44 (20) 342 362 97
650.328.9500
Technology Group Expertise
Our Technology Group is renowned for its exceptional expertise in resolving some of the most significant intellectual property, trademark, trade secret, patent, and licensing/royalty disputes. The professionals on our panel have worked with some of the largest technology companies around the world: Google/Alphabet, Facebook/Meta; Apple; Amazon; Microsoft; AMD; Intel; Nokia; and Samsung. With insights based on decades of experience into the intricate legal and regulatory landscapes, our panelists navigate and resolve complex disputes across the United States, Asia and Europe. Prestigious institutions like the Singapore International Arbitration Center (SIAC) and the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) recognize FedArb’s panelists as industry leaders and have entered into strategic alliances with FedArb for access to our panelists.
Technology Group Services
For further information, please contact us at IP@fedarb.com.
Mediation and arbitration of complex disputes
Authoritative expert opinions
Comprehensive prelitigation argument reviews and mock trials
Court-appointed monitoring or trusteeship to ensure alignment with regulatory standards
Technology Group Practice Members
Technology Expertise
While on the bench, Judge Atlas co-founded Houston Intellectual Property Inn of Court, renamed Apr. 14, 2015 “The Honorable Nancy F. Atlas Intellectual Property Inn of Court”
Judge Atlas presided over many patent infringement trials, including Bernardo Footwear v. Dillards (design patent case) – 07-0963 – #82 M&O on Claim Construction 12/24/07, #83 M&O on M/PSJ (notice) 1/15/08, #98 FFCL 4/28/08, Emtel v. Medaire, Inc. (videoconferencing with physician) – 11-3007 – #124 M&O on Claim Construction 4/12/16, Deep Fix v. Marine Well Containment Co. (Deepwater Horizon – well containment system – inequitable conduct – failure to disclose known prior art references) – 18-0948 – #127 M&O on Claim Construction 4/24/19, #219 FFCL 2/18/20, Tyger Manufacturing v. Mike’s Worldwide (glass smoking pipe design) – 19-2856 – #46 M&O on Claim Construction 8/11/20 (on appeal). She is also in demand for her skills as a tireless mediator.
Technology Expertise
He is co-author of Cyber Security Law and Practice, an authoritative textbook (updated and expanded upon in a second edition) in the fast developing world of technology. He also co-authored the first legal textbook written by counsel on Blockchain and Cryptocurrency entitled The International Legal and Regulatory Challenges of Blockchain and Cryptocurrency. Dean has been commissioned to write two more books next year on cyber litigation and cyber insurance. Dean lectures extensively on this subject and has been asked to speak to high profile entities on all aspects of data regulation. Dean has also advised the UK Law Commission on proposed changes to domestic data protection law.
He has advised international banks, large financial institutions, blue chip companies and major players in the not for profit sector. He is expert in areas such as GDPR (General Data Protection Regulation), the impact of Brexit on data regulation, and how international firms should manage data across the world including the increasingly complex area of international data transfer rules.
Dean has also published articles on cyber security including Blockchain and Cryptocurrency: International Legal and Regulatory Challenges, Bloomsbury Professional 2019; Cyber Security: Law and Practice First Edition, LexisNexis 2017; Cyber Security: Law and Practice, Second edition, LexisNexis 2019; The next frontier for cyber litigation, New Law Journal 2019.
Technology Expertise
The Honourable Dr. Annabelle Bennett AC SC completed a PhD in cell biology Science at the University of Sydney, before studying law and practicing as a barrister for 23 years, later specializing in intellectual property.
Between 2003 and 2016, Dr. Bennett served as a Judge of the Federal Court of Australia sitting across the width of the Federal Court’s jurisdiction including on many intellectual property cases (e.g., Apple v Samsung) at first instance and on appeal. She has also served as President of the Copyright Tribunal of Australia. She was the National Co-ordinating Judge of the Intellectual Property Practice Area. She has spoken around the world on IP and technology disputes.
