Robinson Cole LLP
High Contrast Mode

John L. Cordani is chair of our firm's Intellectual Property + Technology group. He litigates patent, trademark, copyright, trade secret, and antitrust cases through trial and appeal in federal courts across the United States, obtaining successful results in cases involving a diverse array of technology from specialty chemical products and software to automated pitching machines and wastewater treatment systems.

John maintains a world-wide patent litigation, prosecution, licensing and counseling practice. He is a registered patent attorney with extensive experience handling complex business and scientific disputes before the U.S. District Court nationwide, the U.S. Patent & Trademark Office, the Patent Trial and Appeal Board, and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit.

John handles all phases of the patent litigation process, including claim construction, summary judgment, trials, and appeals in infringement matters. He has also tried complex commercial litigations, contract disputes, products liability cases, and land use matters through verdict and appeal.

John is a contributor to our firm's Manufacturing Law Blog.

Prior to attending Cornell Law School, where he was the salutatorian of his class, John worked as a chemist, and is a named inventor on multiple patents covering aspects of his research. He currently serves as an Adjunct Professor at Quinnipiac University School of Law, where he teaches a course on Patent Litigation and Strategy, and serves as the co-chair of the Connecticut Bar Association’s Intellectual Property Section. He has also served as a Special Public Defender in a pro bono capacity providing representation for indigent defendants in criminal matters before the Connecticut Supreme Court and Appellate Court.

  • Cornell Law School (Juris Doctor, summa cum laude)
  • Cornell University (Bachelors, magna cum laude)
    • B.A.

  • State of Connecticut
  • U.S. Supreme Court
  • U.S. Court of Appeals, 2nd Circuit
  • U.S. Court of Appeals, Federal Circuit
  • U.S. District Court, District of Connecticut
  • U.S. District Court, Eastern District of New York
  • U.S. District Court, Southern District of New York
  • U.S. Patent and Trademark Office

Received a Band 1 ranking in Chambers USA: America's Leading Lawyers for Business in the State of Connecticut in the area of Intellectual Property for 2025 and 2026

Listed in The Best Lawyers in America© as Hartford Lawyer of the Year in the area of Trademark Law for 2025

Selected by his peers for inclusion in The Best Lawyers in America© in the area of Litigation-Intellectual Property since 2022 and in the areas of Trade Secrets Law and Trademark Law since 2023

Selected to the Connecticut Super Lawyers list for 2023.

Selected as a Rising Star in the Connecticut Super Lawyers list from 2016 to 2021

Presented with the Distinguished Leader Award by the Connecticut Law Tribune, 2020

Named a Connecticut Law Tribune 2015 "New Leader in the Law"

Named a BusinessNewHaven 2014 "Rising Star"

2025 "Ch. 11 Reorganization of the Year”" in the under ($100MM) for the restructuring of Mariner Health Central Inc. and affiliates, presented at M&A Advisor's 19th Annual Turnaround Awards

2024 "Restructuring of the Year" in the ($50MM TO $100MM) for the restructuring of Mariner Health Central Inc. and affiliates presented at the 23rd Annual M&A Advisor Awards

Quinnipiac University School of Law
Adjunct Faculty

Connecticut Bar Association
Intellectual Property Section, Co-Chair (2019)

Connecticut Bar Foundation
James W. Cooper Fellow

Judge Janet Bond Arterton American Inn of Court
Barrister (2023)

Experience


Intellectual Property Litigation: Patent Infringement Trial

Obtained favorable judgment after a patent infringement trial involving automated pitching machines, which was affirmed on appeal.

Intellectual Property Litigation: Petition for En Banc Review

Represented insurance associations in support of successful petition for en banc review at the Federal Circuit in a case involving the standard for design patent obviousness.

Intellectual Property Litigation: Copyright Action

Obtained favorable dismissal with prejudice in a copyright action alleging infringement on visual arts registration involving issues of international copyright law and freedom of panorama



Publications


Manufacturing Industry Team Out + About teaser
November 14, 2024

Manufacturing Industry Team Out + About

October 31, 2024

False Patent Marking Claims Find New Home In Lanham Act

Law360

The “Expert Analysis” article examines how the Lanham Act could become a new avenue for false patent marking claims in the wake of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit reversing a district court’s decision in Crocs v. Effervescent, which involved a false advertising counterclaim alleging Crocs falsely advertised their closed-cell resin as “exclusive,” “proprietary,” and/or “patented.” “Crocs’ advertising statements were tied to types of false statements made actionable under the Lanham Act, namely, false statements directed to the nature, characteristics or qualities of the footwear,” John wrote. “The Crocs decision suggests that false advertising relating to the patented status of products or the technology they contain may be actionable, at least where a competitor can prove that those statements would mislead customers.” It is not clear if this decision will open the floodgates for future false patent marking claims, but John posits that “the reports of the death of false patent marking claims may have been greatly exaggerated.” Read the article.

