Jeremiah B. Frueauf & Dr. Pratibha Khanduri

 

Jeremiah B. Frueauf is a director in the Biotechnology/Chemical Group, at Sterne, Kessler, Goldstein and Fox PLLC in Washington, DC. Mr. Frueauf counsels domestic and international clients on the preparation, prosecution, and management of complex worldwide patent portfolios. He is also experienced in the research and preparation of freedom-to-operate, validity, infringement, and patentability analyses.

Mr. Frueauf has experience in various inter partes matters, including district court litigation, interference work before the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, and Section 337 investigations before the U.S. International Trade Commission. His work includes preparing strategy and analysis, motions practice, and case management for these matters.

Pratibha Khanduri, Ph.D. is an associate at Sterne, Kessler, Goldstein and Fox PLLC in Washington, DC. Dr. Khanduri is an associate in the firm's Biotechnology/Chemical group. She assists in the preparation and prosecution of patent applications, in reexamination proceedings, and in patent litigation matters. In addition, Dr. Khanduri is involved in preparing patentability, invalidity, freedom-to-operate, and non-infringement opinions. Her areas of technical expertise include genetics, molecular biology, biochemistry, and cellular biology.

Recent Articles by Kimble v. Marvel – Supreme Court quiets criticism of per se rule against post-patent royalties

Kimble v. Marvel – Supreme Court quiets criticism of per se rule against post-patent royalties

The U.S. Supreme Court’s recent decision in Kimble v. Marvel Entertainment, LLC (2015) rejuvenates a 50-year-old rule that limits collecting patent royalties after a patent expires. On June 22, 2015, the Court upheld its per se Brulotte rule that bars a patent licensor’s collection of royalties for the use of a claimed invention beyond the expiration date of the underlying patent. The Court directly addressed criticisms of this rule, which originated in its Brulotte v. Thys Co. (1964) decision, and foreclosed any speculation about the continued viability of Brulotte’s bright-line rule in current practice.