is a Shareholder with Polsinelli. Mark is an intellectual property attorney who regularly advises large and small companies throughout the country, particularly in the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern District of Texas, and District of Delaware. He practices in patent, trademark, and trade dress areas. Mark maintains a particular focus in Hatch-Waxman pharmaceutical patent litigation with experience representing both brand-side and generic-side companies, including in first-filer cases. These cases have involved several types of drug products, including ophthalmic, solid oral, controlled release, transdermal, and topical dosage forms. Mark leads all aspects of case development, from initial assessment through discovery, motions practice, claim construction, expert witnesses, trial, and appeal. Mark is also a registered patent attorney.
For more information or to contact Mark, please visit his Firm Profile Page.
The “Support Technology and Research for Our Nation’s Growth and Economic Resilience Patents Act of 2019” or the “STRONGER Patents Act of 2019,” currently under consideration as Senate Bill 2082 and House Resolution 3666, poses questions about the types of decisions that would operate to bar inter partes review (IPR) and post-grant review (PGR) of patent claims. The STRONGER Patents Act is an effort to cure some of the perceived infirmities in the U.S. patent system. While prior versions—introduced in 2015 and 2017—were more wide-ranging, the STRONGER Patents Act of 2019 primarily focuses on the availability of injunctive relief and the susceptibility of patents to IPR and PGR. Among other changes, the bill would effectively overrule the Supreme Court’s eBay v. MercExchange decision, require inter partes and post-grant review petitioners to prove invalidity by clear and convincing evidence, permit only one such review of any given patent claim, and purport to finally end the occasional practice of diverting some the USPTO fees from its operations. While much can (and has) been written about the merits of such reforms, the present comment specifically considers the proposed “Priority of Federal Court Validity Determinations.”
The Federal Circuit’s recent venue decisions represent important developments in the interpretation of the patent venue statute. The application of these decisions will have immediate effects on defendants in patent infringement cases, and particularly those who are often subject to suit in popular districts like the Eastern District of Texas and the District of Delaware. While many open questions remain—perhaps most notably the treatment of domestic unincorporated associations—the Federal Circuit continues to delineate the scope of the patent venue statute.