Print Page   |   Contact Us   |   Sign In   |   Register
Community Search
2016 Winter Newsletter
Share |




   Winter 2016

   BPLA Newsletters
 Volume 47, Issue 1

President's Message by Erik Belt

The Boston Patent Law Association is a dynamic and growing organization, and we on the Board of Governors have been working diligently behind the scenes to ensure continued growth and a rewarding year.  In particular, and in keeping with my vision for the BPLA this year, we are working on ways to connect the BPLA to the larger community.  As I urged in my remarks at our annual meeting in December, the BPLA needs to look outward, to educate the public on the value of intellectual property, and to connect with the business, academic, and political sectors.  Let’s not let them forget, as Judge Newman so eloquently reminded us during her keynote address, that intellectual property is a key driver of this country’s prosperity.  The BPLA does a great job of connecting our members to each other when we come together for CLE seminars on the latest legal developments, annual meetings, and social events.  Let’s now use our individual and collective connections to promote intellectual property to the business, academic, and political communities.



 "...the BPLA needs to look outward, to educate the public on the value of intellectual property, and to connect with the business, academic, and political sectors..."

For example, the BPLA has recently begun to collaborate with SBANE, the Smaller Business Association of New England.  The BPLA has become a sponsor of SBANE’s New England Innovation Awards program, and we on the Board encourage you to nominate your innovative clients for this competition and to participate in the judging and related events. Through collaborations with other organizations like SBANE, we can begin to forge the connections we will need to sustain and grow the BPLA into a national voice for innovation and intellectual property rights.  I hope to report in future editions of the newsletters more collaborations with SBANE and other business, civic, and community organizations.  If you have ideas for such collaborations, or other ways that the BPLA can reach out to the community at large, just let me or another member of the Board of Governors know.


The BPLA is also attempting to reconnect with Washington and the USPTO to bring a USPTO satellite office to Boston.  You may recall that several years ago, the BPLA organized a task force to work on this goal.  I have asked Past-President Mark Solomon to rekindle that initiative.  We expect the effort to take several years, and we are not guaranteed of victory.  But the upside, if we prevail, is very high and worth the effort.  If you have ideas on how to help realize this goal, please let us know...





Table of Contents


Message from the Editor-in-Chief


Author: Rory P. Pheiffer


I was thrilled to receive so many well-written, thought-provoking articles for our Winter Edition of the BPLA Newsletter – Issue 1 of the 47th year of publication.  This issue is broken down into the following sections: (1) Professional Responsibility – The Maling Case [2 articles]; (2) Patent Prosecution, including topics on § 101, § 102, and double patenting [3 articles]; (3) International Practice [1 article]; (4) President Belt’s Annual Meeting address; (5) Patents in the Courts, including topics on pleading standards and a review of 2015 PTAB decisions; and (6) Non-Patent Related IP Topics, including topics on misappropriation and fair use, and licenses and security interests [2 articles].  You can also read about our Members on the Move, as well as the newly enhanced BPLA Career Center, which can be used by employers and job seekers alike.  I hope you find these articles useful to your practice, and I welcome any suggestions you have about the Newsletter in general, or topics of interest for future publications.

BPLA 2015 Annual Meeting at Hotel Marlowe - Tuesday December 1, 2015



BPLA Secretary Michael Bergman and Hon. Judge Pauline M. Newman 


Immediate Past-President Greg Sieczkiewicz and President Erik Belt




BPLA Past Presidents (Back Row, L to R = Greg Sieczkiewicz, Peter Lando, Martin O'Donnell, and Susan Glovsky; Front Row, L to R = Doreen Hogle, Lisa Adams, Walter Dawson, Mark Solomon)

BPLA Board of Governors with Hon. Judge Pauline M. Newman (Back Row, L to R = Dan Young, Rory Pheiffer, Erik Belt, Mike McGurk, Greg Sieczkiewicz, Keith Toms, Nikhil Patel; Front Row, L to R = Michael Bergman, Deirdre Sanders, Hon. Judge Pauline M. Newman, Monica Grewal)



Meeting Minutes

Additional Photos of the Event


Maling v. Finnegan – Important Guidance from the SJC as to Patent Subject Matter Conflicts

by Patrick J. Concannon, of Nutter McClennen & Fish LLP, and Lauren Ingegneri of Abiomed, Inc.

