Scott A. McKeown
Partner
Tel (703) 412-6297

Scott A. McKeown

Partner

Scott A. McKeown is a member of the firm's Management Committee, and co-chairs the Post-Grant Patent practice group focusing on post-grant counseling, litigation and related prosecution issues. He leads the Post-Grant Patent team responsible for electronics, wireless communications, software and computer-related inventions and business methods.

Mr. McKeown handles all aspects of post-issuance patent proceedings at the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO). He specializes in administrative trials before the Patent Trial & Appeal Board (PTAB) as well as appeals to the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC). Having successfully navigated USPTO post-grant patent proceedings in which more than half a billion dollars was at stake, he is lead post- grant counsel to some of the world’s most well-known innovators. He provides his clients comprehensive post-grant patent counseling including advice on USPTO post-grant proceedings concurrent with complex International Trade Commission (ITC) and district court litigations.

The National Law Journal has identified Mr. Mckeown as one of their 50 “Trailblazers & Pioneers” in the area of intellectual property law. Intellectual Asset Management has identified him as a “thought leader” and one of the world’s leading patent practitioners for adversarial post-grant USPTO patent proceedings. Mr. McKeown has been named one of the Best Lawyers in America, and the Legal 500 has honored him as a recommended patent attorney.

Mr. McKeown is a Professorial Lecturer in Law at the George Washington University Law School. He also is the editor of the well-known legal blog PatentsPostGrant.com. He lectures and writes extensively on post-grant patent proceedings at the USPTO and is also a member of the teaching faculty of the Practicing Law Institute (PLI). Mr. McKeown is the past Chair of the American Bar Association (ABA), Intellectual Property Law Section Committee 104 (Post Grant USPTO Proceedings).

A former electrical engineer, he has worked with a wide range of technologies, including computer software, wireless telecommunication protocols and network architectures, e-commerce applications, analog and digital signal processing, and consumer electronics. In the telecommunication arts, Mr. McKeown has worked extensively with IP routing and signaling protocols, ATM and wireless communication protocols. He also has a broad breadth of experience with OFDM systems, CDMA, TDMA, FSK, QAM and the 802.11 family of protocols.

In the consumer electronic arts, Mr. McKeown's practice has a strong focus in audio and video processing and display technologies, discs, signal compression and encoding schemes, recording medium formatting and construction, and many other related technologies.

Representative Matters

As lead patent reexamination counsel to Motorola Inc., successfully recovered significant patents of the company’s handheld device portfolio from patent reexamination. These patents are asserted against several competitors in concurrent litigation in the ITC and district courts.

As lead patent reexamination counsel to Eastman Kodak, responsible for recovering their electronic camera portfolio from patent reexamination. Concurrent litigation is pending in the ITC and district courts throughout the U.S.

As lead patent reexamination counsel to Good Technology, successfully recovered the patent portfolio from both ex parte & inter partes patent reexamination proceedings resulting in a favorable settlement of concurrent litigation with a competitor ($267.5 million).

Managing IP Magazine- named 'IP Star' (2013, 2014)

IAM Patent 1000: The World’s Leading Patent Practitioners, named to Intellectual Asset Management Magazine’s list of the top 1000 patent prosecution attorneys in the world and selected as one of the top eighteen practitioners in the United States for post-grant proceedings (2012-2014)

The Legal 500 U.S., noted as a Recommended Attorney (2012)

The National Law Journal, IP Trailblazers & Pioneers (2014)

Best Lawyers in America (Litigation- Intellectual Property)- (2015)

Thursday, July 31, 2014

Board Emphasizes DJ of Invalidity Prevents Later CBM Filing
The Patent Trial & Appeal Board (PTAB) issues three (3) types of opinions, routine, informative and precedential.

Wednesday, July 30, 2014

Stretching Prior Art Grounds Fatal to Petitioners
In district court, 102 grounds are highly preferred to even the strongest 103 ground.

Monday, July 28, 2014

Briefing to Review Federal Register Notice Concerns
The Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) is hosting a free lunchtime webinar tomorrow from noon to 1 pm(EST) to discuss AIA trial proceedings.

Tuesday, July 22, 2014

Free Webinar Series – July
Just a reminder that this month’s edition of the PatentsPostGrant.com free webinar series will be held tomorrow, July 23rd @12:30 (est). The July webinar is entitled:

Tuesday, July 22, 2014

Past Three Months of PTAB Statistics Tell A Different Story
Last week, I explained that the institution rate of PTAB trials in Inter Partes Review (IPR) and Covered Business Method (CBM) proceedings had dropped, on average,

Friday, July 18, 2014

Briefing to Review Federal Register Notice Concerns
The Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) is hosting a free lunchtime webinar on Tuesday, July 29th from noon to 1 pm(EST) to discuss the AIA trials.

Thursday, July 17, 2014

2014 PTAB Institution Rate Retreats to 70% Range
To date, a major patentee criticism of Inter Partes Review (IPR) & Covered Business Method (CBM) patent challenges has been their high rate of institution.

Wednesday, July 16, 2014

Free Webinar Series – July
This month’s edition of the PatentsPostGrant.com free webinar series will be held on Wednesday, July 23rd @12:30 (est). The July webinar is entitled:

Tuesday, July 15, 2014

Favorite Criticism of PTAB Proceedings Falls Flat
The Patent Trial & Appeal Board (PTAB) is currently seeking feedback from the public...

Friday, July 11, 2014

EDTX Denial of CBM Stay Deemed Abuse of Discretion
Back in March I recounted the curious case of VirtualAgility Inc., v....