS 448 (1993).

(30) What Article 1709(7) of NAFTA Will Mean to Canadian Practitioners, 10 Canadian Intellectual Property Review 433 (1993).

(31) A Critique of Recent Opinions of the Federal Circuit in Patent Interferences, 76 JPTOS 649 (1994).

(32) A Critique of Recent Opinions of the Federal Circuit in Patent Interferences, 77 JPTOS 427 (1995).

(33) Practicing Under the New Patent Interference Rules and New Rule 131, 77 JPTOS 858 (1995).

(34) Gholz, Kelber, & Mori, The Taking of Voluntary Testimonial Depositions in Japan for Use in U.S. Patent Interferences, 78 JPTOS 138 (1996).

(35) Investive Versus Divestive Actual Reductions to Practice, 78 JPTOS 195 (1996).

(36) Some Problems for Interference Practice Credited by the GATT/TRIPs Implementing Legislation and the PTO's Implementing Rules, Inside the PTO, Questrol Publishing, 1996.

(37) A Critique of Recent Opinions of the Federal Circuit in Patent Interferences, 78 JPTOS 550 (1996).

(38) US Rulings Muddle Patent Interference Law, IP Worldwide (January/February 1997) at page 11.

(39) A Critique of Recent Opinions of the Federal Circuit in Patent Interferences, 79 JPTOS 271 (1997).

(41) Patent Interferences -- Big Ticket Litigation With No Effective Discovery, 4 Intellectual Property Today No. 9 at page 10 (1997).

(42) The BPAI and the TTAB are Required to Set Forth in their Opinions Specific Findings of Fact and Conclusion of Law Adequate to Form a Basis for Appellate Review, 80 JPTOS 5 (1998).

(43) Is the Declaration of an Interference a Ticket to Ride to the End of the Line?, 5 Intellectual Property Today No. 5 at page 31 (1998).

(44) A Critique of Recent Opinions of the Federal Circuit in Patent Interferences, 80 JPTOS 321 (1998).

(46) Why Are 35 USC 146 Actions Becoming So Popular?, 5 Intellectual Property Today No. 9 at page 6 (1998).

(48) Multi-Patent Interference, 5 Intellectual Property Today No. 12 at page 6 (1998).

(49) You Can Use Interferences To Save Big Bucks in Patent Litigation, 17 Biotechnology Law Report 737 (1998).

(50) A Critique of Recent Opinions of the Federal Circuit in Patent Interferences, 81 JPTOS 241 (1999).

(51) The Decisions of the Board in an Interference Are Entitled to Issue-Preclusive Effect in a Parallel Patent Infringement Action but not Vice Versa, 6 Intellectual Property Today No. 8 at page 8 (1999).

(52) The Black Hole of the Interference System, 6 Intellectual Property Today No. 11 at page 26 (1999).

(53) Pous and Gholz, Will Inter Partes Reexamination Be Embraced by Third Parties as an Alternative to Litigation?, 7 Intellectual Property Today No. 3 at page 37 (2000).

(54) A Critique of Recent Opinions of the Federal Circuit in Patent Interferences, 82 JPTOS 296 (2000).

(55) Producing Witnesses in an Interference for Cross-Examination Abroad, 7 Intellectual Property Today No. 5 at page 6 (2000).

(56) Why 35 USC 146 Practice Should Boom, 7 Intellectual Property Today No. 12 at page 48 (2000).

(57) Litigating Interfering Patents in Federal Court as an Alternative to PTO Interference Proceedings, 6 The IP Litigator No. 6 (Nov. 2000).

(59) A Critique of Recent Opinions in Patent Interferences, 83 JPTOS 161 (2001).

(60) Parallel District Court and ITC Patent Infringement Actions and PTO Interferences, Patent World (April 2001) at page 19, The John Marshall Law School News Source No. 1 (Winter 2000) at page 30, and 83 JPTOS 607 (2001).

(61) Is It Safe Not to File a Copy of a Settlement Agreement Entered Into After Court Review of a Board Decision in an Interference Has Begun?, 9 Intellectual Property Today No. 2 at page 28 (2002).

