Careers

At M&G, we dedicate ourselves to finding the best solutions to our clients’ challenges, no matter where it takes us.

Case Studies

Industries

Offices

About Merchant & Gould

Pages

People

News Room

Practices

Staff

Home - Merchant & Gould P.C.

Jonathan Berschadsky is a Partner at Merchant &amp; Gould’s New York office who focuses his intellectual property practice on complex matters. His 20 years of experience, mixed with a passion for technology and a flair for complex problem-solving, enable him to deliver effective technology and IP agreements, due diligence analysis, opinions of counsel, strategic patent prosecution, IP litigation and so much more.

contentpilot/introduction

“Jonathan Berschadsky helped us consolidate four different sales contracts into one much stronger one. The terms are better for us and for our clients, saving time and money. He’s incredibly responsive and easy to work with and genuinely cares about our business. I feel like I’ve gained a valuable team member.”

core/paragraph

core/quote

Partnering With You in All Aspects of Patent Law

core/heading

Whether he’s litigating a patent that he drafted, counseling on an M&amp;A, or portfolio planning, Jonathan delivers a close partnership to each of his clients. He serves businesses, corporations, and start-ups in a wide range of industries, including electronics, manufacturing, telecommunications, and consumer products.&nbsp;Some of the technologies he deals with include:

core/list-item

core/list

Regardless of your industry, he’s involved in every aspect of patent law, partnering with you in your success and providing strategic insight and deliverables throughout.

In patent prosecution, you receive a valuable asset.

Through litigation as a defendant, you receive an efficient resolution and disposition.

Through litigation as a plaintiff, you receive a positive result.

In transactions, you witness the creation of more business.

Through his opinion, you’ll receive a sense of safety, giving you the confidence to move forward.

When involved in drafting patent applications, formulating arguments for high-stakes litigations or sharing his opinions on patent infringement, he never leaves a stone unturned.

Skilled Attorney With a Team Player Mindset

Jonathan focuses on being an invaluable asset to your team, managing everything involved with your patent. He understands that true patent law requires a dedicated team for the best results. If you need trademark work, he has someone to do it. If you need a design patent, he has industrial and mechanical engineers/lawyers and skilled draftspersons ready to handle it.

You have access to the right person for the right matter, every time.

As your supporter, he’ll remain your go-to while ensuring you’re in the best hands and have the best resources at your disposal.

Jonathan is a regular CLE Instructor for the Practicing Law Institute (PLI) and in-house counsel. In his free time, you’ll find him moonlighting as a mixed martial artist or soaring in the hills on his mountain bike.

contentpilot/expand-more

“Jonathan Berschadsky is a U.S. patent attorney with a brilliant legal mind. He is very business-oriented and he always sees the commercial aspects when he drafts and prosecutes patent applications before the USPTO. He brings a sense of comfort to our mutual clients by collaborating closely with me and keeping me in the loop as cases twist and turn.”

“Jonathan is a very strategic thinker and builds a friendly, positive, and trusting relationship with judges and opposing counsel alike. We have been impressed by his professionalism, legal acumen, and client-focused approach relating to transactional matters as well.”

Rutgers University School of Law, J.D., 2000

Boston University, 

Jonathan Berchadsky, Intellectual Property Attorney

Electronics

Automotive & Powersports

Transportation

Consumer Products

Alternative Energy

Manufacturing

Medical Devices

Semiconductors

Telecommunications

New York

Merchant &amp; Gould is pleased to announce for the third year in a row that attorney Jonathan Berschadsky, a partner in the firm’s New York office, has been included in the 2017 edition of&nbsp;<a href="https://www.iam-media.com/directories/strategy300/info/methodology" target="_blank" rel="noopener">IAM Strategy 300 – The World’s Leading IP Strategists</a>.



This guide lists the individuals that in-depth research—undertaken by a team based in London, Washington, D.C., and Hong Kong—has shown possess world-class skills in the development and roll-out of strategies that maximize the value of patents, copyright, trademarks and other IP rights.



The IAM research team identified IP leaders whose business is the creation, development and deployment of strategies that enable IP owners to gain maximum value from their portfolios. Only those individuals nominated multiple times by different parties as outstanding IP strategists are listed in the IAM Strategy 300.



“Intellectual property helps to drive the 21st century economy, creating strong incentives to invest in the creation and roll-out of brands and all types of content, as well as the innovation process. This makes IP strategists more important than they have ever been before,” said IAM editor Joff Wild in a statement. “We invest considerable time and effort into identifying the right candidates for inclusion and we salute all those who have made it into the final publication. For the work they do, they deserve this recognition.”



