- Successfully argued on behalf of Convolve that provision of 35 USC §135(b)(2) is applicable only to patent applications having effective filing date after publication date of targeted published application. Ding et al. (Seagate) v. Singer et al. (Convolve), Int. No. 105,436 (BPAI Aug. 24, 2007).
- Represented Bard Access Systems in patentability dispute over stent technology. McDermott et al. (Bard Peripheral Vascular) v. Murch (TriVascular2), Int. No. 105,657 (BPAI Mar. 20, 2009).
- Represented Solvay in patentability/inventorship dispute over use of clean technology which reduces SOx emissions from coal-fired power plants. Maziuk (American Electrical Power Company) v. Ritzenthaler (Solvay Chemicals), Int. No. 105,693 (BPAI Mar. 15, 2010).
- Representing Motorola in patentability/priority dispute over mobile communication technology. Lazaridis et al. (Research in Motion) v. Eggleston et al. (Motorola), Int. No. 105,700 (BPAI) (ongoing).
- Representing Advanced Voice in patentability dispute over speech recognition interface technology. Mitchell (AllVoice Developments) v. Holt (Advanced Voice Recognition Systems), Int. No. 105,746 (BPAI) (ongoing).
- Representing Hydro-Gear in patentability/priority dispute regarding hydraulic axle technology. Acharya (Parker Hanifan) v. Hauser (Hydro-Gear), Int. No. 105,750 (BPAI) (ongoing).