James Anderson

Photo of James Anderson

James Anderson is an associate in the Litigation Department and a member of the Patent Law and Intellectual Property groups. He is registered to practice before the United States Patent and Trademark Office.

Jim assists clients with a broad range of intellectual property matters spanning various technologies, including electromechanical devices, communications systems, semiconductor devices, and machining and fabrication equipment. He has experience in many phases of practice before the United States Patent and Trademark Office, from the preparation and prosecution of patent filings to drafting responsive submissions for clients involved in post-grant proceedings before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board. Jim’s litigation experience, touching on patent, antitrust, and other complex commercial litigation matters, spans pre-suit investigation, discovery, motion practice, and trial preparation in state and federal court as well as the International Trade Commission.

Latest Articles

Characterizing the decision to bring a books and records inspection action after filing a plenary or substantive action as “[i]nherently contradictory,” the Delaware Court of Chancery recently dismissed a Section 220 action brought by a group of investors.  The decision signals that the Court of Chancery remains alert to the use of books and records inspection actions for improper purposes, including to subvert the ordinary conduct of civil discovery.…
Judge Stearns recently clarified the scope of an almost five-year-old multi-district patent dispute in the District of Massachusetts.  Since early 2013, Judge Stearns has presided over NeuroGrafix’ allegations of patent infringement after ten actions encompassing dozens of defendants were consolidated in the District of Massachusetts.  In the suit relevant to Judge Stearns’ most recent order, NeuroGrafix alleged that defendant Brainlab infringed U.S. Pat. No. 5,560,360, entitled “Image Neurography and Diffusion Anisotropy Imaging.” The Court’s recent…
A team of Proskauer attorneys, on behalf of 12 leading non-profit organizations specializing in advocacy for victims of domestic violence, drafted an amicus brief in support of a mother seeking to uphold a district court’s determination that her child would be subject to a grave risk of harm were he to be returned to his country of residence with his father.  The respondent and her minor child, K.D., fled French St. Martin to the United…
Judge Saylor of the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts recently narrowed the counterclaims and affirmative defenses available to a defendant in a consumer products dispute. The decision highlights not only the importance of pleading sufficient facts to meet the applicable standard, but also the potential effect of a parties’ representations when responding to a motion to dismiss. In late December 2016, Plaintiff PetEdge brought suit against Marketfleet Sourcing, Inc. d/b/a FrontPet…
District court patent defendants often request a parallel inter partes review (“IPR”) proceeding at the U.S. Patent Office to challenge the validity of the patent at issue. As such IPR proceedings have the potential to kill the patent, district courts have more often than not stayed their proceedings while they wait on the outcome of the parallel IPR proceeding at the Patent Office. That was not the case, however, in a dispute in the District of…
In a recent opinion out of the District of Massachusetts, the court ordered that a patent infringement dispute between two Massachusetts-based competitors in the lighting systems industry would be allowed to proceed. This was despite a challenge to the sufficiency of the pleadings in the patent owner’s complaint. The patent owner, Sunrise Technologies, asserted a patent directed to the monitoring and control of systems such as lighting systems through the formation of a mesh network of wirelessly linked communication nodes…
Section 546(e) of the bankruptcy code prohibits a bankruptcy trustee from avoiding “settlement payment[s]”, or payments “made in connection with a securities contract,” that are “made by or to (or for the benefit of)” qualifying financial entities, including financial institutions, stockbrokers, commodities brokers and others.   In a ruling that conflicts with precedent from the Second, Third, Sixth, Eighth, and Tenth Circuits, a decision last week by a Seventh Circuit panel held that the safe harbor…
In a recent case involving competitors in the market of storm water chambers, underground structures for the collection and management of rain and snow storm water, the District of Connecticut court denied a motion for preliminary injunction, reasoning in part that there was too long of a delay between when the plaintiff, StormTech, learned of the infringement and when it filed the lawsuit and motion for preliminary injunction. The delay weighed against a finding of…
The New York Court of Appeals has followed Delaware in holding that the business-judgment rule applies to going-private mergers as long as certain shareholder-protective measures are met. The court’s May 5, 2016 decision in In the Matter of Kenneth Cole Productions, Inc. Shareholder Litigation, Case No. 54, adopts the standard set forth by the Delaware Supreme Court in Kahn v. M & F Worldwide Corp., 88 A.3d 635 (Del. 2014) (“MFW”), and relaxes judicial scrutiny of…