Scott L. Bittman
Overview
Scott L. Bittman focuses on intellectual property litigation, inter partes reviews, counseling, and patent and trademark procurement. He has significant experience in a wide variety of technologies, litigating cases before federal district courts throughout the country, the Patent Trial and Appeals Board, the International Trade Commission, and the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit.
Career & Education
- Tufts University, B.S., cum laude, Mechanical Engineering, 2001
- Boston University School of Law, J.D., cum laude, 2005
- New York
- U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO)
- Massachusetts (Inactive)
- U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York
- U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York
- U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas
- U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan
- U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
Scott's Insights
Client Alert | 4 min read | 02.26.24
Update on Director Review Grants of PTAB Decisions 2.5 Years After Arthrex
Starting in June 2021, the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) instituted a policy to allow for the Director of the USPTO to review certain decisions by the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) issued in inter partes reviews (IPRs) and post grant reviews (PGRs). That process, known as Director Review, was created in response to the decision in United States v. Arthrex, Inc., whereby the Supreme Court held that final written decisions of administrative patent judges in IPR proceedings must be subject to the review of the Director of the USPTO before they become the decisions of the agency. 141 S. Ct. 1970 (2021).
Firm News | 2 min read | 04.10.23
Client Alert | 3 min read | 03.29.23
Representative Matters
- Invacare Corp. v. Sunrise Medical (US) LLC (D.Del.). Represented Invacare Corporation in a six patent offensive infringement litigation against Sunrise Medical in case related to suspension systems used in mid-wheel drive power wheelchairs that provide for enhanced stability. The case resulted in favorable settlement.
- BMW of North America, LLC v. Paice LLC (PTAB, Fed. Cir.). Represented BMW as Petitioner in three IPR proceedings related to hybrid vehicle control technology. All challenged claims from the three patents were invalidated. The decision was affirmed by the Federal Circuit. See Press Release.
- In reCertain Playards & Strollers (ITC). Represented Graco Children’s Products Inc. and its supplier, Wonderland Nurserygoods of Taiwan, in an ITC action against Baby Trend and three of its suppliers concerning infringement of four patents related to Graco’s Pack ’n Play playards and foldable strollers.
- Siemens Mobility, Inc. v. Westinghouse Air Brake Technologies(D. Del., PTAB, Fed. Cir.). Represented Siemens in a wide-ranging, multi-forum intellectual property dispute involving Positive Train Control technology, including a jury trial win resulting in a finding of willful infringement and a $15 million damages award, and defense of 15
- RPost, et al. v. Selligent, Inc.(E.D.Tex.). Represented defendant Selligent, Inc. and many of its customers in a patent infringement action involving five patents related to email authentication technology. The case was successfully dismissed with prejudice.
- Milwaukee Electric Tool Corporation, et al. v. Hilti, Inc.(E.D. Wisc., PTAB, Fed. Cir.). Represented defendant Hilti, Inc. in a patent infringement action, and in IPRs, involving lithium-based battery packs for use in power tools.
- Phoenix Licensing, L.L.C., et al v. General Motors LLC(E.D.Tex.). Represented defendant General Motors LLC in a patent infringement action involving mass marketing software.
- Network-1 Security Solutions, Inc. v. Avaya, Inc., et al.(E.D.Tex., PTAB, Fed. Cir.). Represented defendant Avaya Inc. in a patent infringement action, and in an IPR, involving Power over Ethernet (PoE) technology.
- Spread Spectrum Screening LLC. v. Eastman Kodak Company(N.D. Ill., W.D.N.Y., Fed. Cir.). Represented defendant Eastman Kodak Company in a patent infringement action involving halftone printing software brought by Acacia subsidiary. Invalidated the asserted patent via ex parte reexamination, upheld on appeal.
- Anvik Corporation v. ChiMei InnoLux Corporation(S.D.N.Y., Fed. Cir.). Represented defendant ChiMei InnoLux Corporation in a patent infringement action involving scanning microlithography systems for manufacturing LCD panels.
- Weight Watchers International, Inc. v. Curves International, Inc.(S.D.N.Y.). Represented plaintiff Weight Watchers International, Inc. in an action involving trademark infringement and false advertising.
- In re Certain Machine Vision Software, Machine Vision Systems, and Products Containing Same(ITC, D.Mass.). Represented respondents Fuji America Corp. and Fuji Machine Manufacturing Co., Ltd. in a patent infringement action at ITC and district court involving machine-vision system software.
Scott's Insights
Client Alert | 4 min read | 02.26.24
Update on Director Review Grants of PTAB Decisions 2.5 Years After Arthrex
Starting in June 2021, the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) instituted a policy to allow for the Director of the USPTO to review certain decisions by the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) issued in inter partes reviews (IPRs) and post grant reviews (PGRs). That process, known as Director Review, was created in response to the decision in United States v. Arthrex, Inc., whereby the Supreme Court held that final written decisions of administrative patent judges in IPR proceedings must be subject to the review of the Director of the USPTO before they become the decisions of the agency. 141 S. Ct. 1970 (2021).
Firm News | 2 min read | 04.10.23
Client Alert | 3 min read | 03.29.23
Recognition
- Lawyers Alliance for New York: Cornerstone Award, 2019
Scott's Insights
Client Alert | 4 min read | 02.26.24
Update on Director Review Grants of PTAB Decisions 2.5 Years After Arthrex
Starting in June 2021, the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) instituted a policy to allow for the Director of the USPTO to review certain decisions by the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) issued in inter partes reviews (IPRs) and post grant reviews (PGRs). That process, known as Director Review, was created in response to the decision in United States v. Arthrex, Inc., whereby the Supreme Court held that final written decisions of administrative patent judges in IPR proceedings must be subject to the review of the Director of the USPTO before they become the decisions of the agency. 141 S. Ct. 1970 (2021).
Firm News | 2 min read | 04.10.23
Client Alert | 3 min read | 03.29.23
Insights
- |
12.05.23
World Intellectual Property Review
Scott's Insights
Client Alert | 4 min read | 02.26.24
Update on Director Review Grants of PTAB Decisions 2.5 Years After Arthrex
Starting in June 2021, the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) instituted a policy to allow for the Director of the USPTO to review certain decisions by the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) issued in inter partes reviews (IPRs) and post grant reviews (PGRs). That process, known as Director Review, was created in response to the decision in United States v. Arthrex, Inc., whereby the Supreme Court held that final written decisions of administrative patent judges in IPR proceedings must be subject to the review of the Director of the USPTO before they become the decisions of the agency. 141 S. Ct. 1970 (2021).
Firm News | 2 min read | 04.10.23
Client Alert | 3 min read | 03.29.23