<h2 class="wp-block-heading">About IAM </h2>



IAM (<a href="http://www.iam-media.com/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">www.IAM-media.com</a>) is produced in London by the IP Division of Globe Business Media Group and reports on intellectual property as a business asset. Its primary focus is on how intellectual property can be best managed and exploited to create corporate value. The publication’s core readership comprises senior executives in IP-owning companies, corporate counsel, private practice lawyers and attorneys, licensing and technology transfer managers, and investors and analysts.

Jonathan Berschadsky Listed In Iam Strategy 300 Third Year in a Row

Merchant &amp; Gould’s Jonathan Berschadsky and Eric Chad worked with another law firm to successfully defend a challenge at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit on behalf of Merchant and Gould client, DraftKings, and FanDuel, where the patent holder alleged the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) incorrectly invalidated claims due to a flawed claim construction.&nbsp; While the three-judge panel held the PTAB’s claim construction was not entirely correct, it was only “harmless error” because substantial evidence still supports the PTAB’s finding that the claims in the patent would have been obvious over prior art.&nbsp; 



Ten patents in total were asserted against DraftKings in the underlying lawsuit.&nbsp; Merchant and Gould successfully invalidated 7 of the 10 patents early on in a motion to dismiss before invalidating the remaining three in IPRs.&nbsp; The patent owner did not appeal one of the IPRs and the remaining IPR decision is still under appeal at the Federal Circuit.&nbsp;

Merchant & Gould’s Jonathan Berschadsky and Eric Chad successfully defend a challenge at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit

Merchant &amp; Gould is pleased to announce for the fourth year in a row that attorney Jonathan Berschadsky, a partner in the firm’s New York office, has been included in the 2020 edition of&nbsp;<a href="https://www.iam-media.com/directories/strategy300/info/methodology" target="_blank" rel="noopener">IAM Strategy 300 – The World’s Leading IP Strategists</a>.



This guide lists the individuals that in-depth research—undertaken by a team based in London, Washington, D.C., and Hong Kong—has shown possess world-class skills in the development and roll-out of strategies that maximize the value of patents, copyright, trademarks and other IP rights.



The IAM research team identified IP leaders whose business is the creation, development and deployment of strategies that enable IP owners to gain maximum value from their portfolios. Only those individuals nominated multiple times by different parties as outstanding IP strategists are listed in the IAM Strategy 300.



“Intellectual property helps to drive the 21st century economy, creating strong incentives to invest in the creation and roll-out of brands and all types of content, as well as the innovation process. This makes IP strategists more important than they have ever been before,” said IAM editor Joff Wild in a statement. “We invest considerable time and effort into identifying the right candidates for inclusion and we salute all those who have made it into the final publication. For the work they do, they deserve this recognition.”



<h2 class="wp-block-heading">About IAM </h2>



IAM (<a href="http://www.iam-media.com/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">www.IAM-media.com</a>) is produced in London by the IP Division of Globe Business Media Group and reports on intellectual property as a business asset. Its primary focus is on how intellectual property can be best managed and exploited to create corporate value. The publication’s core readership comprises senior executives in IP-owning companies, corporate counsel, private practice lawyers and attorneys, licensing and technology transfer managers, and investors and analysts.

Jonathan Berschadsky Listed In IAM ® Strategy 300 Fourth Year in a Row

Last week, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit issued an opinion in Grace Instrument Industries, LLC v. Chandler Instruments Company, LLC, Ametek, Inc., No. 2021-2370 (Jan. 12, 2023).



Grace sued Chandler alleging Chandler’s viscometer infringed Grace’s U.S. Patent No. 7,412,877. During claim construction, the district court held the claim term “enlarged chamber” is indefinite because “enlarged” is a “term of degree” that “necessarily calls for some comparison against some baseline” and because the ’877 patent fails to disclose objective boundaries for a skilled artisan to know what the claimed “enlarged chamber” must be larger than. In so ruling, the district court rejected Grace’s argument that “enlarged chamber” could be defined by its purpose and that the baseline for “enlarged” is the prior art. The district court also construed the term “means for driving said rotor to rotate located in at least one bottom section,” adopting Chandler’s proposed construction. The parties’ stipulated that all asserted claims are either invalid or not infringed based on the district court’s construction of those two terms. Grace appealed.