Legal Update: Supreme Court Decision Could Increase Copyright Trolling in the Second Circuit teaser
May 24, 2024

Legal Update: Supreme Court Decision Could Increase Copyright Trolling in the Second Circuit

Manufacturing Industry Team Out + About teaser
November 14, 2024

Manufacturing Industry Team Out + About

October 31, 2024

False Patent Marking Claims Find New Home In Lanham Act

Law360

The “Expert Analysis” article examines how the Lanham Act could become a new avenue for false patent marking claims in the wake of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit reversing a district court’s decision in Crocs v. Effervescent, which involved a false advertising counterclaim alleging Crocs falsely advertised their closed-cell resin as “exclusive,” “proprietary,” and/or “patented.” “Crocs’ advertising statements were tied to types of false statements made actionable under the Lanham Act, namely, false statements directed to the nature, characteristics or qualities of the footwear,” John wrote. “The Crocs decision suggests that false advertising relating to the patented status of products or the technology they contain may be actionable, at least where a competitor can prove that those statements would mislead customers.” It is not clear if this decision will open the floodgates for future false patent marking claims, but John posits that “the reports of the death of false patent marking claims may have been greatly exaggerated.” Read the article.

Legal Update: Supreme Court Decision Could Increase Copyright Trolling in the Second Circuit teaser
May 24, 2024

Legal Update: Supreme Court Decision Could Increase Copyright Trolling in the Second Circuit

May 17, 2023

Precooked Bacon, Artificial Intelligence Patents, and a Defense of the Common Law

IPWatchdog

It’s not every day that bacon can serve as the starting point for a discussion on intellectual property. John uses the recent case of HIP, Inc. v. Hormel Foods Corp., No. 2022-1696 (Fed. Cir. May 2, 2023) to introduce the question, “who is an inventor?” and discuss the impact that artificial intelligence (AI) is having on the issue of “inventorship.” John suggests we rely on the Patent Act which “delegates the issue to the courts for development through common law…” and that we should “allow the courts to consider individual cases about who owns patents and copyrights to which AI contributed. The specific works and the incarnate facts will matter and will enable the just result to be more easily gleaned.” View the article.

March 10, 2023

Christmas Light Patent Wars: Customer Infringement Notices and Free Speech

IPWatchdog

In the article, John explores the recent decision in the case of Lite-Netics, LLC v. Nu Tsai Capital, LLC, which upholds strong free speech rights for patent holders and addresses the issue “how much can (or should) be said in the marketplace about a patent dispute?” The Federal Circuit clarified that First Amendment protections apply to patent holders, and that “federal patent law preempts state-law tort liability for a patentholder’s good faith conduct in communications asserting infringement of its patent and warning about potential litigation.” That said, the decision serves as “a reminder that what can be done under the First Amendment may not necessarily coincide with what should be done.” View the article.

October 19, 2022

Cooperative v. Kollective CAFC Decision Demonstrates Virtues of Consistent and Candid Patent Prosecution Litigation

IPWatchdog

In the article, the author’s highlight how Cooperative’s “simple, coherent and consistent narrative about the merits of the invention” which they stuck with through prosecution, litigation and appeal, led to their eventual success, despite the invention being “potentially assailable on eligibility grounds.” The lesson to be learned from this case, according to the authors, is that “[T]hose ancient virtues of truth, candor and courage may be slow, but there is no denying their ultimate persuasive power in the long run.” View the article.