(62) A Critique of Recent Opinions in Patent Interferences, 84 JPTOS 163 (2002).

(63) "Patent Interference Proceedings Before the USPTO” in Building and Enforcing Intellectual Property Value (2002).

(64) A Critique of Recent Opinions in Patent Interferences, 85 JPTOS 401 (2003).

(66) Post-Interference Ex Parte Prosecution by a Losing Applicant Interferent, 10 Intellectual Property Today No. 6 at page 26 (2003).

(67) Binding Precedent in the Trial Section of the BPAI, 10 Intellectual Property Today No. 7 at page 10 (2003).

(68) Sometimes the Trial Section Does Handle Patent-Patent Interferences After All!, 10 Intellectual Property Today No. 8 at page 32 (2003).

(69) The Majority of a Three-Judge Panel of the Federal Circuit Has Approved the Two-Way Test of Winter v. Fujita—But Help May Be On the Way, 10 Intellectual Property Today No. 9 at page 36 (2003).

(70) Supplement to "Interference Practice Strategies,” 85 JPTOS 531 (2003), 85 JPTOS 775 (2003).

(71) In 35 USC 146 Actions, Should District Courts Decide Issues That Were Not Reached by the Board?, 10 Intellectual Property Today No. 10 at page 42 ( 2003).

(72) Gholz & Pike, Targeting Applicants Should Be Expressly Authorized to File 37 CFR 1.313 Petitions to Withdraw Target Applications From Issuance for Consideration of a Possible Interference, 10 Intellectual Property Today No. 11 at page 12 (2003).

(73) How Hard Is It, Really, to Prove Derivation?, 10 Intellectual Property Today No. 12 at page 18 (2003).

(74) Videotaping Interference Testimony, 11 Intellectual Property Today No. 7 at page 10 (2004).

(75) A Critique of Recent Opinions in Patent Interferences, 86 JPTOS 464 (2004).

(76) Must an Expert Witness’s Opinion be "Supported by Cited Literature”?, 11 Intellectual Property Today No. 8 at page 12 (2004).

(77) How Should We Deal With § 16.3 of the Trial Section’s Standing Order?, 11 Intellectual Property Today No. 9 at page 8 (2004).

(78) What to Do if Your Client May Infringe Both of Two Interfering Patents?, 11 Intellectual Property Today No. 10 at page 20 (2004).

(79) How to Redact an Exhibit for Use in an Interference, 11 Intellectual Property Today No. 11 at page 16 (2004).

(80) What to Do if Your Client Buys Your Opponent’s Case in Interference Late in the Game, 11 Intellectual Property Today No. 12 at page 26 (2004).

(81) What’s the Use of 37 CFR 41.150(c)(2)?, 12 Intellectual Property Today No. 12 at page 14 (2005).

(82) A Critique of the New Rules and the New Standing Order in Contested Case/Interference Practice, 87 JPTOS 62 (2005).

(83) Are Side Agreements Between Counsel Enforceable Before the Board?, 12 Intellectual Property Today No. 2 at page 23 (2005).

(84) Why Should Trial Section Decisions Be Given Any Deference During District Court Review?, IP Law Bulletin (February 28, 2005).

(85) A Suggestion for Saving Trees--and File Space at the Board, 12 Intellectual Property Today No. 3 at page 12 (2005).

(86) The Impact of the CREATE Act on Interferences, 12 Intellectual Property Today No. 4 at page 39 (2005).

(87) Markman Hearings for Interferences?, 12 Intellectual Property Today No. 5 at page 25 (2005).

(88) The Trial Section Should Have an Analog to FRCP 50(a)(1), 12 Intellectual Property Today No. 6 at page 30 (2005).

(89) Gholz and Wilcox, Does Reliance On Attorney Diligence Waive the Attorney-Client Privilege?, 12 Intellectual Property Today No. 7 at page 32 (July 2005).

(90) Errata Sheets in Interferences.,12 Intellectual Property Today No. 8 at page 10 (2005).

(91) Tierney Interferences, 12 Intellectual Property Today No. 9 at page 31 (2005).

