James Aquilina
Washington Office Co-Managing Partner
Quarles & Brady LLP
James Aquilina is the Co-Managing Partner of the Washington Office of Quarles & Brady, advises his clients on intellectual property (IP) procurement, strategic portfolio development and management, offensive and defensive dispute matters, licensing and anti-counterfeiting efforts. An internationally recognized IP strategist and leader in the field of U.S. design law, he counsels industry-leading and emerging clients in the areas of utility and design patents, trademarks, copyrights and trade secrets. His representative clients include global companies in the fields of:
- Personal apparel, including footwear and clothing
- Consumer packaged goods, including games and puzzles
- Medical devices
- Home furnishing
- Software
James takes the time to understand his clients’ businesses and ensure the legal solutions he and his team deliver align with business purposes. He is a true partner to the companies he represents and provides guidance that is clear, succinct and actionable.
James is the co-founder and editor in chief of Quarles’ Protecting the Product blog, which focuses on design-related legal rights.
James is the Washington, D.C. office co-managing partner and the Washington office chair for the Intellectual Property Group.
Recent Articles by James Aquilina
A Teapot Steeped with Dicta: An Update on In re Maatita and Design Definiteness
The flexible approach of In re Maatita to definiteness embodies the idea that designs can be depicted in a variety of ways while still being reasonably understood by the ordinary observer. The standard also strikes a balance between allowing infringement and patentability to be assessed and allowing applicants to claim their design in the way that best reflects how that design is likely to be viewed in the real world, or focusing on what the applicant deems to be the most important aspects of their design. While an applicant may choose to claim three-dimensional aspects of design from one or more points of view, there is no requirement that every detail must be fully shown in multiple views from a variety of perspectives so that its three-dimensional nature can be exactly ascertained. But the Federal Circuit could not help but muddy the waters by providing its infamous teapot example.