Skip to main content

Lily Zhang

Associate

[email protected]

+1.858.314.1577

Share:

Lily’s practice is dedicated to intellectual property, with an emphasis on patent preparation and prosecution and providing clients with strategic insights in portfolio management. She also provides technical support to the patent litigation team.  She has experience in a broad range of technical areas, including artificial intelligence and machine learning, 3G and 4G wireless technologies, databases, battery composition and production, network hardware and software, cyber security and cryptography, electronic payment systems, bioinformatics, robotics, optics, 3D printing and laser fabrication, and medical devices. 

Prior to joining the firm, Lily worked as a patent attorney at one of the largest business law firms in California, and gained experience in prosecuting US and foreign patent applications. She also worked as a patent attorney at an intellectual property law firm, where she prosecuted patent applications in industries including data storage, accounting and record management, network security, cloud computing, mobile device security, RFID, video processing, NQR/NMR, social networking, online games, consumer finances, electronic marketplaces, power generation and storage, and food production.

Earlier, Lily worked as a financial advisor at a multinational financial services corporation.

Education

  • Benjamin N. Cardozo School of Law (JD)
  • University of California - Berkeley (BS, Electrical Engineering & Computer Sciences)

Languages

- French

- Mandarin

Viewpoints

The Federal Circuit affirmed the Patent Trial and Appeal Board’s inter partes review decision declaring various claims of patent owner Thales’ U.S. Patent No. 6,474,159 (“the ‘159 patent”) nonobvious.
The United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”) introduced the Ombudsman Program on April 6, 2010 with the ostensible goal of advancing patent applications that have stalled during the examination process.
On August 3, 2016, the Patent Trial and Appeal Board issued a post-grant review decision that bears one striking similarity to its previous post-grant review decisions, namely invalidation of claims under Alice Corp. Pty. v. CLS Bank Int’l, further bolstering the salience of patent ineligibility challenges in post-grant proceedings.
All patent applications submitted to the United States Patent And Trademark Office (USPTO) are examined subject to the requirements set forth in 35 U.S.C. §§101, 102, 103, 112, which respectively address patent eligibility, novelty, inventiveness (e.g. non-obviousness), and disclosure and other formal requirements (e.g., enablement, written description, and clarity/definiteness).