Todd R. Walters - Patent Office Litigation Group Chair
BIPC Logo

Todd R. Walters - Patent Office Litigation Group Chair

Shareholder

Alexandria, VA
 
 
 
  • Todd’s representative inter partes reviews before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board include:
    • GlaxoSmithKline LLC v. FibroGen, Inc., IPR2016-01323, USPTO Patent Trial and Appeal Board
    • GlaxoSmithKline LLC v. FibroGen, Inc., IPR2016-01322, USPTO Patent Trial and Appeal Board
    • GlaxoSmithKline LLC v. FibroGen, Inc., IPR2016-01320, USPTO Patent Trial and Appeal Board
    • GlaxoSmithKline LLC v. FibroGen, Inc., IPR2016-01319, USPTO Patent Trial and Appeal Board
    • GlaxoSmithKline LLC v. FibroGen, Inc., IPR2016-01318, USPTO Patent Trial and Appeal Board
    • GlaxoSmithKline LLC v. FibroGen, Inc., IPR2016-01315, USPTO Patent Trial and Appeal Board
    • Corning Optical Communications RF, LLC v. PPC Broadband, IPR2013-00340, USPTO Patent Trial and Appeal Board
    • Corning Optical Communications RF, LLC v. PPC Broadband, IPR2013-00342, USPTO Patent Trial and Appeal Board
    • Corning Optical Communications RF, LLC v. PPC Broadband, IPR2013-00343, USPTO Patent Trial and Appeal Board
    • Corning Optical Communications RF, LLC v. PPC Broadband, IPR2013-00345, USPTO Patent Trial and Appeal Board
    • Corning Optical Communications RF, LLC v. PPC Broadband, IPR2013-00346, USPTO Patent Trial and Appeal Board
    • Corning Optical Communications RF, LLC v. PPC Broadband, IPR2013-00347, USPTO Patent Trial and Appeal Board
    • Tate & Lyle Americas LLC v. Cargill Incorporated, IPR2014-00084, USPTO Patent Trial and Appeal Board 
    • E.I. du Pont de Nemours and Co. v. Monsanto Technology LLC, IPR2014-00331, USPTO Patent Trial and Appeal Board
    • E.I. du Pont de Nemours and Co. v. Monsanto Technology LLC, IPR2014-00332, USPTO Patent Trial and Appeal Board
    • E.I. du Pont de Nemours and Co. v. Monsanto Technology LLC, IPR2014-00333, USPTO Patent Trial and Appeal Board
    • E.I. du Pont de Nemours and Co. v. Monsanto Technology LLC, IPR2014-00334, USPTO Patent Trial and Appeal Board
    • E.I. du Pont de Nemours and Co. v. Monsanto Technology LLC, IPR2014-00335, USPTO Patent Trial and Appeal Board
    • Corning Optical Communications RF, LLC v. PPC Broadband, IPR2014-00440, USPTO Patent Trial and Appeal Board
    • Corning Optical Communications RF, LLC v. PPC Broadband, . IPR2014-00441, USPTO Patent Trial and Appeal Board
    • Corning Optical Communications RF, LLC v. PPC Broadband, IPR2014-00736, USPTO Patent Trial and Appeal Board
  • His representative interference matters before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board include:
    • Andersen v. Wan, Patent Interference No. 105,991, USPTO Patent Trial and Appeal Board 
    • Andersen v. Wan, Patent Interference No. 106,002, USPTO Patent Trial and Appeal Board 
    • Anumakonda v. Li, Patent Interference No. 104,390, USPTO Patent Trial and Appeal Board 
    • Biondo v. Flaugher, Patent Interference No. 105,437, USPTO Patent Trial and Appeal Board 
    • Busetti v. Jao, Patent Interference No. 104,611, USPTO Patent Trial and Appeal Board 
    • Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organization and Bayer BioScience N.V. v. Carnegie Institution of Washington and the University of Massachusetts, Patent Interference No. 105,754, USPTO Patent Trial and Appeal Board 
    • Dung v. Buehler, Patent Interference No. 105,893, USPTO Patent Trial and Appeal Board 
    • E. I. du Pont De Nemours and Company v. Industrial Technology Research Institute, Patent Interference No. 105,514, USPTO Patent Trial and Appeal Board 
    • Frost v. Woodard, Patent Interference No. 104,595, USPTO Patent Trial and Appeal Board 
    • Gallagher v. Dalton, Patent Interference No. 105,410, USPTO Patent Trial and Appeal Board 
    • General Instrument Corp. v. Scientific-Atlanta, Inc., Patent Interference No. 105,515, USPTO Patent Trial and Appeal Board
    • Genise v. Desautels, Patent Interference No. 104,834, USPTO Patent Trial and Appeal Board 
    • Genise v. Desautels, Patent Interference No. 104,835, USPTO Patent Trial and Appeal Board 
    • Hardin v. Williams, Patent Interference No. 105,677, USPTO Patent Trial and Appeal Board 
    • Kaelin v. Maxwell, Patent Interference No. 105,580, USPTO Patent Trial and Appeal Board 
    • Kaloyeros v. Hautala, Patent Interference No. 105,161, USPTO Patent Trial and Appeal Board 
    • Kawahara v. Abraham, Patent Interference No. 105,696, USPTO Patent Trial and Appeal Board 
