Gregory is an associate in the Intellectual Property section of the firm.

He concentrates his practice on the preparation and prosecution of patents, patent appeals, patent opinions, patent litigation, intellectual property licensing and acquisitions, transactions, agreements and due diligence. He works with companies in all stages of growth, and has extensive experience in a variety of matters, from the development of initial patent strategies for start-ups, to the maintenance of cost-effective quality in the management of high volume filings for Fortune 500 companies. Gregory also has extensive experience working directly with universities in obtaining patent protection and developing IP strategies.

Gregory’s undergraduate degree in Policy Studies and Economics, combined with a graduate degree in Electrical Engineering, provides him with a unique perspective in counseling clients in connection with IP strategies.

He has worked within expansive technical disciplines, including electrical engineering, computer hardware, computer software, personal electronics, networking, telecommunication systems, RF technology, business methods, mechanical engineering, mechanical devices, biomechanical devices, medical devices, manufacturing technology, e-commerce, motor vehicles and food processing.

Representative Experience

• Nidec respondent in an ITC patent infringement matter relating to electric motors. The case was successfully concluded for Nidec after petitioner dismissed the case following a claim construction favorable to Nidec. Certain Thermoplastic-Encapsulated Electric Motors, Components Thereof, and Products And Vehicles Containing Same II (337-TA-1073, 2018).
• Keldar v. Baby Brezza Enterprises, LLC, 14-cv-904 (E.D.Tx.). Successfully represented defendant against allegations of patent infringement directed to products for making infant formula. Case was settled favorably following the Markman hearing.
• Vitro Packaging, LLC v. Saverglass, Inc. IPR2015-00947. Successfully defended patent owner in an IPR proceeding. In view of the patent owner’s preliminary statement, the PTAB denied institution of inter partes review against our client’s patent.
• Saverglass, Inc. v. Vitro Packaging, LLC. Representing plaintiff in a design patent litigation involving the ornamental design of a bottle.
• The Trustees of Columbia University in the City of New York v. HiSense USA, 14-cv-4547 (S.D.N.Y.). Successfully represented plaintiff in a breach of contract action in connection with the sale of patents. Settled on favorable terms.

• Battle Toys LLC v. Lego Systems Inc., 12-cv-928 (D. Del.). Represented defendant in a patent dispute alleging infringement by Lego’s Ninjago spinning top toy. Case settled on favorable terms shortly before trial.

Bar Admissions

Education
JD, Benjamin N. Cardozo School of Law, 2009MS, Electrical Engineering, Columbia University, 2006BA, Policy Studies and Economics, Syracuse University, 2001

• INSIGHT: Overcoming Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Rejections, Bloomberg Law
• USPTO Updates Examination Guidelines for Patent Eligible Subject Matter
• Federal Circuit Expands the Definition of Direct Infringement
• Supreme Court Alters Appellate Standard of Review for Claim Construction in Patent Cases
• Six years after Alice, are we any closer to clarity on patent eligibility?, Westlaw Journal Intellectual Property