![[IPWatchdog Logo]](https://ipwatchdog.com/wp-content/themes/IPWatchdog%20-%202023/assets/images/temp/logo-small@2x.png){kind=logo}
Mark Deming
Hatch Waxman Litigation Chair
Polsinelli
Mark Deming is an intellectual property attorney and the Hatch Waxman Litigation Chair for Polsinelli. His practice includes patent, trademark, trade dress, copyright, and trade secret law. He advises companies of all sizes regarding protecting intellectual property rights as well as litigating the same as either plaintiffs or defendants. Mark regularly appears before state and federal courts and agencies, including in the Northern District of Illinois, the District of Delaware, the Central District of California, the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board, and the Patent Trial and Appeal Board. 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.
Mark’s practice includes pharmaceutical and medical device patent litigation. He advises both brand-side and generic-side companies at every stage of the product development cycle, including candidate evaluation, loss of exclusivity projection, notice letter preparation, pre-litigation strategy, and post-settlement enforcement. He also regularly litigates Hatch-Waxman cases involving drug product types such as ophthalmic, solid oral, controlled release, transdermal, and topical dosage forms.
Prior to joining Polsinelli, Mark clerked for two years with District Judge Michael Schneider and Magistrate Judge John Love in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas. Mark has a Bachelor of Science degree in Computer Engineering from the University of Illinois Department of Electrical and Computer Engineering.
Recent Articles by Mark Deming
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.