Judge Susan G. Braden was appointed by President George W. Bush to the United States Court of Federal Claims. In 2020, Judge Braden was appointed to the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) Patent Public Advisory Committee. She serves on the Artificial Intelligence, International Committee, and is Chair of the Legislative Committee.
The Public Advisory Committee for the USPTO was created through the Patent and Trademark Office Efficiency Act statute to advise the Secretary and the Under Secretary of Commerce for Intellectual Property and Director of the USPTO on the management of patent and trademark operations. The Public Advisory Committee reviews the policies, goals, performance, budget, and user fees of the patent and trademark operations. Judge Braden has served as Chair of the USPTO’s Private Patent Advisory Committee on Artificial Intelligence and Technology.
Judge Braden adjudicated patent infringement cases concerning night vision goggle and drone retrieval technologies that resulted in multi-million settlements. She also handled cutting-edge bid protests, as: the first federal contract for cloud computing services worth $60 million.
In 2018, the Howard University Law School recognized Judge Braden for “The Advancement of Intellectual Property Law.” In 2017, she was appointed to the U.S. Administrative Conference’s Judicial Review-Agency Guidance Project. Judge Braden was one of ten members of the Judicial Advisory Board that reviewed and edited the Federal Judicial Center’s Patent Case Management Judicial Guide, 3rd ed. (2016). In 2015, the American Law Institute named her as one of seven Judicial Advisors to the proposed RESTATEMENT OF THE LAW ON COPYRIGHT. In 2013, Judge Braden was named to the American Intellectual Property Law Association’s Judge’s Special Committee and Chair of the Court’s Advisory Council’s Intellectual Property Committee to draft the Court’s new Patent Rules. In 2012, she received the Linn Inn Alliance Distinguished Service Medal at the NY Intellectual Property Lawyers Association Annual Dinner. In 2012, she was named Chair of the ABA’s Section of Intellectual Property Law Task Force on Small Patent Claims.
In addition, for three years she served on the Board of Directors of a company, founded at Carnegie Mellon, that uses AI and proprietary software to write and manage commercial contracts for domestic and international businesses until its sale to private equity in March 2023. On September 21, 2023, Judge Braden was appointed by the President of the ABA to the Advisory Council of the ABA Task Force on Law and Artificial Intelligence.
Technology Expertise
Stuart N. Brotman is the Alvin and Sally Beaman Professor of Journalism and Media Law, Enterprise, and Leadership at the University of Tennessee, Knoxville. This interdisciplinary tenured position is the only one of its kind in the world. From 2016-2022, he served as the inaugural Howard Distinguished Endowed Professor of Media Management and Law.
Experience includes 1) federal, state, local, and international regulatory regimes for all communications industries, along with self-regulation by internet service providers; 2) business model development and history, norms, and business practices for all communications industries, along with blockchain, crypto and AI; 3) digital privacy company practices; 4) cybersecurity company policies; 5) copyright licensing and enforcement practices; 6) communications technology standard setting; and 7) competitive analyses of domestic and international communications industry companies.
Technology Expertise
Mr. DeMarco specializes in resolving disputes between businesses involving information privacy and security, cybercrime, theft of intellectual property, computer intrusions, on-line fraud, and the use of new technology. He also has significant experience as an independent monitor and a special master and has also served as an expert witness. His years of experience in private practice and in government service handling the most difficult cybercrime investigations, litigations, arbitrations, and prosecutions have made him one of the nation’s leading experts on Internet crime and the law of data privacy and security.
From 1997 to 2007, Mr. DeMarco served an Assistant United States Attorney for the Southern District of New York, where he founded and headed the Computer Hacking and Intellectual Property Program, a group of prosecutors dedicated to investigating and prosecuting violations of federal cybercrime laws and intellectual property offenses. Under his leadership, cybercrime prosecutions grew from a trickle in 1997 to a top priority of the United States Attorney’s Office, encompassing all forms of illegal activity affecting e-commerce and critical infrastructures including computer hacking crimes; transmission of Internet worms and viruses; electronic theft of trade secrets; web-based frauds; and criminal copyright and trademark infringement offenses. As a recognized expert in the field, Mr. DeMarco was also frequently asked to counsel prosecutors and law enforcement agents regarding novel investigative and surveillance techniques and methodologies. In 2001, Mr. DeMarco served as a visiting Trial Attorney at the Department of Justice Computer Crimes and Intellectual Property Section in Washington, D.C. where he specialized in criminal IP enforcement, internet gambling, and transnational cybercrime and data privacy issues.
