• vcard
310.556.6754
  • Education
    • J.D., University of Connecticut School of Law, 2010, Certificates of Study in Intellectual Property and Taxation; Moot Court
    • B.S.E.E., honors , Worcester Polytechnic Institute, 2005
  • Bar Jurisdictions
    • California
    • New York
    • Connecticut
    • Massachusetts
    • Admitted to practice before the United States Patent and Trademark Office
  • Court Admissions
    • United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
    • U.S. Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit
    • U.S. District Court, Central District of California
    • U.S. District Court, Southern District of New York
    • U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Texas
    • U.S. District Court, District of Massachusetts

Adam is valued by clients and colleagues alike for his creative perspective, attention to detail, and technical experience. Adam is a former aerospace engineer and a registered patent attorney before the United States Patent and Trademark Office.

Adam works closely with clients of all sizes to understand individual business goals and develop cost-effective strategies to protect intellectual property. Adam has a diverse practice that includes litigation before federal district courts, patent prosecution and portfolio development (domestic and foreign), licensing, and due diligence in the context of new product releases, mergers and acquisitions, and investment funding.  

Adam has extensive experience with a diverse range of mechanical and electrical technologies, including:

  • Telecommunications and advanced network protocols
  • Semiconductor devices
  • Avionics and flight control systems
  • Medical devices
  • Cloud computing
  • Machine learning, artificial intelligence, and neural networks
  • Plastics manufacturing
  • Oil and gas exploration and exploitation
  • Virtual Reality
  • Blockchain
  • Financial services and business methods

Before practicing law, Adam worked as an engineer for an aerospace company where he designed, tested, and implemented fly-by-wire avionic systems for BlackHawk helicopters.

  • Represented a financial services client as part of trial defense team defending against an electronic check processing patent infringement in the Eastern District of Texas. The jury returned a verdict finding no infringement and further invalidated the patent under 35 U.S.C. § 101. It is believed this is the first case where a jury invalidated a patent under 35 U.S.C. § 101 since the Federal Circuit’s precedential decision in Berkheimer.
  • Assisted Fortune 500, Fortune 100, Fortune 50, and startup clients develop and protect patent portfolios (domestic and foreign) in industries including, aerospace, consumer electronics, energy, telecommunications, enterprise networks, semiconductor chip manufacturing, and financial services. Served as a member on client-side patent review boards, and prepared and successfully prosecuted numerous patent applications.
  • Represented a leading privately held cosmetic company in multiple trademark and copyright infringement actions against a number of defendants. Successfully obtained ex parte seizure orders, temporary restraining orders that were converted into injunctions, defended against counterclaims under California’s Anti-SLAPP statute in connection with the publicity of the cases, and obtained a judgment awarding $4 million in statutory damages against non-settling defendants.
  • Represented a plastics manufacturing company involving infringement of multiple patents related to tamper resistant and tamper evident containers. Successfully appealed an adverse claim construction ruling at the Federal Circuit Court of Appeals, which led to a favorable settlement.
  • Represented an LED manufacturer against allegations of patent infringement by three optics patents in the Eastern District of Texas.  Successfully argued indefiniteness during claim construction under the Supreme Court’s Nautilus decision, resulting in an early dismissal with prejudice.
  • Represented a Fortune 200 financial company in a post grant proceedings before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB), resulting in a denial of an institution of an Inter Partes Review.
eAlerts Updates
September 2019
text icon Publications & Presentations
Polsinelli on Drones & Advanced Robotics Blog
July 21, 2017
text icon Publications & Presentations
Law 360
January 15, 2015
text icon Publications & Presentations
co-author
Law360
March 16, 2012
text icon Publications & Presentations
Court Holds that Statutory Deadline to File Suit Challenging Patent Term Adjustment Calculation is Tolled by Petition for Review in USPTO
co-author
Edwards Wildman Palmer LLP Client Advisory
February 2012