Skip to main content

Sean M. Casey

Associate

[email protected]

+1.617.348.4738

Share:

Sean is an intellectual property attorney and a registered patent agent. He draws on his background in computer science and software development to advise clients across the technology sector, including in the semiconductors industry. He has significant experience with distributed systems designed to find radio-based targets with direction finding and geolocation techniques and with low-level hardware devices and wireless communication protocols.

Education

  • Suffolk University Law School (JD)
  • University of Massachusetts (MS, Computer Science)
  • Skidmore College (BA, English)

Viewpoints

IPRs and Other Post-Grant Porceedings Viewpoint Thumbnail
When confronted with instituted IPRs, Patent Owners should identify and exploit issues that the Petition glossed over and bring those to the attention of the Board.  This will highlight for the Board important issues that the Petition failed to sufficiently address and can lead to victory for the Patent Owner. 
Read more
IPRs and Other Post-Grant Porceedings Viewpoint Thumbnail
As a Patent Owner in an instituted Inter Partes Reviews (“IPR”), one of the first and most critical tasks before you is deposing the Petitioner’s witnesses, including its experts.  But approaching an IPR deposition like a typical litigation deposition could be a big mistake. 
Read more
Patent Litigation Viewpoint Thumbnail
The Federal Circuit’s recent Uniloc 2017 v. Facebook Inc. decision is a mixed bag of good and bad news for both patent owners and inter partes review petitioners.  On the plus side for patent owners (but not for petitioners), the Federal Circuit determined that the so-called “No Appeal” provision does not necessarily apply to 35 U.S.C. § 315(e)(1), and, therefore, a patent owner may still appeal a Patent Trial and Appeal Board determination that a petitioner is not estopped from maintaining an IPR under § 315(e)(1). 
Read more
Viewpoint Thumbnail

Supreme Court Rejects USPTO Attorney Fee Policy

December 17, 2019 | Blog | By Michael McNamara, Sean Casey

On December 11, 2019, the U.S. Supreme Court struck down the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office’s (USPTO) controversial policy of shifting attorneys’ fees in Peter v. NantKwest, Case No. 18-801. The Court ruled that the USPTO policy ran counter to the long-accepted “American Rule,” which says “[e]ach litigant pays his own attorney’s fees, win or lose, unless a statute or contract provides otherwise.”
Read more

Patentability of Software Post-Alice: How Do Courts Determine Whether an Idea is Abstract ?

January 12, 2015 | Advisory | By Michael Renaud, Courtney Quish, Sean Casey, Matthew Karambelas

Since the Supreme Court’s decision in Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank Int’l on patentable subject matter, courts have tried to follow the prescribed framework.
Read more

CAFC Finds Patent Claiming Software-Related Invention is Patentable

December 10, 2014 | Blog | By Matthew Karambelas, Sean Casey

For the first time since the Supreme Court’s Alice Corp.  v. CLS Bank Int'l decision this past summer, the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit has found that a patent claiming a software-related invention was patentable subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101 (with Judge Chen writing the majority opinion).
Read more