Spencer Carter - Associate - Orange County

Spencer R. Carter

Associate

Orange County

spencer.carter@knobbe.com

Overview
Industries
Practice Areas
Representative Matters
Recognition
News & Insights

Overview

Spencer’s practice includes patent procurement and portfolio management. Spencer also provides strategic counseling on infringement risks and intellectual property acquisitions. Spencer represents a variety of clients with diverse needs – from large, established businesses to small startups. Combining legal expertise with technical prowess, Spencer demonstrates skill in a variety of technological fields including medical devices, big data analytics, automotive energy systems, artificial intelligence, signal processing, and network communications.

Prior to law school, Spencer researched control theory in the field of unmanned aerial vehicles during undergrad. Spencer also interned at Intel Corporation in the device development group.

Spencer worked as a summer associate at the firm in 2018 and 2019 and joined the firm in 2020.

Education

University of California - Los Angeles (UCLA) (J.D., 2020)
Brigham Young University (B.S. Electrical Engineering, 2017)

Bar Admissions

U.S. Patent and Trademark Office

News & Insights

Articles

Latest Updates and News

Blog - Litigation

Objective Evidence in Determining Obviousness

MEDTRONIC, INC. v. TELEFLEX INNOVATIONS Before Moore, Lourie, and Dyk. Appeal from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board. Summary: A close prima facie case of obviousness can be overcome by strong evidence of objective indicia of non-obviousness.

Blog - Litigation

Plausible Factual Allegations Concerning Inventive Concepts Preclude Motion to Dismiss

COOPERATIVE ENTERTAINMENT, INC. v. KOLLECTIVE TECHNOLOGY, INC. Before Moore, Lourie, and Stark. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of California. Summary: Plausible allegations of an inventive concept in a complaint precludes a motion to dismiss for lack of patent eligibility because determining whether such a concept was well-understood, routine, or conventional was a question of fact that could not be resolved at the Rule 12(b)(6) stage.

Blog - Litigation

Claims With Clerical Errors Can Be Judicially Corrected and Willfully Infringed

PAVO SOLUTIONS LLC v. KINGSTON TECHNOLOGY COMPANY, INC. Before: Lourie, Prost, and Chen. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Central District of California. Summary: A court can correct obvious minor typographical or clerical errors in claim language even when doing so would alter the claimed structure; reliance on such a clerical error is not a defense to willful infringement.

Blog - Litigation

Written Description: What Is the Proper “Dosage” to Satisfy This Requirement?

BIOGEN INTERNATIONAL GMBH V. MYLAN PHARMACEUTICALS INC. Before O’Malley, Reyna, and Hughes. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of West Virginia. Summary: A specification may not describe “possession” of an invention in satisfaction of the § 112 written description requirement even though the specification lists dosage ranges encompassing the claimed limitation.

Blog - Litigation

The Obviousness of Preamble Limitations Can Be a Real Headache for Patent Challengers

ELI LILLY AND COMPANY v. TEVA PHARMACEUTICALS Before Lourie, Bryson and O’Malley. Appeal from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board. Summary: In claims for methods of using apparatuses or compositions, statements of intended purpose in a preamble tend to be limiting.

Blog - Litigation

Court Grants Relief From Judgment After Witness Lies About the Bed of Its Own Making

CAP EXPORT, LLC v. ZINUS, INC. Before Dyk, Bryson, and Hughes. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Central District of California. Summary: A judgment and injunction were properly set aside pursuant to FRCP 60(b)(3) when it was discovered that the patentee’s president and testifying technical expert lied about knowledge of prior art during his deposition and the defendant had no reason to suspect the fraud.