Legal Update: Section 1782: Discovery in Support of a Foreign Proceeding teaser
May 18, 2022

Legal Update: Section 1782: Discovery in Support of a Foreign Proceeding

May 12, 2022

Mailer’s Remorse: Notice Letters and Personal Jurisdiction for Declaratory Judgment Lawsuits

IPWatchdog

The article focuses on the issuance of notice letters and personal jurisdiction. While there are many reasons why patent holders might want to put potential infringers on notice of their rights by sending cease-and-desist letters, providing such notice could subject it to personal jurisdiction for a declaratory judgment suit in a remote and inconvenient forum. A single notice letter might not be enough to sufficiently establish minimum contacts with the forum where the letter is sent. But a letter in conjunction with emails, phone calls and/or in-person meetings that often follow a notice letter may suffice depending on the circumstances. This is especially true where the communications are substantive and discuss the validity and enforceability of a patent or threaten litigation. “Patentees must think strategically before firing off cease-and-desist letters and during follow-up correspondence or meetings, lest they ultimately find themselves defending against a declaratory judgment suit in a faraway forum.” View the article.

Intellectual Property + Technology Group Out + About teaser
February 23, 2022

Intellectual Property + Technology Group Out + About



May 17, 2023

Precooked Bacon, Artificial Intelligence Patents, and a Defense of the Common Law

IPWatchdog

It’s not every day that bacon can serve as the starting point for a discussion on intellectual property. John uses the recent case of HIP, Inc. v. Hormel Foods Corp., No. 2022-1696 (Fed. Cir. May 2, 2023) to introduce the question, “who is an inventor?” and discuss the impact that artificial intelligence (AI) is having on the issue of “inventorship.” John suggests we rely on the Patent Act which “delegates the issue to the courts for development through common law…” and that we should “allow the courts to consider individual cases about who owns patents and copyrights to which AI contributed. The specific works and the incarnate facts will matter and will enable the just result to be more easily gleaned.” View the article.

March 10, 2023

Christmas Light Patent Wars: Customer Infringement Notices and Free Speech

IPWatchdog

In the article, John explores the recent decision in the case of Lite-Netics, LLC v. Nu Tsai Capital, LLC, which upholds strong free speech rights for patent holders and addresses the issue “how much can (or should) be said in the marketplace about a patent dispute?” The Federal Circuit clarified that First Amendment protections apply to patent holders, and that “federal patent law preempts state-law tort liability for a patentholder’s good faith conduct in communications asserting infringement of its patent and warning about potential litigation.” That said, the decision serves as “a reminder that what can be done under the First Amendment may not necessarily coincide with what should be done.” View the article.

October 19, 2022

Cooperative v. Kollective CAFC Decision Demonstrates Virtues of Consistent and Candid Patent Prosecution Litigation

IPWatchdog

In the article, the author’s highlight how Cooperative’s “simple, coherent and consistent narrative about the merits of the invention” which they stuck with through prosecution, litigation and appeal, led to their eventual success, despite the invention being “potentially assailable on eligibility grounds.” The lesson to be learned from this case, according to the authors, is that “[T]hose ancient virtues of truth, candor and courage may be slow, but there is no denying their ultimate persuasive power in the long run.” View the article.

Legal Update: Section 1782: Discovery in Support of a Foreign Proceeding teaser
May 18, 2022

Legal Update: Section 1782: Discovery in Support of a Foreign Proceeding

May 12, 2022

Mailer’s Remorse: Notice Letters and Personal Jurisdiction for Declaratory Judgment Lawsuits

IPWatchdog

The article focuses on the issuance of notice letters and personal jurisdiction. While there are many reasons why patent holders might want to put potential infringers on notice of their rights by sending cease-and-desist letters, providing such notice could subject it to personal jurisdiction for a declaratory judgment suit in a remote and inconvenient forum. A single notice letter might not be enough to sufficiently establish minimum contacts with the forum where the letter is sent. But a letter in conjunction with emails, phone calls and/or in-person meetings that often follow a notice letter may suffice depending on the circumstances. This is especially true where the communications are substantive and discuss the validity and enforceability of a patent or threaten litigation. “Patentees must think strategically before firing off cease-and-desist letters and during follow-up correspondence or meetings, lest they ultimately find themselves defending against a declaratory judgment suit in a faraway forum.” View the article.

