Dean A. Pelletier is the founder of Pelletier Law, LLC.
Prior to founding Pelletier Law, Dean was a managing director at an intellectual capital merchant banc and, before that, a board member/shareholder at another intellectual property (IP) law firm.
Dean has 25 years of strategic IP and commercial experience, including litigating and trying, as a first chair, IP and commercial disputes and counseling clients on and helping them seize IP and related opportunities. His practice focuses on leveraging patents and trade secrets.
In his practice, Dean accounts for the people, IP and technology at issue as well as corporate, marketplace and global realities. His experience encompasses various industries, technologies and assets and has been honed in various venues and across multiple cultures.
Dean has litigated and tried cases in U.S district courts, the U.S. International Trade Commission (ITC) and state courts and has argued before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit.
Dean’s litigation and trial experience provides an informed perspective in the courtroom and beyond, including when conducting early IP case assessments, conducting an IP audit, drafting and negotiating IP agreements and counseling on IP matters.
Dean’s litigation and trial experience includes representing Amsted Industries, the prevailing trade secret owner, in TianRui v. ITC, 661 F.3d 1322 (Fed. Cir. 2011), a case that has had a profound impact on U.S. trade secret law and U.S. trade secret owners.
Dean also successfully litigated and tried a patent infringement case that resulted in an $ 80 million award.
Dean has been a keynote IP speaker, presenter and panelist at multiple professional and legal trade shows, conferences and meetings.
He has been a guest IP lecturer at Northwestern University, Kellogg School of Management and Illinois Institute of Technology, Stuart School of Business.
Dean is a member of The Sedona Conference, Working Group 12 on Trade Secrets.
Dean has written many IP law articles and posts, including, most recently:
SCOTUS Patent Scorecard and SCOTUS Patent Scorecard Updates
Effectively And Efficiently Asserting A Trade Secret Misappropriation Claim Depends On Steps Taken Before The Claim Arises
The Sedona Conference Commentary on the Proper Identification of Asserted Trade Secrets in Misappropriation Lawsuits (draft) (contributing editor)
The GOAT’s IP Strategy Isn’t Terrific
International Chamber of Commerce Report: Protecting Trade Secrets – Recent EU and US Reforms (chapter coordinator and lead drafter)
Theranos Investors: Defrauded, Foolish or Both?
Dean is licensed to practice law in Illinois and is a registered U.S. patent attorney. He is a member of the Trial Bar for the Northern District of Illinois.
Dean is a Massachusetts native, but his educational roots are in the Midwest. He received his J.D. from Washington University School of Law in 1995 and his B.S. in biomedical engineering from Northwestern University in 1991.
Editor’s Note: Dean A. Pelletier of Pelletier Law, LLC co-authored this article with Erik Weibust.
Legal, technology, business, and academic professionals currently are debating whether an invention autonomously generated by artificial intelligence (AI) should be patentable in the United States and elsewhere. Some proponents of patentability argue that if AI, by itself, is not recognized as an inventor, then AI owners will lack protection for AI-generated inventions and AI innovation, commercialization, and investment (collectively, AI innovation) will be inhibited as a result. Some of those proponents further argue that, without patent protection as an option, AI owners increasingly will opt for trade secret protection, which by design reduces public disclosure of corresponding inventions and, as such, still will inhibit AI innovation. Some opponents of patentability, on the other hand, argue that patenting AI-generated inventions will promote those inventions and discourage human-generated inventions, thereby reducing human innovation and ultimately competition, because patent ownership will become concentrated, or more concentrated, in fewer entities—in particular, large, well-funded entities.