is a registered patent attorney and founding member of Maier & Maier, PLLC, all aspects of Intellectual Property Law. Mr. Maier’s experience and expertise most recently has focused on providing a range of patent services to clients and developing patent strategies that complement the client’s business objectives. In particular, he enjoys developing and managing patent portfolios for the world market, for both start-up, middle market and Fortune 500 companies. To this end, he also analyzes competitors’ patent portfolios and products to counsel clients regarding enhancement and enforcement of their patent portfolio, potential investment of contemplated products, strategic design-around, and acquisition of technology.
Mr. Maier received his Bachelor of Science from Vanderbilt University and Masters in Telecommunications Engineering from George Mason University School of Engineering and his Law degree from George Mason University School of Law.
Mr. Maier is licensed to practice before the United States Patent Office, Supreme Court of Virginia, Eastern District Court of Virginia, and the Court of Appeals for the 4th Circuit.
Both petitioners’ and patent owners’ reliance on blog articles in the course of post grant proceedings has been approximately equal. However, the manner in which the blog articles were used did vary widely based on the litigator’s position during the proceeding. For petitioners, blog articles were most often cited to construe the claims (Apotex Inc. v. Amgen Inc., IPR2016-01542, Paper 2, p.69), were introduced as previous publications of an expert witness in order to help prove their qualifications (Samsung Electronics Co., v. Papst Licensing, IPR2016-01733, Ex. 1014, p. 99), or were used to bolster the credentials of one or more of the representing attorneys (Google, Inc. et al v. Smartflash, CBM2015-00132, Paper 17, p. 2). For patent owners, blog articles were most often referenced to provide support to summarize and clarify certain legal standards such as claim construction standards (Uniloc USA, Inc. et al v. Allscripts Healthcare Solutions, Inc., IPR2015-01615, Paper 12, p. 8), to clarify legislative history and identify Congressional intent (Coalition for Affordable Drugs VII v. Pozen, IPR2015-01241, Paper 13, p. 47), and to rebut the petitioner’s expert testimony by attacking the expert’s credibility (Coalition for Affordable Drugs VII v. Pharmacyclics, IPR2015-01076, Paper 20, p. 13).