Mr. DeMarco then founded a boutique law firm specializing in domestic and international cybercrime and the use (and misuse) of data, systems, and technology. He has handled governmental regulatory enforcement actions, investigations on behalf of corporate victims of cybercrime, and civil litigations between businesses focused on technology and information security and data privacy. Mr. DeMarco’s clients come from various industries, including highly-regulated sectors such as finance and critical infrastructure. As an arbitrator he has adjudicated disputes between businesses which center on data privacy and security, high-technology, and commercial law issues.
He speaks at Stanford Law School and writes frequently on the benefits of resolving high-technology controversies through ADR. Since 2002, Mr. DeMarco has served as an adjunct professor at Columbia Law School, where he teaches the upper-class Internet and Computer Crimes seminar. He has spoken throughout the world on cybercrime, e-commerce, and IP enforcement, including at the Practicing Law Institute, the National Advocacy Center, and the FBI Academy. He has also served as an instructor on cybercrime law to judges at the New York State Judicial Institute and was retained by the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York to develop their mobile device and laptop policy for lawyers appearing in that Court.
Technology Expertise
After seven years as head of the Federal Judicial Center (2011-2018), Judge Fogel became the first Executive Director of the Berkeley Judicial Institute at Berkeley Law School (2018-present) to build bridges between judges and academics and to promote an ethical, resilient and independent judiciary.
Judge Fogel has mediated several IP disputes including Affymetrix v. Incyte, et al. (construction of biotech patents; successfully mediated case with consent of parties after determining dispositive motions), Comb v. PayPal (enforceability of clickwrap agreements), Dolby v. Lucent (construction of patents for digital signal suppression), In re Compression Labs, Inc. Patent Litigation (patent MDL involving JPEG patents), Kinderstart.com LLC v. Google, Inc. (challenge to Google’s PageRank algorithm), Lenz v. Universal Music (fair use doctrine in copyright), Online Policy Group v. Diebold (availability of sanctions under the Digital Millennium Copyright Act), Ritz Camera & Image, LLC v. SanDisk Corp. (interplay between antitrust and patent law).
United States Department of State, 2007-present. Lead faculty member for programs on intellectual property rights in Brazil and Taiwan; organizer of programs in Turkey on terrorism and freedom of expression.
Institute for the Study and Development of Legal Systems, 1999-2007. Faculty member for programs on intellectual property rights, case management, alternative dispute resolution and judicial ethics training in Bangladesh, Hong Kong, India, Israel, Jordan, Taiwan and Tanzania; host to numerous international delegations studying intellectual property rights, case management and mediation.
Vanguard Award (for outstanding contributions to intellectual property law), Intellectual Property Law Section, State Bar of California, 2011.
Technology Expertise
As district court judge, he conducted over 250 trials, presided over hundreds of patent cases, and held approximately 75 claim construction hearings.
Judge Folsom also presided over numerous patent infringement trials, including Power Mosfet Techs., LLC v. Siemens AG, 378 F.3d 1396 (Fed. Cir. 2004); Paice LLC v. Toyota Motor Corp., 504 F.3d 1293 (Fed. Cir. 2007), TiVo, Inc. v. Echostar Communications Corp., 516 F.3d 1290 (Fed. Cir. 2008), epicRealm Licensing, LLC v. Autoflex Leasing, Inc., No. 5:07-CV-125, Pioneer Corp. v. Samsung SDI Co., No. 2:06-CV-384, Retractable Technologies, Inc. v. Becton Dickinson & Co., 653 F.3d 1296 (Fed. Cir. 2011), ION, Inc. v. Sercel, Inc., No. 5:06-CV-236, aff’d, 2012 WL 884868 (Fed. Cir. Feb. 17, 2012), and DataTreasury Corp. v. U.S. Bank, N.A., No. 2:06-CV-72.
