Gaudry, Grab & McKeon


Kate Gaudry, focuses her practice on patent prosecution and counseling, with an emphasis on software, computer systems, and quantitative biology. Dr. Gaudry also routinely performs statistical analysis of clients’ patent portfolios to identify effective prosecution strategies. Further, Dr. Gaudry regularly empirically evaluates programs and performance of the United States Patent and Trademark Office so as to provide her clients with prosecution recommendations and to advocate for compact and fair examination. Her publications are representative of such efforts.

Leslie Grab focuses her practice on patent prosecution, patent litigation and intellectual property transactional issues. Dr. Grab has experience in a wide range of technologies, including, chemistry, biochemistry, molecular biology, pharmaceuticals, and medical devices. Her practice includes comprehensive patent portfolio management in the biotechnology area. Dr. Grab also has expertise in the transactional aspects of intellectual property, including licensing, merger, acquisition and/or equity investment due diligence. Dr. Grab has also prepared various ex parte and inter partes reexamination petitions on behalf of clients, including those involved in patent litigation matters.

Tina Williams McKeon is a registered patent attorney who focuses her practice on patent prosecution, IP strategy and IP portfolio management for leading universities, research institutions, and corporations in the life sciences and biotechnology fields. Her biotechnology experience includes neuroscience, immunology, therapeutic antibodies, oncolytic virus therapy, stem cell technology and recombinant technologies in a variety of areas including food and food supplements. Dr. McKeon has worked extensively with medical technology and pharmaceuticals, including cardiac technology, imaging and diagnostics as well as small molecule pharmaceuticals and biologics.

Recent Articles by

Trends in Subject Matter Eligibility for Biotechnology Inventions

The USPTO continues to issue patents related to biotechnology and organic chemistry inventions despite the Supreme Court rulings and USPTO guidelines implementing the ruling related to the scope of patentable subject matter. Although the sky has not fallen, applicants must expect more rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 101 and must budget for more office actions before receiving an allowance from TC 1600. Furthermore, applicants can expect these challenges in several art unit groups, particularly in art unit group 1630. As a matter of strategy, if a rapid allowance is sought, applicants should carefully draft applications and claims to comply with the Interim Guidelines and utilize options to speed prosecution. Because of the uncertainty in the relevant case law and its rapidly evolving nature, applicants should consider whether to appeal intractable rejections under § 101. Further analysis is necessary to determine whether appeals of rejections under § 101 by TC 1600 are successful.