With over a decade of legal experience, Brian helps his clients procure, protect, and enforce their intellectual property. Above all, he strives to find the right solution to meet his clients’ business goals.
Leveraging his background in computer science and his experience as a former software developer, Brian focuses his practice on growing patent portfolios for clients of all sizes. He has helped clients obtain domestic and foreign patent protection in a wide variety of technologies, including 5G telecommunications, video and image processing, the Internet-of-Things (IoT), cybersecurity and network maintenance, content delivery, remote and virtual computing, voice recognition, search engines, scientific instruments and equipment, military systems, fintech, insurtech, ecommerce, business methods, and footwear. Brian also enjoys advising clients on cutting-edge technologies like artificial intelligence, virtual reality, and augmented reality.
Beyond patent procurement, Brian counsels clients in all aspects of intellectual property law. He has prepared opinions on product clearances, patent validity, and patent infringement. He has also helped clients obtain trademark protection and resolve domain disputes. At the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB), Brian has represented clients in numerous inter partes review challenges, including a successful series of IPRs involving a leading telecommunications company that gained national media attention.
Brian also advises clients on the issue of patent-eligible subject matter. Having presented and having written several articles on this topic, Brian assists clients with identifying patent-eligible subject matter in their inventions and overcoming challenges to subject matter eligibility.
As a member of the Intellectual Property Law Association of Chicago’s (IPLAC) Amicus Committee, Brian served as lead counsel for IPLAC’s amicus brief submitted to the Federal Circuit requesting that the court vacate a PTAB final decision for failing to follow proper procedures in determining that the appellant’s claims did not satisfy the subject matter requirements of Section 101.