Since leaving the bench, Judge Folsom has acted as a mediator or arbitrator on over 100 patent and technology disputes.
Technology Expertise
During his tenure on the Federal Bench, Judge Lechner published more than 250 opinions including many dealing with Intellectual Property and technology disputes and sat by designation several times on the Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit. While on the bench, Judge Lechner had more than three dozen pharmaceutical patent matters (including infringement, licensing and ANDA litigation) assigned to him, some of which were resolved by trial, some by motion practice and some by settlement. Since leaving the bench, he has also been involved as counsel in several patent trials in the Districts of New Jersey and Delaware.
Judge Lechner also has extensive experience in representing pharmaceutical companies in litigation, including conducting mock trials, mock arbitration hearings, and mock appellate and motion arguments since he left the bench (the “Mock Proceedings”). He has conducted more than fifteen mock trials, at least two of which had full juries (and one of those also had a shadow jury), in addition to six mock arbitrations. Of the mock trials and mock arbitrations, about a dozen concerned patent litigation (and of those, seven or eight concerned pharmaceutical patents and licenses).
Judge Lechner has given many speeches across the country. Among his most recent were: Federal Circuit Bar Association – Patent Litigation – Panelist – West Virginia (June 2001); American Bar Association – Intellectual Property Law – Panelist – Washington, D.C. (April 2001); Federal Circuit Bar Association – Patent Litigation – Panelist – Lake Tahoe, California (June 2000); Association of the Bar of the City of New York – Writing and Using Intellectual Property Opinions – Panelist (April 2000); American Conference Institute − Litigating Patent Disputes – Claim Construction and the Evolution of Markman: The View from the Bench – Panelist – Washington, D.C. (March 2000); Intellectual Property Owners Association – Intellectual Property Litigation − Speaker – Washington, D.C. (November 1999); ICLE & the State Bar of Michigan – 25th Annual Intellectual Property Law Workshop – Speaker (July 1999).
Technology Expertise
Judge Linares has adjudicated more than 50 patent cases in the past sixteen years—many involving high-stakes disputes between generic and branded drug companies. Among the more notable cases were:
Endo Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v. Impax Laboratories, Inc., No. 16-2526, 2016 WL 6246773 (D.N.J. 25, 2016) (allegations of breach of contract, patent infringement, and unjust enrichment with regard to defendant’s sale of the generic version of plaintiff’s original prescription pain-reliever; largest pharmaceutical settlement in history).
Altana Pharma AG v. Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc., 532 F.Supp.2d 666 (D.N.J. 2007), aff. 566 F.3d 999 (3d Cir. 2009) (denial of plaintiff’s motion for preliminary injunction in patent infringement case for failure to show irreparable harm).
Judge Linares also mediates large FRAND and SEP disputes involving large telecommunication equipment firms.
Technology Expertise
After five decades as an IP trial and appellate practitioner, William “Bill” Mentlik now focuses on mediating complex IP disputes. Most notably, Bill has successfully mediated disputes involving domestic and international IP litigation and patent portfolio licensing, including SEP/FRAND disputes between large international technology companies.
He is highly sought after due to his perspective of an IP litigator and businessman, whose charge is to find common ground between the parties, not to decide the case between them. He was the first lawyer from a dedicated IP boutique appointed to the Lawyers Advisory Committee to the Federal District Court in New Jersey, where he served on the subcommittee that drafted New Jersey’s local patent rules, which govern patent litigation in the district, and has served as a model for local patent rules in other district courts throughout the country.