The Federal Circuit affirmed-in-part, vacated-in-part, and remanded. First, the Court considered the “enlarged chamber” term. The Court held that although “enlarged chamber” is not a term of art, the intrinsic record informs a skilled artisan of its meaning. The Court explained that “[e]ven when guidance is not provided in explicit definitional format, the specification may define claim terms by implication such that the meaning may be found in or ascertained by a reading of the patent documents.” In the context of the ’877 patent, “enlarged chamber” does not require a chamber that is larger than some baseline object; rather it describes a chamber large enough to accomplish a particular function. The Court construed “enlarged chamber” consistent with that determination and vacated the district court’s invalidity determination. Next, the Court considered the district court’s construction of the means-plus-function term. The Court held the district court correctly applied grammatical principles and correctly interpreted the intrinsic evidence to arrive at the proper construction of that term. Accordingly, the Court affirmed the portion of the district court’s judgment based thereon. The Court remanded the case for further proceedings.

CAFC Reviews District Court Claim Constructions for Viscometer Patent

Last week, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit issued an opinion in <a href="https://cafc.uscourts.gov/opinions-orders/20-2167.OPINION.4-1-2022_1930021.pdf" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener">Genuine Enabling Technology LLC v. Nintendo Co., Ltd. et al., No. 2020-2167 (Apr. 1, 2022)</a>, reversing and remanding the district court’s grant of summary judgment of non-infringement based on its construction of the term “input signal”.



Genuine sued Nintendo alleging five Nintendo controller products infringed U.S. Pat. No. 6,219,730. In their claim construction briefing, the parties disputed the proper construction of the claim term “input signal”, which appears in all the asserted claims. Genuine proposed the construction “a signal having an audio or higher frequency”—a construction that encompassed the full audio spectrum (i.e., 20Hz to 20,000Hz). Nintendo sought a more restricted construction of “input signal”, arguing that the inventor had disclaimed “signals that are 500 Hertz (Hz) or less” and “signals that are generated from positional change information, user selection information, physiological response information, and other slow-varying information.” In support of its construction, Nintendo submitted an expert declaration discussing the features and operation taught by a prior art patent (“Yollin”) and argued that the applicant disclaimed certain signals by its arguments distinguishing Yollin. While Genuine agreed the applicant had disavowed claim scope during prosecution, it urged that no signals within the audio frequency spectrum were disclaimed.



Nintendo moved for summary judgment, arguing that its accused controller products produce only the types of signals that were disclaimed during prosecution. The district court, relying heavily on Nintendo’s expert’s interpretation of the prior art, adopted Nintendo’s construction of “input signal” , stating that the applicant’s arguments regarding the prior art during prosecution amounted to disclaimer of the types of signals addressed by the prior art. Based on its claim construction, the district court granted Nintendo’s motion.



The Federal Circuit reversed. The Court concluded that the only “clear and unmistakable” disclaimer in the record was the applicant’s repeated distinguishing of his inventions from the prior art on grounds that the prior art taught “slow-varying signals” whereas his inventions involved “audio or higher frequency” signals. On that basis, the Court held the district court’s application of a broader disclaimer was improper, as was its reliance on expert testimony to limit the claim scope in a manner not contemplated by the intrinsic record. The Court held the proper construction of “input signal” is “a signal having an audio or higher frequency” and remanded the case for further proceedings. &nbsp;

CAFC Holds District Court Erred by Relying on Expert Testimony on Prior Art to Limit Claim Scope

Last week, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit issued an opinion in <a href="https://cafc.uscourts.gov/opinions-orders/22-1532.OPINION.8-7-2023_2169283.pdf">Axonics, Inc. v. Medtronic, Inc., No. 2022-1532, -1533 (Aug. 7, 2023)</a>, vacating and remanding a determination from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board that Axonics had failed to show claims of two Medtronic patents were unpatentable.



Medtronic’s patents, U.S. Patent Nos. 8,457,758 and 8,738,148, are directed to enhancing charging for implanted medical devices by adjusting external charger output based on device-related measurements. Axonics petitioned for Inter Partes Review of these patents, contesting their validity. In its petition, Axonics adopted a “one-input” claim construction, contending claim elements were disclosed by three prior art references. Medtronic countered in its preliminary response that none of the references met the “one-input” construction. Both parties agreed no explicit claim interpretation was needed. The Board instituted, adopting Axonics’ “one-input” construction and agreeing no explicit claim interpretation was needed.