    • Kawahara v. Abraham, Patent Interference No. 105,869, USPTO Patent Trial and Appeal Board 
    • Kiel v. Graham, Patent Interference No. 104,352, USPTO Patent Trial and Appeal Board 
    • Kovesdi v. Imler, Patent Interference No. 105,046, USPTO Patent Trial and Appeal Board 
    • Kovesdi v. Imler, Patent Interference No. 104,822, USPTO Patent Trial and Appeal Board 
    • Lilly v. Cameron, Patent Interference No. 104,101, USPTO Patent Trial and Appeal Board 
    • Litchfield v. Rudy, Patent Interference No. 104,510, USPTO Patent Trial and Appeal Board 
    • Loughlin v. Ling, Patent Interference No. 105,766, USPTO Patent Trial and Appeal Board 
    • Merten v. Franchina, Patent Interference No. 105,804, USPTO Patent Trial and Appeal Board 
    • Millennium Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v. Yamanouchi Pharmaceutical Co., Ltd., Patent Interference No. 105,789,USPTO Patent Trial and Appeal Board 
    • Nippon Synthetic Chemical Co. v. E. I. du Pont De Nemours and Company, Patent Interference No. 105,584,USPTO Patent Trial and Appeal Board 
    • Olmarker v. Le, Patent Interference No. 105,842, USPTO Patent Trial and Appeal Board 
    • Pham v. Baker, Patent Interference No. 105,769, USPTO Patent Trial and Appeal Board 
    • Rozbicki v. Chiang, Patent Interference No. 105,898, USPTO Patent Trial and Appeal Board 
    • Saito v. Imler, Patent Interference No. 104,820, USPTO Patent Trial and Appeal Board 
    • Stafford v. Edwards, Patent Interference No. 105,321, USPTO Patent Trial and Appeal Board 
    • The Broad Institute, Inc., et al. v. The Regents of the University of California, et al., Patent Interference 106,048, USPTO Patent Trial and Appeal Board
    • Tobinick v. Olmarker, Patent Interference No. 105,866, USPTO Patent Trial and Appeal Board 
    • Van Laak v. Ebihara, Patent Interference No. 105,013, USPTO Patent Trial and Appeal Board 
    • Wang v. Imler, Patent Interference No. 105,136, United USPTO Patent Trial and Appeal Board 
    • Willis v. Gunderson, Patent Interference No. 105,547, USPTO Patent Trial and Appeal Board 
    • Yeda Research & Development Co., Ltd. v. Abbott GmbH & Co. KG, Patent Interference No. 103,625, USPTO Patent Trial and Appeal Board 
    • Zhang v. Imler, Patent Interference No. 104,823, USPTO Patent Trial and Appeal Board 
    • Zieler v. Ananiev, Patent Interference No. 105,989, USPTO Patent Trial and Appeal Board 
    • Zinn v. Powers, Patent Interference No. 105,860, USPTO Patent Trial and Appeal Board
  • Todd's representative litigation matters include:
    • Abbott GmbH & Co. KG v. Yeda Research and Development Co., Ltd., United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
    • Abbott GmbH & Co. KG v. Yeda Research and Development Co., Ltd., United States District Court for the District of Columbia 
    • Abbott Laboratories v. City of Hope, United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois 
    • Allied Signal v. Cooper Automotive, United States District Court for the District of Delaware 
    • Aventis Pasteur v. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, United States District Court for the District of Columbia 
    • BASF Corp. v. Eastman Chemical Co., United States District Court for the District of Delaware 
    • Dey, L.P., et al. v. Sepracor, Inc., United States District Court for the Southern District of New York
    • Loughlin v. Ling, United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit 
    • Novo Nordisk A/S v. Eli Lilly and Co., United States District Court for the District of Delaware 
    • Rhodia Chimie and Rhodia, Inc. v. PPG Industries, Inc., United States District Court for the District of Delaware 
    • Rozbicki v. Chiang, United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit 
    • Sepracor Inc. v. Barr Laboratories, Inc., United States District Court for the District of Delaware 
    • Sepracor Inc. v. Breath Limited, United States District Court for the Northern District of Chicago
    • Sepracor Inc. v. Breath Limited, United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts 
    • Sepracor Inc. v. Dey L.P. and Dey, Inc., United States District Court for the District of Delaware 
    • Sunovion Pharmaceuticals v. Dey Pharma et al., United States District Court for the District of Delaware
    • Tobinick v. Olmarker, United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit 
    • Yeda Research and Development Co., Ltd. v. Abbott GmbH & Co. KG, United States District Court for the District of Columbia