Marian Underweiser, Ph.D. Image

Marian Underweiser, Ph.D.

Intellectual Property Executive (ret.)

Dr. Underweiser’s decades-long career in Intellectual Property Law spans a broad variety of leadership positions and technology areas. She oversaw the intellectual property operations of IBM’s world-renowned research division, leading a team of legal professionals charged with the procurement of patents, the development and implementation of intellectual property policies and the negotiation of commercial transactions in support of the global research organization. Prior to assuming that role, Marian was IBM’s Senior Counsel for IP Law Policy and Strategy, formulating policy on a broad spectrum of IP matters including eligibility and the America Invents Act (AIA), and developing and deploying IBM’s patent portfolio strategy. Most recently, Marian was recruited by Waymo to provide IP support for clients working on aspects of self-driving technology as Managing IP Counsel.

Marian chaired the 101 Task Force of the Intellectual Property Owners Association and led a cross-association effort establishing principles and a widely-supported legislative proposal. She served as a member of the Board of NYIPLA; and as an adjunct professor at the Benjamin N. Cardozo School of Law.

Dr. Underweiser is a graduate of Harvard University where she received her AB in Physics. She received her PhD in Physics from UCLA, where she specialized in Condensed Matter Physics, and her JD from Columbia Law School where she was a Stone and a Kent scholar.

Recent Articles by Marian Underweiser, Ph.D.

The PTAB Reform Act Will Make the PTAB’s Problems Worse

Recently, we submitted comments for the record to the Senate Judiciary Committee’s IP Subcommittee in response to its June 22 hearing on the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB), titled: “The Patent Trial and Appeal Board: Examining Proposals to Address Predictability, Certainty and Fairness.” The hearing focused on Senator Leahy’s PTAB Reform Act, which among other changes, would eliminate the discretion of the Director to deny institution of an inter partes review (IPR) petition based on an earlier filed district court litigation involving the same patents, parties and issues. Here is the net of what we told them:

Past Events with Marian Underweiser, Ph.D.