Patrick J. Concannon

Lauren Ingegneri

The BPLA recently submitted an amicus brief advocating against a broad interpretation of the Massachusetts Rules of Professional Conduct (MRPC) conflict of interest rules as they apply to patent attorneys’ responsibility to avoid subject matter conflicts of interest.[1]  The BPLA’s position and that of other bar advocates was adopted by the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court (SJC) in its December 23, 2015 Chris E. Maling v. Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner LLP[2] decision, which garnered national attention.  The decision can be accessed by searching “Maling” at this link:


All lawyers, patent lawyers included, must consider whether representing two clients with competing interests would impair the lawyer’s ability to effectively represent either.  Ethical violations and/or malpractice liability can result from a failure to timely identify and address such conflicts.  In the specific case of patent prosecution, one client’s success in securing patent rights might mean that a patentee client can preclude another client’s ability to use or license critical technology...


Read More


Professional Responsibility for Patent Attorneys after Maling v. Finnegan

by Yale Yechiel N. Robinson of M. Robinson & Company

Yale Yechiel N. Robinson

As described in the previous article, the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court (SJC) recently decided, in a case of first impression, that the Finnegan patent law firm did not violate Rule 1.7 of the Massachusetts Rules of Professional Conduct (MRPC) when Finnegan simultaneously represented two distinct clients and obtained patents for their competing inventions.  Rule 1.7 prohibits an attorney or law firm from simultaneously representing two “directly adverse” clients without their informed consent.  The SJC interpreted Rule 1.7 to permit “subject matter conflicts of interest” in patent prosecution when both competing inventors could obtain separate patents.


However, in dicta toward the end of the opinion, the SJC warns that “the misuse of client confidences and the preferential treatment of the interests of one client, to the detriment of nearly identical interests of another, are serious matters that cannot be reconciled with the ethical obligations of our profession...


Read More






The BPLA’s AIPLA Moot Court Committee needs your help making this year’s Giles Sutherland Rich Memorial Moot Court Competition another success!  We have 12 teams from across the Northeast participating, and we need over 40 volunteers to serve on our three-judge panels.  Please email the Committee co-chairs Emma Hall and Carolina Save at if you are interested in judging one or more of the following arguments:


·         Friday, March 11 at 4 pm  (6 arguments total, 18 judges needed)

·         Friday, March 11 at 6 pm (6 arguments total, 18 judges needed- followed by a cocktail reception)

·         Saturday, March 12 at noon (semi-finals, 6 judges needed)


Alice and the Case of the Terrible Twos

by Daniel Taylor, graduate of University of Maine School of Law

Daniel Taylor

This article is a shortened version of the article that won the First Prize in the 2015 Boston Patent Law Association Writing Competition.  The full article can be found here.


Two prongs, two steps, and too many patents declared invalid.  Regardless of what one thinks about software patents, a little more than a year has passed since the Supreme Court’s decision in Alice Corporation v. CLS Bank International, and the U.S. patent system is in disarray.  Alice has been running from one judicial district to the next, knocking over the good china just like a toddler on a sugar high.

Shortly after Alice, the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) issued new guidance for section 101 patent examination and, since then, new patent issues have all but stopped in some areas of software.  Courts have busily applied Alice at an unprecedented rate, and section 101 Alice challenges are now “a major industry.”  As a result, U.S. courts invalidated more patents in the fourteen months following Alice than they invalidated in the five years prior.

The practical effect of Alice will most likely include loss of patent protection for billions of dollars of technology investment in software and software related technologies.  The impacts extend beyond existing software patents to future investments, because Alice already affects corporate research and development investments as well as patenting decisions for well over 100,000 technological innovations a year...


Read More

 Daniel Taylor (L) receives the Writing Competition award from Board Member Daniel Young (R)


Indefiniteness After Dow: The Problem of Multiple Measurement Techniques

by Ethan W. Marks, Larry K. Demeo, and Howard P. Goldberg of Manion Gaynor & Manning LLP

Ethan W. Marks

Larry K. Demeo

Howard P. Goldberg

On August 28, 2015, in Dow Chemical Co. v. Nova Chemicals Corp. (Canada), the Federal Circuit held indefinite two patents claiming “a slope of strain hardening coefficient greater than or equal to 1.3,” where the slope of strain hardening could be measured in at least four different ways, each measurement technique produced a different result, and the patents failed to notify those skilled in the art which measurement technique to apply.  Dow both confirmed a new standard for indefiniteness, and demonstrated the new standard’s effect on patents that do not indicate which measurement technique should define the scope of the invention claimed.