In its patent owner response, Medtronic introduced a new “two-input” claim construction and argued Axonics’ petition had not identified two separate inputs in any of the prior art references. In reply, Axonics maintained the “one-input” stance but also argued that, even under the new “two-input” construction, the references anticipated the patents. Axonics’ reply, along with a supplemental expert declaration, cited additional disclosures in the prior art references pertaining to the same embodiments relied on in its petition. In the final written decision, the Board adopted the “two-input” construction and refused to consider Axonics’ new anticipation arguments and evidence because they were not identified in the petition. Axonics appealed, arguing the Board erred in not considering its reply arguments and evidence relating to the new construction.



The Federal Circuit vacated and remanded. Specifically, the Court concluded that the Administrative Procedure Act rules and the Supreme Court’s SAS Inst., Inc. v. Iancu decision permit petitioners to respond to new arguments made in a patent owner response, particularly after a patent owner introduces a new claim construction post-institution. The Court explained that in formal adjudications, like IPRs, parties should be allowed to present rebuttal evidence and arguments and should have the ability to cross-examine. The Court confirmed that the Board can adopt a new construction after institution but stated that it must allow the petitioner to respond under the new construction, though new prior art cannot be introduced.

CAFC Finds Error in Board’s Refusal to Consider Reply Arguments & Evidence Under New Post-Institution Claim Construction

Last week, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit issued an opinion in <a href="http://www.cafc.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/opinions-orders/20-1589.OPINION.7-27-2021_1810321.pdf" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Qualcomm, Inc. v. Intel Corp.</a>, No. 2020-1589 (Jul. 27, 2021). The Court vacated and remanded the ruling of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board that the patent claims at issue were obvious in view of the prior art.



Intel initiated six inter partes reviews (IPRs) challenging the validity of Qualcomm’s U.S. Patent No. 9,608,675. In each petition, Intel proposed the claim term “a plurality of carrier aggregated transmit signals” means “signals for transmission on multiple carriers at the same time to increase the bandwidth for a user.” Qualcomm proposed the construction “signals from a single terminal utilizing multiple component carriers which provide extended transmission bandwidth for a user transmission from the single terminal.” The parties never disputed that the signals were required to increase user bandwidth. In a parallel proceeding before the International Trade Commission (ITC), the ITC adopted this increased bandwidth requirement.



During the oral hearing, the Board devoted little attention to whether the claims required the signals to increase user bandwidth, and none of the judges on the panel asked Qualcomm any questions about it. Ultimately, the Board issued six final written decisions concluding that all challenged claims were unpatentable. In reaching its conclusion, the Board construed the term “a plurality of carrier aggregated transmit signals” in each asserted claim to mean “signals for transmission on multiple carriers,” omitting any requirement that the signals increase or extend bandwidth. Qualcomm appealed.



The Federal Circuit vacated and remanded, holding that that the Board had failed to provide Qualcomm adequate notice of and opportunity to respond to its sua sponte claim construction. The Court noted that the claim construction issue here was not in dispute. The Court explained that it was unreasonable to expect the parties to brief or argue agreed-upon matters of claim construction, particularly given that a separate agency (the ITC) had already adopted the increased bandwidth requirement for the claim term.



Separately, the Court held there was no error in the Board’s construction of a different claim term. Specifically, the Court agreed with the Board’s determination that the corresponding structure for the means-plus-function claim term “means for determining a single power tracking signal” is circuitry, rather than a general-purpose computer, and therefore does not trigger the algorithm requirement of WMS Gaming. The Court declined to extend the algorithm requirement to circuitry.

CAFC Reverses PTAB’s Obviousness Determination

Last week, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit issued a nonprecedential opinion in <a href="http://www.cafc.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/opinions-orders/20-1530.OPINION.1-21-2021_1720105.pdf" target="_blank" rel="noopener">In Re: CSP Technologies, Inc.</a>, No. 2020-1530 (Jan. 21, 2021). The Court affirmed the PTAB’s ruling that patent application claims to a container were obvious over two prior art references —Giraud and Hagen.



