Overview
Ben focuses his practice on helping companies protect their innovations and successfully resolving high stakes technology disputes. Clients rely on Ben for strategic guidance through all stages of litigation in federal courts, the International Trade Commission, and before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB). He has extensive experience representing both patent owners and petitioners before the PTAB in inter partes review proceedings.
Drawing on his strong technical aptitude, Ben represents clients involved in diverse technologies including medical devices, diagnostic equipment, consumer electronics, automotive accessories and sporting equipment. Ben has litigated cases relating to patents, trademarks, trade secrets, licensing agreements and other technology contracts. His clients range from large, public corporations to small startups and individuals. With this diverse experience, Ben is able to appreciate the litigation goals of all clients and tailor the litigation strategy to achieve those goals.
Ben is a partner in the firm’s Orange County office and is the chair of the firm’s education committee. Ben is actively involved in various organizations including the PTAB Bar Association and the Association of Corporate Growth, Orange County. Ben earned his J.D from the S.J. Quinney College of Law, University of Utah, where he served as an editor on the Utah Law Review. Prior to joining the firm, he worked as an intern and later engineer at a global medical device company.
Education
- University of Utah - S.J. Quinney College of Law (J.D., 2008)
- University of California - Los Angeles (UCLA) (B.S. Mechanical Engineering, 2005)
Representative Matters
SHDS, Inc and Galderma Laboratories, L.P. v. Truinject Corp., Case No. IPR2020-00937 (2021)
Represented patent owner Truinject in an inter partes review (IPR) proceeding challenging a patent directed to automated performance detection in an injection training system. Obtained final decision denying petition and rejecting all challenges raised against Truinject’s patent claims.
Fisher & Paykel Healthcare Ltd. v. ResMed Ltd., Case No. IPR2017-01789 (2019).
Represented Fisher & Paykel Healthcare as petitioner in an inter partes review (IPR) proceeding challenging a patent directed to CPAP mask technology. Obtained final written decision rendering all of the challenged claims unpatentable.
T-Max Tech. Co., Ltd. v. Lund Motion Products, Inc., Case No. IPR2019-00503 (2019).
Defended patent owner Lund against a petition for inter partes review (IPR) regarding a patent for retractable vehicle steps. Obtained decision denying petition and rejecting all challenges raised against Lund’s patent claims.
In re Certain Sleep Disordered Breathing Treatment Systems and Components Thereof, USITC Inv. No. 337-TA-1022 (ITC 2017).
Represented Fisher & Paykel Healthcare in action before the International Trade Commission relating to patient interfaces for sleep apnea therapy. After favorable evidentiary ruling for Fisher & Paykel Healthcare, patent owner unilaterally withdrew its complaint and terminated the investigation.
Nobel Biocare USA, LLC v. Technique D’Usinage Sinlab, Inc., Case No. 1:12cv730, 2013 WL 81911 (E.D. Va. 2013).
Represented declaratory judgment plaintiff Nobel in suit involving patents relating to dental implants and surgical planning software. Obtained summary judgment of no infringement on all patents in suit.
Recognition
Awards & Honors
- Recognized by The Legal 500 “United States” for Patent Prosecution (2023)
News & Insights
Articles
Contributor, Knobbe Martens Litigation Blog
Contributor, Knobbe Martens PTAB Blog
PTAB Designates Informative Decisions on Timeliness of IPR Petitions
PTAB Denies Institution of CBM Review for Lack of Standing in view of Covenant Not to Sue
In Rare Final Written Decision for “Anti-Troll” Group, Lack of Expert Declaration Dooms Patent