After Dow, parties involved in patent prosecution should ensure that each patent’s claims, specification, and prosecution history indicate the particular measurement technique to be applied.  Litigating parties should also understand that patents-in-suit may be at greater risk of invalidation in the absence of expert testimony establishing that one of ordinary skill in the art would use a particular measurement technique in interpreting the scope of the claims.  For these reasons, Dow has important implications for parties to infringement actions and patent owners in all industries.


I.                   The Dow Decision

a.                  Dow’s Procedural History

On October 21, 2005, the Dow Chemical Company (“Dow”) filed suit against NOVA Chemicals Corporation (Canada) and NOVA Chemicals Inc. (Delaware) (collectively, “NOVA”), alleging infringement of claims of U.S. Patent No. 5,847,053 (the “‘053 patent”) and U.S. Patent No. 6,111,023 (the “‘023 patent”).  Both the ‘053 patent and the ‘023 patent described “a slope of strain hardening coefficient greater than or equal to 1.3.”  A material’s slope of strain hardening coefficient depends in turn on its slope of strain hardening, which is calculated by subjecting a material to an increasing load, stretching it until it breaks.  The load applied to the sample is plotted on the y-axis of a graph, and the elongation or displacement of the sample is plotted on the x-axis.  The slope of strain hardening is intended to measure the slope of the resulting curve’s strain hardening region—the segment of the curve corresponding to the period just before the material breaks.  But because the strain hardening region is typically curved, it does not have a single slope...

Read More


Inventorship, Double Patenting, and the America Invents Act

by N. Scott Pierce of Hamilton, Brook, Smith & Reynolds, PC

N. Scott Pierce

Published by the BPLA with The Regents of the University of California, the Berkeley Technology Law Journal, and the author’s permission.


December 1, 2015


The Leahy-Smith America Invents Act of 2011 (AIA) defines an “inventor” as “the individual or, if a joint invention, the individuals collectively who invented or discovered the subject matter of the invention.”  Prior art that consists of a “disclosure...made by the inventor or joint inventor” or “subject matter [that] had, before such disclosure, been publicly disclosed by the inventor or a joint inventor,” when disclosure is “made 1 year or less before the effective filing date of a claimed invention,” is excepted from the novelty requirement.  However, there is nothing in the AIA or its legislative history that specifies whether the “disclosure” by the inventor or joint inventor must be the work of the inventive entity of the invention claimed, or need only be the work of an individual member or subgroup of that inventive entity.  Guidelines developed by the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) do not clarify this issue.  Early commentary on the AIA suggests that the work “disclosed” need not be that of the entire inventive entity.  Such an interpretation, if confirmed by the courts, would be a radical and unnecessary departure from judicial precedent and would fundamentally change the effect of prior work by individuals on claimed joint inventions to which they contributed.  The judicially created doctrine of obviousness-type double patenting, which limits inventors to a single patent for each invention considered patentably indistinct in view of another, would also be implicated, as would a recently proposed statutory alternative.


The entire article can be found at the Berkeley Technology Law Journal, Vol. 30, No. 2, 2015



An Imminent Sea Change across the Pond: Understanding and Preparing for Europe’s New Unitary Patents and Unified Patent Court (UPC)

by Edward Kelly, and Regina Sam Penti of Ropes & Gray International LLP

Edward Kelly

Regina Sam Penti


A Big Change That Substantially Increases the Value of European Patents


Europe’s Unified Patent Court (UPC) is expected to become reality by late 2016 or early 2017.  The UPC represents the most significant change in European patent law in decades.  The UPC and the related European patent with Unitary Effect (“Unitary Patent”) will introduce in the European Union (EU) a new system that promises a more consistent and efficient patent enforcement mechanism than those currently available in Europe and possibly in the United States.  With the introduction of the UPC, EU states will put the power of the EU Common Market (which is as large as the US’ and twice the size of China’s) behind European patents.  This will substantially increase the strength and value of European patent rights, which currently consist of a bundle of rights that need to be separately validated and separately enforced in each member state.  Under the UPC, a single court will adjudicate matters of infringement and validity for all 25 EU states (all EU member states except Spain, Poland, and Croatia) that have agreed to participate in the UPC.  If the purpose of patents is to protect a client’s technology, the UPC makes it easier to fully and effectively protect that technology in the largest market in the world.  U.S. multinational companies and U.S. counsel need to take notice and plan for this tectonic shift...