(92) Gholz, Wicklund, & VanOphem, Does the PTO Have Jurisdiction to Issue a Patent to an Applicant That Prevailed in a 35 USC 146 Action During the Pendency of an Appeal to the Federal Circuit by the Losing Patentee?, 12 Intellectual Property Today No. 10 at page 8 (2005).

(93) Gholz and Wilcox, Expert Witness Problems-- and Proposed Solutions, 12 Intellectual Property Today No. 11 at page 30 (2005).

(94) Gholz and Wilcox, Sequestration of Interference Witnesses, 12 Intellectual Property Today No. 12 at page 38 (2005).

(95) When Is the Declaration of an Interference a Ticket to Ride to the End of the Line?, 13 Intellectual Property Today No. 1 at page 12 (2006).

(96) Rollins and Gholz, A Critique of Recent Opinions in Patent Interferences, 88 JPTOS 25, 138 (2006).

(97) Gholz and Herman, There Are Limits to How Tricky One’s Questioning Can Be., 13 Intellectual Property Today No. 2 at page 16 (2006).

(98) Gholz and McCabe, May a Practitioner Both Act as a Counsel in an Interference and Testify as to His or Her Diligence In Preparing an Application?, 13 Intellectual Property Today No. 3 at page 31 (2006).

(99) A Critique of Recent Opinions in Patent Interferences, 88 JPTOS 217, 305 (2006).

(100) When Does Reliance on Attorney Diligence Waive the Attorney-Client Privilege?, 13 Intellectual Property Today No. 4 at page 24 (2006).

(101) When (If Ever) Is the Judgment of a District Court in a 35 USC 146 Action Binding on the Board?, 13 Intellectual Property Today No. 5 at page 30 (2006).

(102) The Board Should Have 35 USC 256 Jurisdiction, 13 Intellectual Property Today No. 6 at page 10 (2006).

(103) Corrections of “Obvious Mistakes” During an Interference, 13 Intellectual Property Today No. 8 at page 7 (2006).

(104) Gholz and Wilcox, Must the Punishment Fit the Crime? 13 Intellectual Property Today No. 9 at page 20 (2006).

(105) Gholz and Parker, It’s OK To Pay Fact Witnesses for Their Time, 13 Intellectual Property Today No. 10 at page 16 (2006).

(106) Gholz and Wilcox, If You Try to Remove a 35 USC 102(a) or 102(e) Reference Via a 37 CFR 1.131 Declaration and Fail, You Have Probably Waived Your Right to Put on a Priority Case, 13 Intellectual Property Today No. 11 at page 8 (2006).

(107) Gholz and Wilcox, What is the Time Limit for Filing a Cross-Action under 35 USC 146?, 13 Intellectual Property Today No. 12 at page 7 (2006).

(108) Participation By A Victorious Interferent In the Losing Interferent’s Post-Interference Prosecution, 14 Intellectual Property Today No. 1 at page 35 (2007).

(110) Gholz and Gasser, Representing a Client Zealously Versus Collegiality, 14 Intellectual Property Today No. 2 at page 39 (2007).

(111) Who You Gonna Call?, 14 Intellectual Property Today No. 3 at page 7 (2007).

(112) Gholz and Wilcox, Do Documents Generated by an Inventor Have to Be Corroborated?, 14 Intellectual Property Today No. 4 at page 26 (2007).

(113) Gholz and Wilcox, What Does “Any and All Right, Title, or Interest” Mean?, 14 Intellectual Property Today No. 5 at page 16 (2007).

(114) Guidelines? What Guidelines?, 14 Intellectual Property Today No. 6 at page 26 (2007).

(115) Is Brand v. Miller Consistent With KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc?, No 7 at page 40 (2007)

(116) Would First-Inventor-to-File Be Better for the Basement Inventors, the Universities, or the Corporations?, 14 Intellectual Property Today No. 8 at page 35 (2007).

(117) Gholz and Wilcox, Proving Peeler Diligence is Unnecessarily Difficult -- and Unnecessarily Costly, 14 Intellectual Property Today No. 9 at page 35 (2007).