Intellectual Property + Technology Group Out + About teaser
February 23, 2022

Intellectual Property + Technology Group Out + About


News


June 4, 2026

Robinson+Cole Recognized Across Practices and Regions with 46 Chambers USA 2026 Rankings

In the latest edition of Chambers USA: America’s Leading Lawyers for Business, Robinson+Cole achieved significant recognition, securing rankings across multiple practice areas and regions, including a distinguished Nationwide ranking, underscoring the firm’s breadth of capabilities and national reputation. Chambers & Partners has ranked 33 Robinson+Cole lawyers and 13 of its practices, with two newly-ranked lawyers. Twelve lawyers earned Band 1 designations, with two ascending to Band 1 from the previous year, alongside seven Band 1-ranked practices. In addition to being ranked Nationwide in Privacy & Data Security, Linn F. Freedman was also listed in the Chambers Global 2026 ranking guide in the area of Privacy & Data Security – USA for the fifth consecutive year. The rankings, based on extensive client feedback and independent research, reflect a year of strategic growth and high-profile client work, reinforcing the firm’s reputation as an industry leader in various markets.  Chambers USA 2026 recognized the following Robinson+Cole lawyers (denoting Band 1 ranking with a 1): Linn F. Freedman, Privacy & Data Security, Nationwide Brya M. Keilson, Bankruptcy/Restructuring, Delaware Natalie D. Ramsey, (Star Individual) Bankruptcy/Restructuring, Delaware and Pennsylvania: Philadelphia & Surrounds Rachel Jaffe Mauceri, Bankruptcy/Restructuring, Pennsylvania: Philadelphia & Surrounds Dennis C. Cavanaugh, Gregory R. Faulkner1, Frederick E. Hedberg, and Martin A. Onorato, Construction, Connecticut Matthew J. Guanci, Jr. and Eric M. Kogan, Corporate/M&A, Connecticut Kenneth C. Baldwin1 and Joey Lee Miranda1, Energy & Natural Resources, Connecticut Megan E. Baroni, Robert S. Melvin, Earl W. Phillips, Jr. (Senior Statespeople), James P. Ray, Jonathan H. Schaefer, and Emilee Mooney Scott, Environment, Connecticut Lisa M. Boyle1, Healthcare, Connecticut Wystan M. Ackerman1, Dana M. Horton1, Daniel F. Sullivan1, and Gregory P. Varga1, Insurance, Connecticut John L. Cordani1 and Jaqueline Pennino Scheib1, Intellectual Property, Connecticut Stephen W. Aronson, Britt-Marie K. Cole-Johnson, Natale V. DiNatale, and Virginia E. McGarrity, Labor & Employment, Connecticut Jeffrey J. White, Litigation: General Commercial, Connecticut Garry C. Berman1, Steven L. Elbaum1, and Charles F. Martin III, Real Estate, Connecticut Chambers USA 2026 recognized the following Robinson+Cole practices (denoting Band 1 ranking with a 1): Bankruptcy/Restructuring, Delaware Bankruptcy/Restructuring, Pennsylvania: Philadelphia & Surrounds Construction, Connecticut1 Construction, Massachusetts Corporate/M&A, Connecticut Energy & Natural Resources, Connecticut1 Environment, Connecticut1 Healthcare, Connecticut1 Insurance, Connecticut1 Intellectual Property, Connecticut1 Labor & Employment, Connecticut Litigation: General Commercial, Connecticut Real Estate, Connecticut1 Chambers has published guides to the legal profession for over 20 years, highlighting the top lawyers and law firms across the USA. Chambers’ research teams of over 200 individuals assess lawyers and law firms across the United States, conducting thousands of one-on-one interviews per year with in-house counsel and third-party experts. An explanation of Chambers’ methodology can be found online here.

Chambers & Partners
Robinson+Cole Recognized Across Practices and Regions with 46 Chambers USA 2026 Rankings teaser
October 3, 2025

Robinson+Cole Bankruptcy + Reorganizations Practice Earns Dual Recognitions at Turnaround Atlas Awards

Wins “Out of Court Restructuring” and “Healthcare Restructuring” Categories at Prestigious Annual Event
Robinson+Cole Bankruptcy + Reorganizations Practice Earns Dual Recognitions at Turnaround Atlas Awards teaser
August 26, 2025

78 Robinson+Cole Lawyers Listed in The Best Lawyers in America© 2026

Firm receives top listing in Connecticut lawyer count in national peer review survey
78 Robinson+Cole Lawyers Listed in The Best Lawyers in America© 2026 teaser
June 4, 2026

Robinson+Cole Recognized Across Practices and Regions with 46 Chambers USA 2026 Rankings

