Kelvin Catmull focuses his practice on patent preparation and prosecution including strategic counseling and portfolio development. Mr. Catmull has patent prosecution experience in a wide range of technologies including navigation and positioning systems, surveying, photogrammetry and optical measurements, laser diodes, semiconductor devices and processing, semiconductor processing equipment, and metrology systems and techniques.
Mr. Catmull is the Co-Leader of Kilpatrick Townsend’s Electronics and Software Practice Group.
Prior to his career in law, Mr. Catmull worked for over ten years as a process engineer in the semiconductor industry.
Counsel for respondents Sennheiser electronics & Co. GmbH and Sennheiser USA in patent investigation involving Bluetooth headphones. Settled favorably before significant discovery or litigation activity. In re Certain Wireless Headsets, ITC Investigation No. 337-TA-943.
Insights View All
Santa Clara University School of Law J.D. (2007)
Arizona State University B.S.E. (1996) Chemical Engineering
U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California
U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (2005)
Previously served as Advisory Board Member for OneJustice.
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.