(118) Would You Rather Have Your Opponent’s Patentability Issues Decided Inter Partes or Ex Parte?, 14 Intellectual Property Today No. 10 at page 37 (2007).

(119) Gholz and Wilcox, Should the Prima Facie Case Include a Showing of the Lack of Suppression Or Concealment?, 14 Intellectual Property Today No. 11 at page 20 (2007).

(120) Gholz and Wilcox, What To Do If A Real Party In Interest Goes Bankrupt, 14 Intellectual Property Today No. 12 at page 22 (2007).

(121) Nissen and Gholz, Brand v. Miller Demonstrates That the Federal Circuit is Giving Insufficient Deference to the Factual Findings of the Patent and Trademark Office, 89 JPTOS 848 (2007).

(122) Gholz and J. A. Parker, Is It Prudent to Be Named as Lead or Back-up Counsel by a Patent Practitioner Whose Power of Attorney Was Signed by the or a Named Inventor?, 15 Intellectual Property Today No. 1 at page 39 (2008).

(123) A Critique of Interference Opinions in Patent Interferences, 90 JPTOS 9 (2008).

(124) Interference Issues That Wouldn’t be Handled by The Proposed Legislation, 15 Intellectual Property Today No. 2 at page 32 (2008).

(125) Gholz and Wilcox, What Excuses for Inactivity During a Classical Diligence Period Are (and Are Not) Good? 15 Intellectual Property Today No. 3 at page 36 (2008).

(126) Can Narrowing Reissue Applications Still Be Used to Provoke Interferences?, 15 Intellectual Property Today No. 4 at page 28 (2008).

(127) How Detailed Does Your List of Proposed Motions Have to Be? 15 Intellectual Property Today No. 5 at page 18 (2008).

(128) Gholz and Wilcox, Interference Estoppel is Worse Than Issue Preclusion, 15 Intellectual Property Today No. 6 at page 14 (2008).

(129) Nissen and Gholz, Brand v. Miller Prevents Administrative Patent Judges From Using Their Common Sense in Inter Partes Proceedings, 90 JPTOS 5 (2008).

(130) Should an Applicant Interferent Ask to Have as Many as Possible of Its Opponent’s Motions Treated as Threshold Motions?, 15 Intellectual Property Today No. 7 at page 18 (2008).

(131) Gholz and Tarcu, If You Settle a 35 USC 146 Action with A Stipulated Judgment, What Should It Say?, 15 Intellectual Property Today No. 8 at page 9 (2008).

(132) Gholz and Wilcox, Is 37 CFR 41.127(a) Valid Under Tafas v. Dudas?, 15 Intellectual Property Today No. 9 at page 24 (2008).

(133) Gholz and Wilcox, What Will Become of Patents Issued to Prevailing Applicant-Interferents As The Result of Decisions By Unconstitutionally Appointed APJs?, 15 Intellectual Property Today No. 10 at page 12 (2008).

(135) Gholz and Pereira, When Does Outside The Count Count?, 15 Intellectual Property Today No. 11 at page 30 (2008).

(136)Gholz and Gasser, What To Do If The Target Patent Has Expired, 15 Intellectual Property Today No. 12 at page 36 (2008).

(137) Gholz and Joncus, Is Plausible Enough After Brand v. Miller?, 16 Intellectual Property Today No. 1 at page 20 (2009).

(138) Can Counsel for an Interferent Represent an Independent Fact Witness at a Deposition?, 16 Intellectual Property Today No. 2 at page 18 (2009).

(139) A Critique of Recent Interference Opinions in Patent Interferences, 91 JPTOS 1 (2009).

(140) Aristocrat v. IGT: Another Reason Why Provoking an Interference May Be Preferable to Defending an Infringement Action, 16 Intellectual Property Today No. 3 at page 12 (2009).

(141) Gholz and Wilcox, Is It Ok To Lie To Opposing Counsel? 16 Intellectual Property Today No. 4 at page 30 (2009).

(142) Would Derivation Proceedings Be The Same as Derivation Interferences? 16 Intellectual Property Today No. 5 at page 8 (2009).

(143) Request Rehearing!, 16 Intellectual Property Today No. 6 at page 14 (2009).

