Justin Krieger is a registered patent attorney who focuses on client counseling, patent office and district court litigation, and patent prosecution. Mr. Krieger’s technical focus includes chemistry, chemical engineering, medical devices, metallurgy, nanotechnology, mechanical engineering, consumer products, business methods, and software technology. He has experience prosecuting domestic and international patent applications including reexamination and reissue applications.
Mr. Krieger has an active Inter Partes Review (IPR) practice, having served as lead counsel in numerous IPR proceedings. He has successfully defended several IPR proceedings, resulting in early decisions of non-institution without the need or expense of trial. In 2016, Mr. Krieger successfully defended a client in 3 IPR proceedings through trial, resulting in the validation of all instituted claims—a result achieved in less than 5% of IPR proceedings.
He also actively prepares non-infringement and validity opinions including comprehensive freedom-to-operate (FTO) analyses in the chemical, polymer, medical device, and mechanical arts from both due diligence and litigation perspectives. Mr. Krieger is also involved in various trademark matters, including trademark prosecution, oppositions and negotiating co-existence agreements.
Mr. Krieger also has been actively involved in numerous patent litigation matters and has participated in all phases of discovery, trial, and appeals. He is also experienced in Section 337 investigations before the U.S. International Trade Commission (ITC).
Mr. Krieger lectures and publishes frequently on various intellectual property topics, including patent office litigation such as IPR and Post Grant Review (PGR) proceedings, as well as on how best to protect trade secrets, and the Defend Trade Secrets Act of 2016.
Prior to joining the firm, Mr. Krieger worked as a shareholder in the northern Virginia office of an IP boutique firm where his areas of practice included patents, trademarks and client counseling. Previously, Mr. Krieger was a partner in the Washington, D.C. office of an international law firm where he participated in numerous patent lawsuits before district courts and the U.S. International Trade Commission.
While attending law school, Mr. Krieger was a member of the Florida Law Review.
The firm provides patent prosecution and counseling services for vascular products manufacturer related to catheters.
Counsel for patentee Celanese in five inter partes review petitions filed by competitor Daicel challenging validity of Celanese patents related to industrial acetic acid production. The Patent Trial and Appeal Board initially ruled in favor of client Celanese, completely denying all five petitions, although requests for rehearing subsequently resulted in the institution of 3 of the 5 IPRs. In June of 2016, the PTAB issued final written decisions in the three IPRs, finding for patent owner Celanese and affirming all instituted claims as not unpatentable.
United States Patent and Trademark Office Patent Trial and Appeal Board, Case Numbers IPR2014-01514, IPR2014-01515, IPR2015-000170, IPR2015-00171 and IPR2015-00173.
Insights View All
University of Florida College of Law, J.D. (1999)
College of William and Mary, B.S., Chemistry (1995)
District of Columbia (2002)
New York (2000)
U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (2001)
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia
U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia
American Bar Association, Member
Federal Circuit Bar Association, Member
American Intellectual Property Law Association, Member
Intellectual Property Owners Association, Member
American Chemical Society, Member
ITC Trial Lawyers Association, Member
PTAB and TTAB Committee (Federal Circuit Bar Association), Member
PTAB Bar Association, Member
Committee on Patents and Related Matters (ACS), Member
While we are pleased to have you contact us by telephone, surface mail, electronic mail, or by facsimile transmission, contacting Kilpatrick Townsend & Stockton LLP or any of its attorneys does not create an attorney-client relationship. The formation of an attorney-client relationship requires consideration of multiple factors, including possible conflicts of interest. An attorney-client relationship is formed only when both you and the Firm have agreed to proceed with a defined engagement.
DO NOT CONVEY TO US ANY INFORMATION YOU REGARD AS CONFIDENTIAL UNTIL A FORMAL CLIENT-ATTORNEY RELATIONSHIP HAS BEEN ESTABLISHED.
If you do convey information, you recognize that we may review and disclose the information, and you agree that even if you regard the information as highly confidential and even if it is transmitted in a good faith effort to retain us, such a review does not preclude us from representing another client directly adverse to you, even in a matter where that information could be used against you.