Read More





BPLA President Belt’s Presidential Address from 2015 Annual Meeting

I.       THANKS

            First, I want to thank our outgoing President, Greg, for his many years of dedication and service to the BPLA.

            I followed Greg up through the ranks of the Board—as Secretary, Treasurer, Vice President, and so on--and he taught me two important things:

            1.         How to pronounce Sieczkiewicz

            2.         How to run an organization.

            Greg cares very deeply about the BPLA, and through his leadership, the BPLA has grown and prospered and has become an even better organization, if that is possible. 

            So let’s give a big hand to Greg to thank him.

            And we have some parting gifts that Greg will enjoy with a bottle of his favorite Scotch.

* * *

            I also want to thank my partners and colleagues at McCarter & English, who turned out en masse today and have come up big in supporting the BPLA and its mission over the years.



            Did you know that the BPLA has over 900 members?

            We are among the most prominent IP lawyers and IP professionals in the country.

            Our law firms are powerful and influential.

            We represent dynamic, innovative companies, research institutions, and individuals who are every day inventing game-changing, life-saving technologies in life sciences, medical devices, robotics, computer hardware and software, and a host of other industries.

            But.  There’s a “but.”

            In recent years, there has been an attack on patents and other intellectual property rights.  The Supreme Court, the White House, Congress, lobbyists, academics, and others have sought to weaken intellectual property rights.

            History proves this is bad idea, a short-sighted goal.

            To the IP haters out there, let me tell you how the real world works.

            I am reminded of the anecdote told by the late Judge Giles Rich about Mr. Spencer, who invented an improved wheelchair. By all accounts, it was an ingenious improvement and would benefit many people.  But he decided not to patent his invention, preferring instead, idealistically, to donate it to society. The problem is that no manufacturer would touch it because, without patent protection, it could be too easily copied and the investment would not be worth the risk.  As a result, nobody introduced the new wheelchair and society did not benefit.

            Intellectual property is essential to our nation’s economic, social, and physical well-being.  History shows that when patents become harder and more expensive to obtain and enforce, innovation declines.  When patents rights are strengthened, innovation rises and so does our economy.  New products are introduced and new industries arise.

            How many life-saving inventions are not making it to market because, given this backlash against IP rights, the biotech start-up right here in Cambridge could not get a patent and thus no VC funding?  Don’t let the next life-saving diagnostic tool or medicine become Mr. Spencer’s wheelchair.

            So this year, I am challenging the 900+ members of the BPLA to make their voices heard in the public debate over intellectual property rights and to fight the backlash against patents.  The BPLA will redouble its efforts to promote strong intellectual property rights through amicus briefs, education, debate, and outreach.

            The BPLA does an excellent job of looking inward to educate our own membership on the latest developments in the law.  Now is the time for the BPLA to look outward and educate the public on the value of strong IP rights.  Please join me in our efforts to do so.


Northern District of California Moves Quickly in Response to Rules Change to Apply Full Weight of Twombly and Iqbal to Patent Cases

by Lana Gladstein and Tim Reppucci of Nutter McClennen & Fish LLP

Lana Gladstein

Tim Reppucci


Published by the BPLA with the authors’ and Nutter McClennen & Fish’s permission.

This article appeared on Nutter’s IP Law Bulletin blog on January 28, 2016.

Last month, the U.S. District Court in the Northern District of California ruled that the Federal Circuit’s somewhat bare pleading standard for direct patent infringement is no longer sufficient following recent amendments to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, which went into effect on December 1, 2015.  The court ruled that the plausibility pleading standard under Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly and Ascroft v. Iqbal now applies to direct patent infringement claims.


Prior to the recent amendments, Rule 84 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure incorporated an appendix of forms into the rules and read, “The forms in the Appendix suffice under these rules and illustrate the simplicity and brevity that these rules contemplate.”  Accordingly, the Federal Circuit adopted a pleading standard for direct infringement based on Form 18, which gave a short and simple example of a complaint for patent infringement.  Under this standard, the party pleading infringement was not required to identify which patent claims it was asserting had been infringed.  The pleading party also was not always required to list the specific names of accused products...