(144) Gholz and Wilcox, Have Ding v. Singer and Ryan v. Young Rationalized 35 USC 135(b)(2)?, 16 Intellectual Property Today No. 7 at page 10 (2009).

(145) Gholz and Byerly, Can You Put An Independent Fact Witness Under a Contract That Provides That He or She Will Not Talk To Opposing Counsel Voluntarily?, 16 Intellectual Property Today No. 8 at page 31 (2009).

(146) How Should “Copied” Claims Be Interpreted?, 16 Intellectual Property Today No. 9 at page 11 (2009).

(147) Musings of a Member of the Interference Bar on In re Bose, 78 PTCJ 622 (09/18/2009).

(148) Gholz and Nissen, The Board Must Afford Interferents Due Process!, 16 Intellectual Property Today No. 10 at page 8 (2009).

(149) When Can APJs Use Their Common Sense in Inter Partes Proceedings?, 16 Intellectual Property Today No. 11 at page 17 (2009).

(150) Could The ATJs Learn Something From The APJs Concerning Handling Fraud Issues?, 16 Intellectual Property Today No. 12 at page 16 (2009).

(151) Are District Court Orders Remanding 35 USC 146 Actions Appealable?, 17 Intellectual Property Today No. 1 at page 27 (2010).

(152) Prosecution of Targeting and Targeted Applications Before the Same Examiner, 17 Intellectual Property Today No. 2 at page ___ (February 2010) (in press).

(153) The Board Must Decide Every Patentability Motion That is “Fully Raised and Fully Developed During the Interference”--But Must it Permit Every Authorized Patentability Motion to Be “Fully Developed”?, 17 Intellectual Property Today No. 3 at page ___ (March 2010) (in press).

(154) Gholz and Englehart, How Good is Good Enough?, 17 Intellectual Property Today No. 4 at page ___ (April 2010) (in press).

(155) A Critique of Recent Opinions in Patent Interferences, 92 JPTOS ___ (2010).

(2) Continuing legal education seminars on interference law (1974, 1975, 1976, 1977, and 1980) sponsored by Patent Resources Group, Inc.

(3) Patent bar review course sponsored by Patent Resources Group, Inc. (1977 to 1995).

(4) Celebration Lectures on Non-Obviousness sponsored by the Bureau of National Affairs (1977).

(5) Continuing legal education seminar on intellectual property sponsored by Federal Publications, Inc. (1978, 1979).

(6) Recent Developments in Patent Law at the Court of Customs and Patent Appeals (1978 and 1982) sponsored by Patent Resources Group, Inc.

(7) Annual Patent Conference sponsored by the Bureau of National Affairs (1983 and 1984).

(8) Recent Developments in Patent Law at the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (1983 to 1999) sponsored by Patent Resources Group, Inc.

(9) Practicing Before the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit sponsored by the Practicing Law Institute (1985).

(10) Current Developments in Patent Law sponsored by the Practicing Law Institute (1985).

(11) Practice Under the New Interference Rules sponsored by the American Intellectual Property Law Association (1985 and 1986).

(12) Interference Issues in a First-to-File World sponsored by the American Intellectual Property Law Association (1989).

(13) Annual Intellectual Property Law Seminar of the Institute of Continuing Legal Education (1990 to 1998).

(14) 28th Annual Institute on Patent Law Seminar of the Southwestern Legal Foundation (1990).

(16) Spring meeting of the American Intellectual Property Law Association (1993).

(18) Interference Practice (1994 and 1995) sponsored by Patent Resources Group, Inc.

(20) Annual meeting of the American Intellectual Property Law Association (1994).

(21) GATT-Related Changes in PTO Patent Rules sponsored by the Intellectual Property Owners (1995).

(22) Annual meeting of the American Intellectual Property Law Association (1995).

(23) Current Developments in Patent Law and Litigation sponsored by the American Law Institute - American Bar Association Course (1995).

(24) 33rd Annual Patent Law Seminar of the Southwestern Legal Foundation (1995).

(27) Joint meeting of the Intellectual Property Law Association of Chicago and the Appellate Lawyers Association (1997).