His skill as a mediator is augmented from his experience as an IP appellate practitioner, which required him to combine a thorough knowledge of the case record with a proven penchant for thinking on his feet. Early in his career, Bill successfully argued an appeal on behalf of laser pioneer Gordon Gould, which cleared the way for the issuance and vindication of four broad patents arising out of a 1959 patent application, certain of which dominated significant areas of basic laser technology into the 21st Century. Since that time, he has argued and/or briefed more than 30 appeals in numerous U.S. Courts of Appeal, most notably, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit.
Technology Expertise
Mr. Michaelson has over 30 years as an ADR neutral primarily involving IP (patent, trademark, trade secret), IT and other technology-related disputes encompassing a wide range of technologies & industries, e.g., aviation, biotech, electronics (hardware and software), energy, medical devices, pharmaceuticals, telecommunications and infrastructure (including investment); and secondarily other commercial disputes. Also served, from 1979-2012, as an active IP practitioner concentrating in patent matters (primarily complex electronic, communications and computer-related and mechanical technologies) and trademark matters.
Has arbitrated over 500 domestic and international disputes with damages claimed in some of those disputes in the range of US $100 Million – $3 Billion. Handled domestic & international arbitrations under UNCITRAL, ICC, LCIA, WIPO, CPR & AAA/ICDR rules. Serves as chair, sole arbitrator, co-arbitrator & emergency arbitrator. Mediated over 200 domestic & international disputes, including an international patent dispute concerning mechanical & electronic aeronautical technologies with approximately US $600 Million at issue. Mediated numerous patent litigations in US District Courts involving complex electronic & mechanical technologies & Hatch-Waxman based pharmaceutical patent disputes. Serves as Court-appointed expert in patent law. Mediated a wide range of other substantive areas for the NJ Superior Court system. I have extensive arbitration, mediation, e-discovery and negotiation training.
Technology Expertise
At the Federal Circuit, Judge O’Malley presided over appellate matters within the court’s jurisdiction, including those involving patents, trademarks, international trade, government contracts, tax, federal takings cases, monetary claims against the United States government, federal personnel merit systems protection board appeals, veterans’ benefits, public safety officers’ benefits claims, and government whistle-blower claims. Judge O’Malley also presided over numerous copyright and trademark trials
Currently, Judge O’Malley focuses her practice on litigation consulting on a broad range of subject matters, all forms of alternative dispute resolution, and intellectual property policy work. She also provides expert testimony in Intellectual Property matters. She also serves on many judicial committees, including the Judicial Committee of the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO). For her contributions to the development of IP law, she has received numerous accolades including the Sedona Conference “Lifetime Achievement Award,” the New Jersey Intellectual Property Law Association Jefferson Medal, the New York
Intellectual Property Law Association “Outstanding Public Service Award,” the Intellectual Property Owners Association “Distinguished IP Professional Award,” and the American Intellectual Property Law Association “Excellence Award.” Judge O’Malley has served as a panelist or speaker at numerous conferences, symposia, law school seminars, or moot courts and civic organizations, including Keynote Speeches.
Technology Expertise
Judge Rader is an internationally recognized thought leader in the field of intellectual property law and jurisprudence. His work as Chief Judge, his publications and his work teaching patent law globally to students, judges and government officials has left an indelible mark on the field of IP law and the protection of IP rights throughout the world. Judge Rader has also co-authored several texts including the most widely used textbook on U. S. patent law, “Cases and Materials on Patent Law,” (St. Paul, Minn.: Thomson/West 3d ed. 2009) and “Patent Law in a Nutshell,” (St. Paul, Minn.: Thomson/West 2007) (translated into Chinese and Japanese).
Judge Rader has won acclaim for leading dozens of government and educational delegations to every continent (except Antarctica), teaching rule of law and intellectual property law principles.
Technology Expertise
During his tenure on the bench, Judge Robreno presided over more than 100 civil and criminal jury trials, authoring more than 3,000 opinions. He oversaw significant multi-district litigation, including In re Asbestos Products Liability, MDL-875, one of the largest multi-district litigations in the federal courts, disposing of approximately 180,000 cases and 10 million claims, and In re Google Cookie Placement Consumer Privacy Litigation, MDL-2358 in the District of Delaware.