In the latest edition of Chambers USA: America’s Leading Lawyers for Business, Robinson+Cole achieved significant recognition, securing rankings across multiple practice areas and regions, including a distinguished Nationwide ranking, underscoring the firm’s breadth of capabilities and national reputation. Chambers & Partners has ranked 33 Robinson+Cole lawyers and 13 of its practices, with two newly-ranked lawyers. Twelve lawyers earned Band 1 designations, with two ascending to Band 1 from the previous year, alongside seven Band 1-ranked practices. In addition to being ranked Nationwide in Privacy & Data Security, Linn F. Freedman was also listed in the Chambers Global 2026 ranking guide in the area of Privacy & Data Security – USA for the fifth consecutive year. The rankings, based on extensive client feedback and independent research, reflect a year of strategic growth and high-profile client work, reinforcing the firm’s reputation as an industry leader in various markets.  Chambers USA 2026 recognized the following Robinson+Cole lawyers (denoting Band 1 ranking with a 1): Linn F. Freedman, Privacy & Data Security, Nationwide Brya M. Keilson, Bankruptcy/Restructuring, Delaware Natalie D. Ramsey, (Star Individual) Bankruptcy/Restructuring, Delaware and Pennsylvania: Philadelphia & Surrounds Rachel Jaffe Mauceri, Bankruptcy/Restructuring, Pennsylvania: Philadelphia & Surrounds Dennis C. Cavanaugh, Gregory R. Faulkner1, Frederick E. Hedberg, and Martin A. Onorato, Construction, Connecticut Matthew J. Guanci, Jr. and Eric M. Kogan, Corporate/M&A, Connecticut Kenneth C. Baldwin1 and Joey Lee Miranda1, Energy & Natural Resources, Connecticut Megan E. Baroni, Robert S. Melvin, Earl W. Phillips, Jr. (Senior Statespeople), James P. Ray, Jonathan H. Schaefer, and Emilee Mooney Scott, Environment, Connecticut Lisa M. Boyle1, Healthcare, Connecticut Wystan M. Ackerman1, Dana M. Horton1, Daniel F. Sullivan1, and Gregory P. Varga1, Insurance, Connecticut John L. Cordani1 and Jaqueline Pennino Scheib1, Intellectual Property, Connecticut Stephen W. Aronson, Britt-Marie K. Cole-Johnson, Natale V. DiNatale, and Virginia E. McGarrity, Labor & Employment, Connecticut Jeffrey J. White, Litigation: General Commercial, Connecticut Garry C. Berman1, Steven L. Elbaum1, and Charles F. Martin III, Real Estate, Connecticut Chambers USA 2026 recognized the following Robinson+Cole practices (denoting Band 1 ranking with a 1): Bankruptcy/Restructuring, Delaware Bankruptcy/Restructuring, Pennsylvania: Philadelphia & Surrounds Construction, Connecticut1 Construction, Massachusetts Corporate/M&A, Connecticut Energy & Natural Resources, Connecticut1 Environment, Connecticut1 Healthcare, Connecticut1 Insurance, Connecticut1 Intellectual Property, Connecticut1 Labor & Employment, Connecticut Litigation: General Commercial, Connecticut Real Estate, Connecticut1 Chambers has published guides to the legal profession for over 20 years, highlighting the top lawyers and law firms across the USA. Chambers’ research teams of over 200 individuals assess lawyers and law firms across the United States, conducting thousands of one-on-one interviews per year with in-house counsel and third-party experts. An explanation of Chambers’ methodology can be found online here.

Chambers & Partners
Robinson+Cole Recognized Across Practices and Regions with 46 Chambers USA 2026 Rankings teaser
October 3, 2025

Robinson+Cole Bankruptcy + Reorganizations Practice Earns Dual Recognitions at Turnaround Atlas Awards

Wins “Out of Court Restructuring” and “Healthcare Restructuring” Categories at Prestigious Annual Event
Robinson+Cole Bankruptcy + Reorganizations Practice Earns Dual Recognitions at Turnaround Atlas Awards teaser
August 26, 2025

78 Robinson+Cole Lawyers Listed in The Best Lawyers in America© 2026

Firm receives top listing in Connecticut lawyer count in national peer review survey
78 Robinson+Cole Lawyers Listed in The Best Lawyers in America© 2026 teaser
June 5, 2025