(29) The Patent, Trademark & Copyright Section of the Oklahoma Bar Association CLE Meeting (1998, 1999, 2000, and 2001).

(30) Understanding the New Patent Law sponsored by the Practicing Law Institute (2000).

(31) Focused Management Perspective and Tutorial on The 1999 Patent Law sponsored by the DePaul College of Law (2000).

(37) Interference Practice in the New Millennium, sponsored by the Intellectual Property Section of the Virginia State Bar (2000)

(38) 45th Annual Conference on Developments in Intellectual Property Law, sponsored by The John Marshall Law School (2001).

(41) Appellate/Interference Practice, sponsored by the Intellectual Property Owners (2002).

(45) The Intellectual Property Owner’s program entitled "Appellate/Interference Practice in the New Millennium” (2004).

(47) The Intellectual Property Section of the Georgia State Bar Association (2005).

(53) Intellectual Property Law Section of the Metropolitan St. Louis Bar Association (2005).

(60) Joint meeting of the Silicon Valley Intellectual Property Law Association; the Stanford Law School, Law, Science and Technology Center; and The Stanford Law and Technology Association (2006).

(62) “Ethical Issues in Patent Law,” sponsored by the Columbus School of Law of The Catholic University of America (2007).

(63) The Intellectual Property Law Section of the Oregon State Bar Association (2007).

(64) The Salishan Conference sponsored by the Washington State Patent Law Association and the Oregon State Patent Law Association (2008).

(65) Biennial Interference Law and Practice Conference of the Intellectual Property Owners Association (2008).

BAR MEMBERSHIPS: District of Columbia, Virginia, and the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office.

American Bar Association (Patent, Copyright, and Trademark Section): chairman, Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit subcommittee of the Federal Practice and Procedure Committee, 1982-83.

American Intellectual Property Law Association: chairman, Giles Sutherland Rich Moot Court Competition subcommittee, 1973-75; ad hoc committee re proposed single court of patent appeals, 1978-79; chairman, Interference Law and Practice Subcommittee of the Interference Committee, 1983-84; chairman, Interference Committee, 1988-90; Amicus Committee, 1984 to 1999, vice-chairman, 1990-91, chairman 1994-96; Public Appointment Committee, 1999 to 2002.

Association of Former CCPA Law Clerks and Technical Advisors: president, 1978-79.

District of Columbia Bar Association (Patent, Copyright, and Trademark Section): member of steering committee, 1984-86; vice-chairman, 1985-86.

(1) Sun-Tek Industries, Inc.* v. Kennedy Sky-Lites, Inc., C.A. 82-469-ORL-CIV-R, M.D. FL (jury trial).

(2) Black & Decker, Inc. v. Hoover Service Center,* C.A. H-87-851, D. CN (evidentiary hearing on motion for preliminary injunction).

(3) Printex Products Corp. v. Precision Engineered Systems, Inc.,* C.A. 89-0179T, N.D. NY (affidavit in support of motion for summary judgment).

(4) West Agro, Inc.* v. Chemland, Inc., C.A. 88-2638-TU, W.D. TN (affidavit in opposition to motion for summary judgment).

(5) Wolf* v. Dory, C.A. 87 C 1254, N.D. IL (affidavit in opposition to motion for summary judgment).

(8) Anglia Autoflow, Ltd. v. Foodcraft Equipment Company, Inc.,* C.A. 90-2292, E.D. PA.

(10) Smith Corona Corp.* v. Pelikan, Inc., C.A. 3-90-0479, M.D. TN (jury trial).

(12) Leading Edge Technology Corp.* v. Sun Automation Inc., C.A. H-90-2316, MD (deposition; affidavits in support of and in opposition to motions for summary judgment; and jury trial).

(15) Nordberg, Inc.* v. Telsmith, Inc., C.A. 90-C-0555, E.D. WI (deposition and bench trial).

(16) Peterson Mfg. Co. v. Adjustable Clamp Co.,* C.A. 92-C-5700, N.D. IL (deposition and bench trial).