Read More


Looking Back: 2015 at the PTAB

by Wolf Greenfield's Post-Grant Proceedings Group


Throughout last year, decisions made by the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) sometimes offered clarity—and sometimes more confusion—to practitioners.  What follows are some of the significant decisions of 2015, addressing issues such as the proper standard for interpreting claims in an America Invents Act (AIA) trial, redundancy, claim amendment, and the PTAB’s approach to covered business method (CBM) proceedings.


Cuozzo Speed Technologies v. Michelle K. Lee


The Supreme Court recently agreed to hear its first case relating to AIA trials.  When the Court renders its decision, it should definitively settle two issues that created consternation in the early days of AIA trials.  Until then, accepting the case for review reopens two questions that were seemingly settled in the Federal Circuit’s decision in In re Cuozzo Speed Technologies, LLC.  The uncertainty is particularly acute, given the high rate at which the Supreme Court reverses the Federal Circuit.


Apotex v. Wyeth


When inter partes review (IPR) petitions assert too many grounds of unpatentability, the PTAB routinely declines to institute on some, declaring them redundant...



Read More



(Mis)appropriation Art: Transformation and Attribution in the Fair Use Doctrine

by John Carl Zwisler, student (Class of May 2016) at Northeastern University School of Law, and legal clerk at Wolf Greenfield

John Carl Zwisler


This article is a shortened version of the article that won the Second Prize in the 2015 Boston Patent Law Association Writing Competition. The full article can be found here.


You are invited to attend the new exhibit of a well-known artist at one of the most famous galleries in New York City.  Weaving your way through celebrities and critics, you notice a piece that looks very familiar.  Upon closer inspection, you realize the artist has based the work on a photograph you took several years ago, but the photo has been slightly manipulated.  Your name is not mentioned anywhere, and you never gave the artist permission to use your work.  Frustrated with what you consider an objectionable use, you want to prevent the artist from further exploiting your creative work.  However, after consulting with copyright counsel, you learn that your ability to vindicate your rights under federal copyright law depends on where you file a lawsuit.  As interpreted in the Second Circuit and Ninth Circuit, the fair use doctrine, and its emphasis on transformative use, may allow the artist to easily convince a judge that the copying was necessary for his or her own creative vision and you may be left without a remedy...


Read More


Emerging Cybersecurity Company’s Distress Offers Important Lessons for Licensees and Lenders

by John Loughnane of Nutter, McClennen & Fish, LLP

John Loughnane



Published by the BPLA with the author’s and Law 360’s permission.

This article appeared in Law360 in January2016.

Recently the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit issued a decision in the case of Cyber Solutions International LLC v. Pro Marketing Sales, Inc.  Although the decision blazes no new legal territory, the facts of the case and rulings offer important lessons for both lenders and licensees.


The decision recounts the start up efforts of an emerging company focused on cyber security technology.  As the company grew, it obtained a secured loan from a lender.  In return for the loan, the company granted the lender a first position lien on all company assets including intellectual property.  As is typical in any secured financing, the lien extended not just to property then owned by the company but also to property subsequently acquired by the company.  Pursuant to the loan arrangement, the company agreed to standard provisions such as a restriction on its ability to sell its assets outside of the ordinary course of business without the permission of the lender...



Read More




Eric M. Balicky

Rory P. Pheiffer



Matthew H. Grady



Charles Sanders



Doreen Hogle



Daniel Shores



Denise DeFranco

Lawrence P. Cogswell III

Justin Daniels


Edward J. Russavage



Mark E. Nickas



Grant Houston



Milton Oliver


*  Eric M. Balicky, Ph.D. – After being with Hamilton Brook Smith & Reynolds for 11 years, Eric was elected Principal.


*  Lawrence P. Cogswell III, Ph.D. – After being with Hamilton Brook Smith & Reynolds for 5 years, Lawrence was elected Principal.


*  Rory P. Pheiffer – After being with Nutter McClennen & Fish for 9 years, Rory was elected Partner.



*  Justin Daniels – after leaving his position as Partner at Proskauer Rose, Justin is now Managing Director at Burford Capital LLC.


*  Matthew H. Grady – after leaving his position as Counsel at Lando & Anastasi, Matthew is now Shareholder at Wolf, Greenfield & Sacks.


*  Edward J. Russavage – after leaving his position as Partner at Lando & Anastasi, Edward is now Shareholder at Wolf, Greenfield & Sacks.


