Gordon F. Belcher

Gordon Belcher has a varied professional background, bringing his expertise in mechanical engineering to his intellectual property law with extensive experience in patent law, trade secrets, and litigation. His substantial patent experience includes representing individuals as well as corporations of various sizes through 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 also evaluates 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.

Core Competencies

• Patents
• Trade Secrets
• E-discovery

Presentations & Publications

• 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
• Of Counsel, Amicus Brief to U.S. Supreme Court for Minerva Surgical, Inc. v. Hologic, Inc., et al. (Fed. Cir. 2020) (submitted March 1, 2021 on behalf of NYC Bar Association).
• www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/20/20-440/170388/20210301124109230_20-440 Minerva Surgical v Hologic Inc Amicus Curiae in Support of Neither Party.pdf
• Credited for assisting (research and writing), Thomas L. Creel, Esq., In a patent claim, does ‘one’ or ‘a’ of something mean only one?, Westlaw Today (December 11, 2020).
• today.westlaw.com/Document/I429f5f233bcc11ebbea4f0dc9fb69570/View/FullText.html?contextData=(sc.Default)&transitionType=Default&firstPage=true
• Credited for assisting (research and writing), Thomas L. Creel, Esq., Arbitration Questions To Consider In Patent License Disputes, Law360 (May 1, 2019).
• www.law360.com/articles/1155486?copied=1
• Credited for assisting (research and writing), Thomas L. Creel, Esq., The Pros and Cons of Arbitrating Patent Disputes, JAMS Alternative Dispute Resolution Blog (January 28, 2019).
• www.jamsadr.com/blog/2019/the-pros-and-cons-of-arbitrating-patent-disputes
• Co-author, Comments Regarding the Impact of the Proliferation of Artificial Intelligence on Prior Art, the Knowledge of a Person Having Ordinary Skill in the Art, and Determinations of Patentability Made in View of the Foregoing (submitted to USPTO on July 29, 2024 in response to Fed. Reg. Announcement) www.regulations.gov/comment/PTO-P-2023-0044-0071
• Co-author, Comments on Unlocking the Full Potential of Intellectual Property by Translating More Innovation to the Marketplace (submitted to USPTO on May 12, 2024 in response to Fed. Reg. Announcement) www.regulations.gov/comment/PTO-C-2024-0004-0016
• Co-author, Comments Regarding Artificial Intelligence and Inventorship (submitted to USPTO on May 15, 2023 in response to Fed. Reg. Announcement). www.regulations.gov/comment/PTO-P-2022-0045-0065
• Co-author, Comments on Director Review, Precedential Opinion Panel Review, and Internal Circulation and Review of Patent Trial and Appeal Board Decisions (submitted to USPTO on October 18, 2022 on behalf of NYC Bar Association in response to Fed. Reg. Announcement). https://downloads.regulations.gov/PTO-P-2022-0023-4305/attachment_1.pdf
• Co-Counsel, Amicus Brief to U.S. Supreme Court for Minerva Surgical, Inc. v. Hologic, Inc., et al. (Fed. Cir. 2020) (submitted March 1, 2021 on behalf of NYC Bar Association). www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/20/20-440/170388/20210301124109230_20-440 Minerva Surgical v Hologic Inc Amicus Curiae in Support of Neither Party.pdf
• Co-author, Comments on Discretion to Institute Trials Before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (submitted to USPTO on December 3, 2020 on behalf of NYC Bar Association in response to Fed. Reg. Announcement). www.uspto.gov/sites/default/files/documents/1232020NewYorkCityBarAssociation.pdf
• Co-author, Comments on Determining Whether a Claim Element is Well-Understood, Routine, Conventional for Purposes of Subject Matter Eligibility (submitted to USPTO on August 20, 2018 on behalf of NYC Bar Association in response to Fed. Reg. Announcement). www.uspto.gov/sites/default/files/documents/eligiblity2018comments_a_nycb_20aug2018.pdf