(17) Para-Ordnance Mfg. Inc.* v. SGS Importers International Inc., C.A. 94-117-A, E.D. VA (deposition and bench trial).

(18) University of South Florida* v. Sherman & Shalloway, C.A. 94-504-A, E.D. VA (deposition).

(19) Industrias Metalicas Marva, Inc. v. Caribe Glass, Inc.,* C.A. 93-2588(HL), P.R. (deposition).

(20) Virginia Panel Corp. v. Mac Panel Co.,* C.A. 93-0006-H, W.D. VA (deposition and jury trial).

(21) New Covent Garden Soup Co. v. Palmer,* CH 1995 T No. 848, High Court of Justice (of the United Kingdom), Chancery Division.

(23) Gates Formed-Fibre Products, Inc. v. Delaware Valley Corporation,* C.A. 95-10923 EFH, D. MA (deposition).

(24) Agfa-Gevaert, N.V.* v. Presstek, Inc., ICC Case No. 8694/FMS (testimony before panel of three arbitrators).

(25) Industrias Metalicas Marva, Inc. v. Empresas Lausell,* C.A. 96-1697 (JP), P.R. (affidavit).

(27) Radisson Hotels International, Inc. v. Westin Hotel Company,* C.A. No. 3-96-48 RHK, D. MN (deposition).

(28) Vital Signs, Inc. v. Farris,* C.A. No. 95-2124(JCL), D.N.J. (affidavits) (deposition).

(29) Arrow International, Inc. v. Stuart Entertainment, Inc.,* 1:96- CV-1397, N.D. Ohio (affidavit).

(30) Emory University* v. Glaxo Wellcome Inc., C.A. 1:96-CV-1868-GET, N.D. GA. (affidavit).

(32) Affymetrix, Inc. v. Synteni, Inc. and Incyte Pharmaceuticals, Inc.,* C98-4507 FMS, N.D. CA (affidavit).

(34) Uroplasty, Inc. v. Advanced UroScience, Inc.,* CA 98-2082 MJD/JBL, MN (affidavit).

(35) Aero Industries, Inc. v. John Donovan Enterprises - Florida, Inc.,* Case No. 1P99-0671 C M/S.

(37) In re Certain Magnetic Resonance Injection Systems, ITC Investigation No. 337-TA-434 (retained by counsel for the respondents).

(38) Atico International USA, Inc. v. Tofasco of America, Inc.,* S.D. Fla., Case No. 02-60984 (affidavit).

(39) Beckman Research Institute of the City of Hope* v. Genentech, Inc., American Arbitration Association Case No. 74 Y 133 01463 00 GAP.

(40) Gerald E. Frugoli v. Douglas V. Fougnies; Daniel B. Harned; Larry Day; Freedom Wireless, Inc., A Nevada corporation; Wireless Pathways, Inc. f/k/a/ Cellexis International, Inc., an Arizona corporation,* AZ CIV 02-957-PHX-RCB (deposition).

(41) Freedom Wireless, Inc.* v. Boston Communications Group, Inc., et al., MA CIV 00-12234-EFH (deposition).

(42) Sanders v. The Mount Sinai School of Medicine,* S.D. NY, 03 CV. 7937 (JGK).

(43) Meritor Transmission Corporation* v. Eaton Corporation, W.D. NC, 1:04 CV 178 (LHT) (deposition).

(44) Maytag Corporation* v. Electrolux Home Products Inc., d/b/a Frigidare, N.D. IA W.D., C 04-4067-MWB.

(45) Convolve, Inc.* v. Compaq Computer Corp., Case No. 00 Civ. 5141 (GBD) (JCF) (declaration).

(46) Amgen Inc.* v. F. Hoffman-La Roche LTD, Roche Diagnostics GmbH, and Hoffman La Roche Inc., D. Mass., Civil Action No.: 05 Civ. 12237 (WGY).

(47) ARAM Systems Ltd.* v. NovAtel Inc., Queen's Bench of Alberta, Judicial District of Calgary, Action No.: 0601-08106/2006

(48) Sprint Communications Co., LP.* v. C2 Communications Technologies, Inc., E. D. Texas, 2:06-cv-00241-TJW-CE