Firm Profile

Anthony M. ZupcicAnthony M. ZupcicPartner, New York

Professional Experience

Anthony M. Zupcic, a partner in the firm since 1980, is Chair of the firm’s Patent Prosecution Practice Group.

For more than 40 years, Mr. Zupcic has been involved in all aspects of intellectual property law, with particular emphasis on interference practice and more recently inter partes review under the AIA, patent prosecution and client counseling. Some of the technologies he has worked in include medical devices, computer hardware, flat panel displays, semiconductors, semiconductor manufacturing, electrophotography, autofocus, optical waveguides, lasers, ink jet and other types of printers, facsimile machines and jet engines. Since the 1984 interference rules, Mr. Zupcic has been lead attorney in well over sixty interferences for such clients as Bristol-Myers Squibb, Canon Inc., Gilead Sciences Inc., Amgen, Astellas Pharma Inc., IBM, INA-Schaeffler KG, Kodak Polychrome Graphics, Loctite, and Microm International. While most of these cases have been in the electrical and mechanical arts, several of the more recent cases have involved biotechnology. He has also been back-up lead attorney in interferences on behalf of Hewlett-Packard Company, Medtronic, Neuronz, Ltd., and United Technologies.

While in law school, Mr. Zupcic worked as an examiner at the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office examining patent applications in the area of hydraulic fluid systems. 

Awards and Recognition

Anthony M. Zupcic is recognized as an IP Star in the 2013 and 2014 editions of Managing Intellectual Property and in IAM Patent 1000 2012, 2013 and 2014 as a leading attorney. He was recognized as a leading attorney in the 2014 edition of Leaders League for New York: Patent Prosecution. He was listed in the 2011 edition of Who’s Who of Patent Lawyers and selected by Patent Buddy as one of the Top Patent Prosecutors nationally in the Computer, Electrical, Software and Business Methods areas for 2011. He was also in Legal 500 2008-2014 for Patent prosecution: utility and design patents, Legal 500 2008 for Patent litigation: full coverage and Legal 500 2007 for IP-Non-Contentious/Transactional – patent prosecution. 

What Others Say:


  • “main strengths are an intimate knowledge of the rules of interference proceedings and immense practical experience-he has a knack for predicting outcomes” (IAM 1000 The World’s Leading Patent Practitioners  2012) 
     
  • “high quality work” (Legal 500 2008)

  • “beginning his career as a USPTO patent examiner stands him in good stead when it comes to preparing and prosecuting applications” (Legal 500 2007)


For the selection process, see:

Legal 500
Patent Buddy
IAM 1000

Education

J.D., Georgetown Law Center, 1974
B.S. Aerospace Engineering, cum laude, University of Notre Dame, 1970, Tau Beta Pi (national engineering honor society)

Bar Admissions

State of New York, 1975; U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit; U.S. District Court for the Southern and Eastern Districts of New York; U.S. Patent and Trademark Office

Professional Activities

Fellow of the American Intellectual Property Law Association (AIPLA); Member of the 2013 Fellows Nomination Committee; Chairman of the IP Law Association's Committee of the AIPLA; Member of the AIPLA Special Task Force on Rulemaking under the America Invents Act; Member of the 2011 AIPLA Committee on Nominations; Past Member of the Board of Directors of the AIPLA, Member and Past Chairman of the Professional Programs Committee, the Patent-Relations with U.S. Patent and Trademark Office Committee and Interference Committee (now the USPTO Inter Partes Patent Proceeds Committee) of the AIPLA; Past Chairman of the Committee on Harmonization of Patent Laws of the New York Intellectual Property Law Association; Federal Circuit Bar Association; American Bar Association and Member of IPL and Litigation Sections.

Representative Matters

  • Gilead v. Idenix in interference No. 105,871 involving novel nucleoids useful for treating HCV and interference no. 105,981 involving method of treating HCV with a nucleoside compound.
  • IBM against Rambus in interference Nos. 105,467 and 105,911 involving memory systems.
  • Amgen against Human Genome Sciences in Interference No. 105,613 involving a key receptor in the immune system.
  • INA against Delphi in Interference No. 105,468 involving automobile valve lifters.
  • Medtronic Navigation, Inc. against GE Medical Systems Global Technology in Interference No. 105,415 involving surgical navigation technology.
  • Helmholtz-Zentrum Fur Infektionsforschung Gmb, exclusive licensor to Bristol-Myers Squibb, against Sloan-Kettering Institute for Cancer Research in Interference No. 105,298 involving epothilone C and epothilone D.
  • Bristol-Myers Squibb against Tolerance Therapeutics, LLC in Interference Nos. 105,105; 105,106; and 105,107 involving fusion proteins.
  • Matsushita v. Sakaguchi in Interference No. 105,263 relating to semiconductors.
  • Stiller v. Heid in Interference No. 105,044 involving a specimen transport mechanism.
  • West v. Van Damme in Interference No. 105,031 involving photosensitive printing plates.
  • Shinomiya v. Hanya in Interference No. 104,097 involving liquid crystal displays.
  • Riseman v. Kobayashi in Interference No. 103,780 relating to laser beam printer technology.
  • Kaneko v. Sakaegi in Interference No. 103,000 involving camera white balance.
  • Hoshino v. Tanaka in Interference No. 103,208 relating to autofocus.
  • Katayama v. Levien in Interference No. 103,587 involving halftone imaging.
  • Canon Inc. against various parties in Interference Nos. 102,090; 102,091, 102,092; 102,323; 103,212; 103,187; and 103,213, all relating to liquid crystal display technology.
  • Shibuzaki v. Furuichi in Interference No. 101,822 relating to copy magnification in an electrophotographic copying machine.
  • Lawrence v. Suzuki in Interference No. 101,692 relating to sheet sorters.
  • Ito v. Masuda in Interference No. 101,278 relating to a scanning mechanism in an electrophotographic copying machine.

Representative Cases

Idenix Pharmaceuticals, Inc., et al. v. Gilead Pharmasset LLC
P.T.A.B. (2014)
Rambus v. IBM
B.P.A.I. (2012)
Perego v. Drehmel
B.P.A.I. (2010)
Amgen Inc. v. Human Genome Sciences, Inc. and Schering Corp.
B.P.A.I. (2008)
Spath v. Geyer
B.P.A.I. (2008)
Hunter v. Ferre
B.P.A.I. (2007)
Sloan-Kettering Institute for Cancer Research v. Helmholtz-Zentrum fur Infektionsforschung Gmbh
B.P.A.I. (2006)
Levien v. Levien v. Katayama et al.
B.P.A.I. (2000)

EVENTS

Motions Practice During an Interference
IPO Patent Interferences Rules & Practice Conference
December 2006
Interference Practice Update
Twenty-First Annual Joint Patent Practice Seminar
April 21, 2005