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 and consumer products. He has significant experience managing large domestic and international patent portfolios in these industries.
Mr. Krieger has an active Inter Partes Review (IPR) practice, having served as lead counsel in 12 IPR/PGR proceedings. He has represented clients both as petitioner and patent owner, having achieved several early decisions of non-institution without the need or expense of trial. He has a remarkably solid track record: representing patent owners, 2 of his IPRs were denied institution, and 3 resulted in favorable decisions after trial. All 5 cases resulted in the validation of all instituted claims—a result achieved in less than 5% of IPR proceedings. In 2017, Mr. Krieger successfully represented Petitioner in two IPRs, resulting in the Patent Owner requesting adverse judgment. In 2018, Mr. Krieger took three IPRs to trial on behalf of Petitioner.
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 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 is also 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 US International Trade Commission (ITC).
Mr. Krieger lectures and publishes frequently on various intellectual property topics, including the America Invents Act, IPR and Post Grant Review (PGR) proceedings, best practices in drafting patent applications and the Defend Trade Secrets Act of 2016.
While attending law school, Mr. Krieger was a member of the Florida Law Review.
Mr. Krieger was recommended by Legal 500 US in 2018 for Patent Prosecution. He was named a top patent practitioner in 2018 and 2019 by IAM Patent 1000 – The World's Leading Patent Practitioners.
Mr. Krieger leads a patent prosecution team for clients in the fields of industrial chemistry and chemical engineering, pharmaceuticals, agrochemicals, medical devices and analytical instruments.
He was lead counsel for patentee Celanese in five IPR petitions filed by competitor Daicel challenging the 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. PTAB Case Numbers IPR2014-01514, IPR2014-01515, IPR2015-000170, IPR2015-00171 and IPR2015-00173.
Mr. Krieger also served as lead counsel in five IPR proceedings in which client Celanese successfully challenged five patents owned by competitor Daicel Corporation. All five IPRs were instituted, with 2 being immediately terminated when Daicel filed requests for adverse judgement. Three of the IPRs proceeded to trial, where the PTAB found overwhelmingly in Celanese’s favor. PTAB Case Numbers IPR2017-00162, IPR2017-00163, IPR2017-00164, IPR2017-00165 and IPR2017-00166.
Kilpatrick Townsend also represented petitioner Celanese in an IPR petition challenging several claims of US Patent 9,776,941 to Daicel Corporation. Daicel made new arguments in its Preliminary Response concerning the scope of the challenged claims. In an unorthodox victory, Celanese moved to terminate the proceeding, without prejudice, in view of the new prosecution history created by the Preliminary Response. The Board granted the motion on April 12, 2019, resulting in significant savings to the client. PTAB Case Number IPR2019-00313.
As lead counsel, Mr. Krieger prevailed on behalf of Kilpatrick Townsend client Materion Corporation, securing denial of post-grant review (PGR) of US Pat. No. 9,989,684 relating to near infrared optical interference filters. The Patent Trial & Appeal Board concurred with Materion’s Preliminary Response, upholding the patent, which had been challenged for lack of written description, enablement, anticipation and obviousness. Viavi Solutions Inc. v. Materion Corp., PTAB Case Number PGR2019-00017.
Insights View All
- Adversarial Patent Prosecution℠
- Asset Creation - Prosecution & Counseling
- Biologics & Pharmaceutical Patent Litigation
- Intellectual Property
- ITC Section 337
- Licensing, Transactions & Monetization
- Market Protection - Opinions & Dispute Avoidance
- Patent Litigation
- Post-Grant Proceedings
- Trade Secrets
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. Supreme Court
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.