Joseph E. Wrkich
Senior Attorney
Tel (703) 413-2762

Joseph E. Wrkich

Senior Attorney

JOSEPH E. WRKICH, an electrical patent lawyer, is an attorney in the firm's Electrical Patent Prosecution practice group. He appears regularly before the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO), and oversees the prosecution and management of international patent applications in Canada, Europe, Japan, China and Australia. He counsels on patent portfolio management for foreign clients in the U.S. market as well as U.S. clients filing international applications.  He also counsels clients on issues regarding patent infringement, patent validity, patent pools, and reexamination proceedings. 

Mr. Wrkich prosecutes and drafts patent applications for diversified innovations, including video conferencing equipment, telecommunication technologies, satellite communication systems, electronic books, mobile communication devices, medical imaging devices, digital signal processing devices, printers, photocopiers, semiconductor manufacturing, and signal compression and encoding schemes. He also has extensive experience prosecuting patents and advising clients in areas of consumer electronics, semiconductor devices, compact florescent technology, and renewable and alternative energy technologies, including wind turbine and fuel cell innovations.

Mr. Wrkich is particularly skilled at drafting claims and prosecuting patent applications that are directed towards patent pools. Mr. Wrkich has experience evaluating patent claims and preparing patent pool submissions in the DVD and H.264 technologies. He also regularly reviews and advises clients on patent pool licenses.

Understanding and recognizing the applicability of a broad range of technologies, Mr. Wrkich identifies applications, advises his clients on how they can use the innovations beyond their originally intended purpose and works with them to create a network of patents to cover their particular technologies and uses.

Mr. Wrkich has conducted research and published articles in the area of electron scattering and often lectures to clients and attorneys on such topics as anticipation and inherency, obviousness, the Patent Cooperation Treaty, false marking, and inducing infringement.

Friday, May 11, 2012

The appeal process during patent prosecution can be long and expensive.  According to U.S. Patent and Trademark Office statistics, the average pendency of an appeal is over 30 months.  Given this substantial time delay, and the expense associated with the appeal process, it is critical that claims in an application be in condition...

Monday, March 05, 2012

Examiners commonly rely upon optimization to support their conclusions of obviousness.  The CAFC has recognized that “[t]he normal desire of scientists or artisans to improve upon what is already generally known provides the motivation to determine where in a disclosed set of percentage ranges is the optimum combination of percentages.”...

Thursday, July 28, 2011

According to a well known adage, “close only counts in horseshoes and hand grenades.”  However, some Examiners may want to add claimed ranges during patent prosecution to this adage.  After all, MPEP §2144.05(I) states:

Wednesday, June 22, 2011

            MPEP § 2131 states that “[a] claim is anticipated only if each and every element as set forth in the claim is found, either expressly or inherently described, in a single prior art reference.”  Publications do not always provide an explicit teaching regarding all features...