GORDON F. BELCHER, COUNSEL
(Patent Attorney: Mechanical, Trade Secrets, E-discovery) Gordon Belcher has extensive law firm and corporate experience and concentrates his practice in intellectual property law; patent application drafting and prosecution; opinions on patentability, patent validity, patent infringement, trade secret protection and misappropriation; litigation support including e-discovery document review; counseling relating to securing and expanding intellectual property rights worldwide; counseling regarding avoiding transgression of intellectual property rights of others.
Gordon has a varied professional background including intellectual property law with extensive experience in patent law, trade secrets, and litigation; as well as engineering. His substantial patent experience includes representing corporations of various sizes as well as individuals. Gordon’s patent experience includes drafting original patent applications, prosecuting U.S. patent applications to issuance, advising foreign patent counsel on foreign counterparts to U.S. patent applications, drafting patent validity and infringement opinions, and patent litigation. He is experienced in evaluating trade secrets in view of U.S. and foreign patents. Gordon’s intellectual property experience has been in technologies including jet engines, software, telecommunications, vascular graft medical devices, blood circulation devices, anesthetic and orthopedic devices, advanced construction tools, automotive components, and advanced composite materials related to ballistics. He has worked in major intellectual property law firms and as in-house counsel at a major U.S. manufacturing corporation. Gordon has substantive e-discovery document review experience including quality control and privilege log drafting. He has worked in a pro bono legal clinic in New York. Before becoming an attorney, Gordon was employed as an engineer at an electric utility in Washington, D.C. His varied professional background is a major asset in understanding and achieving the objectives of clients in different industries and business contexts.
- Co-author, Comment in response to Request for Comments on Determining Whether a Claim Element Is Well-Understood, Routine, Conventional for Purposes of Subject Matter Eligibility, published at 83 Fed. Reg. 17536 (PTO–P–2018–0033, April 20, 2018), Comment by NYC Bar Association, Committee on Patents, August 20, 2018
- Assisted Thomas L. Creel, Esq., arbitrator at JAMS, Arbitration Questions To Consider In Patent License Disputes, Law360, A LexisNexis® Company, May 1, 2019
- Assisted Thomas L. Creel, Esq., arbitrator at JAMS, The Pros and Cons of Arbitrating Patent Disputes, JAMS Alternative Dispute Resolution Blog, January 28, 2019