*  Charles Sanders – after leaving his position as Partner at Goodwin Procter Charles is now Partner at Latham & Watkins.


*  Mark E. Nickas, Ph.D. – after leaving his position as Associate at McLane Middleton, Mark is now Associate at Nelson Mullins Riley and Scarborough.



*  HoustonHogle, LLP – Houston & Associates is now HoustonHogle, LLP after bringing on partner Doreen Hogle, formerly Principal at Hamilton Brook Smith & Reynolds, as a name partner with BPLA Past-President Grant Houston.  The firm exclusively practices intellectual property law.


*  Shores & Oliver PCDaniel Shores, formerly of Latham & Watkins and Shores Law, and Milton Oliver, formerly of Oliver Intellectual Property, formed Shores & Oliver P.C.  The firm will focus on patent prosecution, technology transactions, IP litigation, and IP due diligence matters.



*  Denise DeFranco – Denise DeFranco, Partner at Finnegan, was officially installed as the American Intellectual Property Law Association (AIPLA) President during AIPLA’s Annual Meeting in October 2015.




BPLA is proud to announce its new Career Center—a premier resource to connect career opportunities with highly qualified talent within the BPLA network.  The Career Center is designed to provide you with a better overall experience through a modern design and an intuitive interface.  You will be able to access the Career Center through any device of your choice—smartphone, tablet, or desktop.  To access the Career Center, visit:


The redesigned Career Center will allow you to:


Manage Your Career:

*  Search and apply to the best IP jobs at organizations that value your credentials!

*   Upload your anonymous resume so employers can contact you, but you maintain control

    of your information and choose to whom you release your information.

*   Receive an alert every time a job becomes available that matches your personal profile,

    skills, interests, and preferred location(s).

*   Access career resources and job searching tips and tools.


Recruit for Open Positions:

*   Post your jobs, or your organization’s jobs, where the most qualified IP professional will

    find and apply to them.

*   Promote your jobs directly to BPLA job seekers via an exclusive Job Flash email.

*   Search the resume database and contact qualified candidates proactively.

Job Postings





Pro Bono IP Clinic Pilot Progam

The Boston Patent Law Association and the IP Clinic of Northeastern School of Law are starting a pilot program to refer pro bono clients of the IP Clinic to members of BPLA. The IP Clinic has referred pro bono cases to BPLA members (e.g., preparing a provisional patent application on an invention in the field of electrical engineering). If you are interested in working on future pro bono cases from the IP Clinic of Northeastern School of Law, know someone who may be interested, or have any question about this program or the Northeastern Law School IP Clinic in general, please contact the BPLA Pro Bono Committee Chairs Chelsea Loughran and Sandra Brown at


Activities and Public Relations

* Keith Toms

  McCarter & English, LLP


AIPLA Moot Court

* Emma Hall

  Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP
* Carolina Save

  Mintz, Levin, Cohn, Ferris,

  Glovsky, and Popeo, P.C.



* Sandra J. Badin

  Mintz, Levin, Cohn, Ferris,

  Glovsky, and Popeo, P.C.
* Leslie McDonell

  Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow,

  Garrett & Dunner

* Heather Repicky

  Nutter McClennen & Fish LLP



* Susan Glovsky

  Hamilton, Brook, Smith &

  Reynolds, P.C.

* Lawrence Cogswell

  Hamilton, Brook, Smith &

  Reynolds, P.C.



* Daniel Young

  Wolf, Greenfield & Sacks, P.C.
* Bo Han

  WilmerHale LLP


Business & Marketplace

* Jeremy Bond


* Daniel Lev

  Pierce Atwood LLP


Case Law

* Leslie Meyer-Leon

  IP Legal Strategies

* David Thibodeau

  Cesari and McKenna LLP


Chemical Patent Practice

* John Hobgood

  WilmerHale LLP

* Rebecca M. McNeill

  McNeill Baur PLLC


Computer Law

* Josh Matloff

  Hamilton, Brook, Smith &

  Reynolds, P.C.

* Lawrence Stanley

  Morgan Lewis & Bockius LLP


Contested Matters

* Rachel Emsley

  Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow,

  Garrett & Dunner, LLP

* Andrej Barbic

  WilmerHale LLP


Copyright Law

* Michael Bevilacqua

  WilmerHale LLP

* Allison Trzop

  WilmerHale LLP


Corporate (In-House) Practice

* Jennifer Sieczkiewicz

  Biogen Idec Inc..