CSP filed a patent application having claims directed to a moisture-tight, re-sealable container including:



<ul>
<li> a body that is generally elliptical in cross-section… </li>



<li> a lid configured to seat on the body, the lid being linked to the body by a hinge… </li>



<li> the container…configured to store test strips such that exposed ends of the test strips extend beyond the entire dispensing opening of the body and…positioned within the lid when the lid is seated on the body without damaging the exposed ends” (the “heightened lid” feature) </li>
</ul>



The Examiner determined a POSITA would have modified the container of Giraud with Hagen’s test strip configuration because the resulting configuration allows for easy manipulation of individual test strips. CSP appealed the final rejection to the PTAB. The PTAB rejected CSP’s arguments that Hagen “discourages” using a hinge and that the combination would, therefore, not be predictable to achieve moisture tightness because the Examiner’s combination did not rely on the exemplary “separable configuration”. The PTAB also found CSP’s definition and related declaration evidence of the “heightened lid” having a specific height or structural vaulting designed to reduce hoop strength was not commensurate with the scope of the claim and rejected CSP’s reasonable expectation of success evidence based on this added feature.



The Federal Circuit affirmed. The Court held substantial evidence supported the PTAB’s conclusion that a POSITA would have modified Giraud’s nearly identical “heightened lid” with the extended-test-strip configuration taught by Hagen based on the benefits of such configuration taught by Hagen. The Court further held the fact that Hagen rather than Giraud expressly acknowledged the problem in the art and the need for easier test strip retrieval does not undermine the PTAB’s determination. The Court reiterated that a conclusion of obviousness cannot be overcome by attacking references individually where the rejection is based on their combined teachings. A POSITA, according to the Court, would have reasonably expected Hagen’s configuration to be workable in Giraud’s container and, as did the PTAB, rejected CSP’s evidence on the issue of reasonable expectation of success.

CAFC Holds Substantial Evidence Supports PTAB’s Determination of Obviousness

Last week, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit issued an opinion in <a href="https://cafc.uscourts.gov/opinions-orders/22-1998.OPINION.3-27-2024_2292085.pdf">Virtek Vision International ULC v. Assembly Guidance Systems, Inc. (d/b/a Aligned Vision), Nos. 2022-1998, -2022 (Mar. 27, 2024)</a>, overturning a Patent Trial and Appeal Board determination that certain claims of Virtek’s challenged patent, were unpatentable, while affirming the patentability of other claims.



Virtek’s challenged patent focuses on aligning a laser projector with a work surface, purportedly improving efficiency. Aligned Vision challenged the patent’s validity through Inter Partes Review on four grounds. Claim 1 of the patent involves identifying reflective targets on a work surface in a three-dimensional coordinate system. Keitler and Bridges, references cited for grounds 1 and 3, lack this feature, relying instead on determining the angular direction of targets. Aligned Vision cited Briggs for the 3D coordinate system, and the Board agreed that the combination rendered the challenged claims obvious because Briggs mentions both use of 3D coordinates and angular directions. As for grounds 2 and 4, the Board held there was no motivation to combine the asserted references and, therefore, the challenged claims were not unpatentable on those grounds. Virtek appealed and Aligned Vision cross-appealed.



The Federal Circuit reversed as to the appeal and affirmed as to the cross-appeal. On the appeal of grounds 1 and 3, the Court explained that mere acknowledgment of different options in prior art does not justify their combination without a reason for combining them. The Court held the Board erred in relying on the fact that both measurement systems were known in the prior art because that fact alone does not suffice to explain why a skilled artisan would have been motivated to substitute one for the other. The Court also highlighted the absence of arguments in the petition articulating an alleged motivation, such as common sense or market pressure.



On the cross-appeal addressing grounds 2 and 4, the Court rejected Aligned Vision’s assertion that the Board erred in finding no motivation to combine. The Court noted that, although on appeal Aligned Vision argued the motivation to combine the references is a matter of “common sense,” Aligned Vision did not argue or present evidence concerning common sense to the Board. The Court held that the arguments Aligned Vision made to the Board, which focused on the fact that the claim elements were known in the prior art, were insufficient.&nbsp;