Judge Robreno recently mediated a multi-million class action settlement involving thousands of patients whose data was exposed in a data breach.
Technology Expertise
Before entering private practice, Jerry served as an Assistant United States Attorney for the Eastern District of New York, where he prosecuted white collar matters and garnered two DOJ awards. At Munger, Tolles & Olson, where he practiced for 27 years, his clients included Berkshire Hathaway, Northrop Grumman, LinkedIn, Applied Materials, Occidental Petroleum, Shell Oil, PepsiCo, LG, Verizon, and Warner Bros.; smaller start-up companies in Silicon Valley and elsewhere; and executives such as the former CFO of Apple and the former US General Counsel of Autonomy/HP.
Mr. Roth has acted as first chair counsel in contract and governance disputes, class actions, trade secret and other intellectual property cases, RICO and antitrust cases, environmental, Alien Tort Statute and False Claims Act proceedings. He has tried cases in federal and state courts around the country (including as federal prosecutor). In the white collar criminal and internal investigations arena, Jerry has led cross-border matters involving FCPA, government and consumer fraud, environmental, antitrust and securities-related issues among others.
Mr. Roth speaks 5 languages and was recent past president of one of the largest international bar associations, Union Internationale des Avocats (the UIA).
Technology Expertise
Judge Sofaer is the George P. Shultz Distinguished Scholar and Senior Fellow Emeritus at the Hoover Institution, Stanford University and specializes in arbitrating complex commercial disputes. He has extensive experience in the federal courts as a District Court Judge in the Southern District of New York, where he presided over numerous technology disputes including Rapco Foam, Inc. v. Scientific Applications, Inc., 479 F. Supp. 1027 (trade secrets).
Judge Sofaer has three decades of experience as an arbitrator with major arbitration services and in ad hoc arbitrations. He has participated as an arbitrator in over 100 major arbitrations, many as Chair or single arbitrator. Amounts at issue generally ranged from $10 million to $4 billion.
He has led several internal investigations of public companies and served as a member and advisor on several boards of directors. He has helped companies develop and implement litigation strategies and has participated in many moot courts related to federal and state litigations. He continues to assist companies with commercial and litigation issues that have major international dimensions, based on his service as Legal Adviser to the U.S. Department of State, and his scholarship and teaching on legal issues at Columbia and at Stanford University, where he has taught classes on Transnational Law and U.S. Arbitration.
Technology Expertise
Among notable litigation handled by Judge Walker were the various cases involving copyrights to the graphical user interface features found on most computer screens. Apple Computer, Inc v Microsoft Corp, 799 F Supp 1006 (ND Cal 1992), clarified 27 USPQ 2nd 1081 (ND Cal 1993), affirmed 35 F 3d 1435 (9th Cir 1994); certiorari denied 513 US 1184 (1995); Xerox Corp v Apple Computer, Inc, 734 F Supp 1542 (ND Cal 1990).
Judge Walker also presided over numerous technology trials, including UniRAM Technology, Inc v Taiwan Semiconductor Mfg Co, 617 F Supp 2d 938 (N D Cal 2007), 3Com Corp v D-Link Systems, Inc, 473 F Supp 2d 1001 (N D Cal 2007), Reiffin v Microsoft Corp, 281 F Supp 2d 1149 (N D Cal 2003) affirmed 410 Fed Appx 332 (Fed Cir 2011) ; 270 F Supp 2d 1132 (N D Cal 2003); 158 F Supp 2d 1016 (N D Cal 2001), Apple Computer, Inc v Microsoft Corp, 821 F Supp 616 (N D Cal 1993); 799 F Supp 1006 (N D Cal 1992); affirmed except on attorney fees, 353 F 3d 1435 (9 Cir 1994), certiorari denied 513 US 1184 (1995), Xerox Corp v Apple Computer, Inc, 734 F Supp 1542 (N D Cal 1990).