Alexander Zajac Image

Alexander Zajac


Harrity & Harrity

Alexander Zajac is a patent attorney at Harrity & Harrity, LLP. Alexander’s practice is focused on patent preparation and prosecution of patent applications before the United States Patent and Trademark Office. His practice focuses on electrical and computer technologies, including telecommunications, computer networking and networking devices, computer hardware and software, encryption and security techniques, data analytics, business methods, semiconductors, and options.

Prior to joining Harrity & Harrity, LLP, he worked with an intellectual property (IP) law firm in Washington, DC, where he drafted and prosecuted patent applications as well as assisting with opinions and litigations. He also worked at the United States District Court for the District of Columbia with Magistrate Judge Alan Kay. While working at his former firm, Alexander attended Georgetown University Law Center.

Alexander completed two senior theses during his undergraduate studies at Georgetown University. The first, entitled Stability and electronic properties of two-dimensional MoS2-based alloys, earned him honors in Physics. The second, entitled Trends in self-reported confidence in early high school physics, was completed as part of an exclusive science pedagogy program at the university.

Recent Articles by Alexander Zajac

AI Prompts Do Not Compromise Attorney Confidentiality Obligations

Many IP attorneys have expressed concerns about complying with confidentiality duties while using large language models (LLMs). For example, in a recent panel at the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO), multiple panelists expressed the opinion that attorneys should not perform LLM queries because LLM queries are stored remotely while Internet searches are not. The goal of this article is to explore, as examples, Google’s and OpenAI’s data retention policies and the intersection of those policies with attorneys’ confidentiality duties.

Core Wireless: Parsing the Data on Enforcement Trends Three Years On

To many patent practitioners, the Federal Circuit’s decision in Core Wireless Licensing S.A.R.L. v. LG Electronics, Inc. was a watershed moment. In particular, this decision provided that claims directed to “display interfaces” that “improved” on existing interfaces were patent eligible under 35 U.S.C. § 101. In other words, Core Wireless decreased the chances of a court finding a graphical user interface (GUI) patent to be directed to ineligible subject matter and therefore invalid. We don’t have to look far to see the impact that the nearly-three-year-old Core Wireless decision has had. Almost 100 district court decisions have cited the case since it came down in January of 2019, and nearly 30 inter partes review (IPR) proceedings filed after January of 2019 include citations of Core Wireless by practitioners, the Board, or both.