CAFC Addresses Inadequate Motivation to Combine Prior Art References

Electrical & Software

IP Due Diligence

Litigation

Licensing

Post Grant Proceedings

Internet, Cybersecurity, & E-Commerce

International Group

Partner

Blue Spike, LLC v. Spotify USA Inc. et al. (CDCA). Patent infringement dispute involving  steganographic ciphers and data scrambling.
Dicta-Direct, LLC v. Speech Processing Solutions USA Inc. (GAND). Patent infringement dispute involving speech to text conversion and language translation services.
IPC Systems, Inc. v. Cloud 9 Tech. (D. of Del.). Patent infringement dispute involving web-based trading turrets and their use in trading communication systems as well as misappropriation of trade secrets claims.
Cloud9 Tech. v. IPC Systems (PTAB). CBM and IPR contested proceedings involving specialized communication systems.
CG Tech. Development, LLC, et al. v. DraftKings, Inc. (D. Nev. &amp; D. of Del.). Patent infringement dispute and related IPR contested proceedings involving online contests.
Canon adv. Intellectual Ventures (D. Del). Patent infringement dispute involving various aspects of printer, scanner, digital camera, and Wi-Fi technologies.
Sirona Dental Systems v. Danaher (D. Del). Patent infringement dispute involving CMOS-based digital dental imaging products.
All Media Guide adv. MOAEC (W.D. Wisc.). Patent infringement dispute involving software for managing digital music.
IBM adv. Sky Technologies. Claims of patent infringement, trade secret misappropriation, breach of contract, conversion and unjust enrichment relating to e-commerce software.
Donnelly Corporation v. Johnson Controls, Inc. et al. (W.D. Mich.). Patent infringement dispute involving automotive electrochromic rearview compass mirrors.

Jonathan Berschadsky

New York Intellectual Property Law Association (NYIPLA)
<ul>
<li>Board of Directors</li>
<li>Patent Law &amp; Practice Committee Co-Chair 2018-2020</li>
</ul>

Professional Affiliations

Recognized in IAM Strategy 300 Global Leaders, 2021-2022
Recognized in IAM Strategy 300 – The World’s Leading IP Strategists, 2017-2023
Winner of The Burton Awards 2016 Distinguished Legal Writing Award for co-authoring “Is PTAB ‘death squad’ just a myth?”
IP Star, Managing Intellectual Property, 2013-2021
Top Patent Prosecutors, Patent Buddy, 2011-2017
Top New York City Intellectual Property Litigator, Super Lawyers: New York Metro Edition, 2014-2021

Awards & Recognition

&#8220;Enforceable Nondisclosure Agreements: Protecting Trade Secrets and Other Confidential Business Information&#8221;, Speaker, Strafford Publication, Inc. , January 17, 2024
&#8220;Drafting Restrictive Covenants and Agreements to Protect Trade Secrets&#8221;, Panelist, New York City Bar &#8211; Trade Secrets Symposium, Dec 12, 2022
“NYU Tandon – Meet the USPTO”, Speaker, December 2, 2022
Jonathan was a presenter/moderator at the 2021 New York Intellectual Property Law Association (NYIPLA) Transactions Bootcamp Day 5.  The panel described how to go about performing a due diligence from both inhouse and outside counsel perspectives.  Jonathan also taught an M&amp;A due diligence clinic during which he presented a mock data room containing documents and worked with attendees to issue spot. Nov. 4, 2021
Inside View for Working with the USPTO”, Moderator, <a href="https://www.nyipla.org/assnfe/ev.asp?ID=1275">NYIPLA One-Day Patent CLE Seminar</a>, Nov. 13, 2019
“Section 101 &#8211; Three Years of Uncertainty”, Moderator, NYIPLA One-Day Patent CLE Seminar, Nov. 16 2017
Fundamentals of Patent Prosecution: A Boot Camp for Claim Drafting &amp; Amendment Writing, Practicing Law Institute, 2010- 2020
PTAB Forum 2016, Managing Intellectual Property, May 12, 2016
The 11th Annual Patents for Financial Services Summit, World Congress, July 23-24, 2014
Patent Drafting Considerations in Light of Some Notable Court Interpretations of the Written Description Requirement, 16th Annual Advanced Patent Prosecution Workshop, July 2007

Speaking Engagements

The Uncertain Future of Laches in Patent Litigation, IPWatchdog, co-written with Jason Dorsky, October 26, 2016
The Patent Trial and Appeal Board Designates Five Decisions as Precedential, Fitzpatrick Case Update, May 9, 2016
Is PTAB Death Squad just a myth?, Intellectual Property Magazine, June 2015
IP Due Diligence: key areas of analysis in biotech and pharma transactions, Financier Worldwide, September 2011
IP risk assessment in corporate M&amp;A, Financier Worldwide, April 2010
Software and Patent Damages for Foreign Sales: Have the District Courts Gone Too Far?, The Computer &amp; Internet Lawyer, July 2004
Current Developments in Business Method Patent Law, E-Commerce Law Journal, September 2001

Jonathan Berschadsky

Practices

Industries

Representative Cases

Education

Admissions

Professional Affiliations

Awards & Recognition

Speaking Engagements

Publications