Robinson+Cole Secures 45 Total Rankings in Chambers USA 2025 Guide

Chambers USA: America’s Leading Lawyers for Business
Robinson+Cole Secures 45 Total Rankings in <i>Chambers USA 2025</i> Guide teaser
April 2, 2025

Robinson+Cole Bankruptcy + Reorganization Group Wins “Law Firm of the Year”

M&A Advisor 19th Annual Turnaround Awards
Robinson+Cole Bankruptcy + Reorganization Group Wins “Law Firm of the Year” teaser
November 26, 2024

Robinson+Cole Bankruptcy + Reorganizations Group Wins Two 23rd Annual M&A Advisor Awards

M&A Advisor
Robinson+Cole Bankruptcy + Reorganizations Group Wins Two 23rd Annual M&A Advisor Awards teaser
October 31, 2024

John Cordani Contributes Law360 Expert Analysis Article Discussing False Patent Marking Claims and The Lanham Act

Law360
August 15, 2024

78 Robinson+Cole Lawyers Listed in The Best Lawyers in America© 2025

78 Robinson+Cole Lawyers Listed in <i>The Best Lawyers in America</i>© 2025 teaser
October 26, 2023

Robinson+Cole Lawyers Recognized in 2023 Super Lawyers®

Super Lawyers

June 5, 2025

Robinson+Cole Secures 45 Total Rankings in Chambers USA 2025 Guide

Chambers USA: America’s Leading Lawyers for Business
Robinson+Cole Secures 45 Total Rankings in <i>Chambers USA 2025</i> Guide teaser
April 2, 2025

Robinson+Cole Bankruptcy + Reorganization Group Wins “Law Firm of the Year”

M&A Advisor 19th Annual Turnaround Awards
Robinson+Cole Bankruptcy + Reorganization Group Wins “Law Firm of the Year” teaser
November 26, 2024

Robinson+Cole Bankruptcy + Reorganizations Group Wins Two 23rd Annual M&A Advisor Awards

M&A Advisor
Robinson+Cole Bankruptcy + Reorganizations Group Wins Two 23rd Annual M&A Advisor Awards teaser
October 31, 2024

John Cordani Contributes Law360 Expert Analysis Article Discussing False Patent Marking Claims and The Lanham Act

Law360
August 15, 2024

78 Robinson+Cole Lawyers Listed in The Best Lawyers in America© 2025

78 Robinson+Cole Lawyers Listed in <i>The Best Lawyers in America</i>© 2025 teaser
October 26, 2023

Robinson+Cole Lawyers Recognized in 2023 Super Lawyers®

Super Lawyers

Events


Past

The Legal Side of Marketing

May 7 2025
Robinson+Cole
Past

Teaming Without Intellectual Property Friction: Growing Your Aerospace & Defense Business

Jun 6 2024
U.S Commercial Service Webinar
Past

The Legal Side of Marketing

May 7 2025
Robinson+Cole
Past

Teaming Without Intellectual Property Friction: Growing Your Aerospace & Defense Business

Jun 6 2024
U.S Commercial Service Webinar
Past

En Banc Federal Circuit Case v. GM, Design Patent Obviousness

Dec 7 2023
Intellectual Property Law Association of Chicago (IPLAC)
Past

Protecting Your Intellectual Property in a Collaborative Supply Chain

May 19 2023
Naval & Maritime Consortium’s (NMC) “NMC Thames River Working Group Meeting Live"
Past

A Brief Patent Primer for Investors

May 9 2023
Angel Investor Forum
Past

Ethical Practices for Communications with Clients, Opposing Parties, and the USPTO

Dec 1 2022
A Connecticut Bar Association roundtable discussion hosted by the CBA Intellectual Property Section
Past

En Banc Federal Circuit Case v. GM, Design Patent Obviousness

Dec 7 2023
Intellectual Property Law Association of Chicago (IPLAC)
Past

Protecting Your Intellectual Property in a Collaborative Supply Chain

May 19 2023
Naval & Maritime Consortium’s (NMC) “NMC Thames River Working Group Meeting Live"
Past

A Brief Patent Primer for Investors

May 9 2023
Angel Investor Forum
Past

Ethical Practices for Communications with Clients, Opposing Parties, and the USPTO

Dec 1 2022
A Connecticut Bar Association roundtable discussion hosted by the CBA Intellectual Property Section