Roy H. Wepner
Of Counsel
Kaplan, Breyer Schwarz
Roy H. Wepner is Of Counsel to Kaplan, Breyer Schwarz, LLP. Roy attended Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, where he received bachelor’s and master’s degrees in mechanical engineering. He received his Juris Doctor degree from the University of Pennsylvania School of Law.
Roy has practiced patent and trademark litigation in federal district and appellate courts for five decades. He is the author of several law review articles; dozens of “In Practice” articles published in the New Jersey Law Journal; and numerous recent online articles on patent and trademark litigation. He has served as an Adjunct Professor at Rutgers Law School in Newark, New Jersey, where he has taught patent law and patent litigation. He also has taught trademark law at Seton Hall Law School.
Roy is a Certified Mediator for the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey, and has served as an expert witness and a mediator in patent and trademark cases.
Recent Articles by Roy H. Wepner
ChromaDex: Being Unsuccessful is Not ‘Exceptional’ Conduct
We live and practice in a time when it may seem to some patent litigators that it would border on malpractice to not move for attorney fees after any case is won. You don’t ask, you don’t get, right? What do we have to lose? The recent U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit decision in Chromadex v. Elysium Health serves as a helpful reminder of the seemingly obvious notion that not all patent cases we win (or, for that matter, lose) are “exceptional.” And it suggests that overreaching in seeking fees may itself come with some costs.
Federal Circuit Holds There is No ‘Presumption of Irreparable Harm’ on Preliminary Injunction Motions: What Took So Long?
On August 4, 2026, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) chose to issue a precedential opinion formally holding that there is no “presumption of irreparable harm” in preliminary injunction proceedings in patent cases. The court acknowledged that this conclusion should have been apparent from the 2006 Supreme Court decision in eBay Inc. v. MercExchange, L.L.C., 547 U.S. 388, 393-94 (2006).
Thoughts on Finesse Wireless‘s Framing of Datascope as an ‘Infamous’ Example of Federal Circuit Overreach
In 2008, a medical device company I represented, Datascope Corporation, won a hard-fought victory at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. That court reversed a verdict of patent infringement rendered by a federal jury in Baltimore in a suit brought by Johns Hopkins University and its licensee against my client. Johns Hopkins Univ. v. Datascope Corp., 543 F.3d 1342 (Fed. Cir. 2008).
Is the USPTO Flagging Selected Patent Applications for Extra Scrutiny—Again?
A battle is currently being waged in a federal court in Washington D.C., where two prominent inventors are accusing the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) of singling out and stalling their pending patent applications, which might otherwise be allowable, for extra scrutiny under ill-defined standards. The inventors allege that the USPTO has resurrected a program that started in 1994, that purportedly justified such added scrutiny, which the USPTO claims to have discontinued in 2015.
Analyzing Inari Medical: In At Least One Judge’s Court, There’s Enough Bad News for Everyone
In October 2025, a federal district judge with an active docket of patent suits addressed the question of whether the filing (and, presumably, the service) of a complaint for patent infringement in and of itself precludes the defendant from asserting that it was unaware of the patent (and, thus, could not be a willful infringer). The bad news for plaintiffs: the answer was no. The court also addressed the question of whether a defendant could utilize a Rule 12(b) (6) motion to dismiss a plaintiff’s assertion of entitlement to enhanced damages under 35 U.S.C. §284 for willful infringement. The bad news for defendants: the answer was no again.