Ethics and Grievances

* Michael Heyison

  WilmerHale LLP
* Matthew Van Eman

  McCarter English, LLP


International and Foreign Practice

* Eric Raciti

  Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow,

  Garrett & Dunner, LLP

* Keith Wood

  Hamilton, Brook, Smith &

  Reynolds, P.C.


Invented Here!

* Mark B. Solomon

  Hamilton Brook Smith Reynolds

* Rory Pheiffer

  Nutter McClennen & Fish LLP

* Aaron Connor

* Reza Sadr

  Pierce Atwood LLP


Law School

* Susan Montgomery

  Northeastern University
* Andrew Beckerman Rodau

  Suffolk University Law School



* Michael Pratt

  Boston University
* William Worden

  Pierce Atwood LLP


* Wendy Plotkin

  Biogen Idec Inc.

* Jeremy Younkin

  Foley Hoag LLP


Medical Devices

* David Lane

  Johnson & Johnson

* Lisa Adams

  Mintz, Levin, Cohn, Ferris,

  Glovsky & Popeo, PC


New Lawyers, Law Students & Technology Specialists

* Kevin MacDonald

  Wolf, Greenfield & Sacks, P.C.
* Michael DeGrazia

  McCarter English, LLP


Patent Law

* Konstantin Linnik

  Nutter McClennan & Fish LLP
* Lin Hymel

  Posternak Blankstein & Lund



Patent Office Practice

* Sean Coughlin

  Lathrop & Gage LLP

* Emily Whelan


* Nicole Palmer

  Lando & Anastasi, LLP


Pro Bono

* Sandra Brown

  McCarter English LLP
* Chelsea Loughran

  Wolf, Greenfield & Sacks, P.C.


Trade Secrets Law

* Elias Domingo

* Adam Samansky

  Mintz, Levin, Cohn, Ferris,

  Glovsky and Popeo, P.C.


Trademarks and Unfair Competition

* Josh Dalton

  Morgan Lewis & Bockius LLP
* Lori Shyavitz

  McCarter & English, LLP


The Boston Patent Law Association (BPLA) is an association of intellectual property professionals, providing educational programs and a forum for the interchange of ideas and information concerning patent, trademark, and copyright laws. Through a volunteer Board of Governors and committees, it organizes and hosts educational seminars, social events, and conventions, and comments on rules, legislation, and judicial decisions impacting the profession. Visit the BPLA at The BPLA Newsletter is published four times a year by the Boston Patent Law Association. Articles appearing in the newsletter represent the views of the authors and do not necessarily carry the endorsement of the BPLA.



Rory Pheiffer, Nutter McClennen & Fish LLP



Erik Belt, Patrick J. Concannon, Lauren Ingegneri, Yale Yechiel N. Robinson, Daniel Taylor, Ethan W. Marks, Larry K. Demeo, Howard P. Goldberg, N. Scott Pierce, Edward Kelly, Regina Sam Penti, Lana Gladstein, Tim Reppucci, Wolf Greenfield's Post-Grant Proceedings Group, John Carl Zwisler, and John Loughnane


Boston Patent Law Association, One Batterymarch Park, Suite 101, Quincy, MA 02169-7454


Letters to the editor, articles and job postings are encouraged. E-Mail all correspondence to:


©2016 Boston Patent Law Association. All rights reserved.


Board of Governors


Erik Paul Belt

McCarter & English, LLP



Monica Grewal

Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr LLP

Vice President

Rory Pheiffer

Nutter McClennen & Fish LLP



Deirdre Sanders Hamilton, Brook, Smith & Reynolds, PC



Michael Bergman

Bergman & Song LLP.

Immediate Past-President and Board Member

Gregory Sieczkiewicz

MPM Capital

Board Member

Daniel W. Young

Wolf Greenfield & Sacks P.C..


Board Member

Nikhil Patel

Burns & Levinson LLP


Board Member

Michael R McGurk

DLA Piper LLP (US)

Do you have a new job? Made a lateral move lately? Been promoted? We want to hear about your news. Please send your job-related news to:


Boston Patent Law Association

One Batterymarch Park, Suite 101,

Quincy, MA 02169

Phone: 617.507.5570






Boston Patent Law Association
One Batterymarch Park, Suite 101
Quincy, MA 02169
Phone: 617.507.5570

Membership Software Powered by YourMembership  ::  Legal