Eugene Perez has practiced in the intellectual property field since 2000, specializing in chemical, pharmaceutical and biotechnology patents. His experience includes prosecuting patent applications, including corresponding with clients and preparing replies to all USPTO correspondence such as Office Actions and Restriction Requirements, initiating and conducting inter partes reviews (IPR), reissue applications, ex parte and inter partes reexamination proceedings, conducting legal research and preparing freedom-to-operate, patentability, infringement and validity opinion letters. Mr. Perez has also argued before the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, as well as before the USPTO Patent Trial and Appeal Board.

Mr. Perez serves as the editor for BSKB’s Post Grant Proceedings website, a site devoted to post-grant patent review procedures, including IPR, post-grant reviews, patent reexamination and reissue.

Representative Matters

  • Inter partes reexamination control no. 95/000,138 (Fidia Farmaceutici S.p.A. v. Chemi S.p.A.) (USPN 6,645,742)
  • Inter partes reexamination control no. 95/000,153 (Galderma R&D v. Leo Pharmaceutical Products, Ltd.) (USPN 6,753,013)
  • Chemi S.p.A. v. Fidia Farmaceutici p.A., Appeal No. 2010-1514 (Fed. Cir.) (June 8, 2011) (argued) (on brief)
  • Leo Pharmaceutical Products, Ltd. v. Rea, Appeal No. 12-1520 (Fed. Cir.) (Aug. 12, 2013) (on brief)
  • Biomarin Pharmaceutical, Inc. v. Genzyme Therapeutic Products, Ltd., IPR2013-00534, IPR2013-00537
  • Biomarin Pharmaceutical, Inc. v. Duke University, IPR2013-00535
  • Genzyme Therapeutic Products, Ltd. v. Biomarin Pharmaceutical, Inc., Appeal No. 2015-1720, 2015-1721 (Fed. Cir.) (on brief)
  • Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd v. Ibex PT Holdings Co., Ltd., IPR2017-00101, IPR2017-00102
  • Celanese Int’l Corp. v. Daicel Corp., IPR2017-00162, IPR2017-00163, IPR2017-00164, IPR2017-00165, IPR2017-00166
  • Duke University v. Biomarin Pharmaceutical, Inc., Appeal No. 2016-1106 (Fed. Cir.) (on brief)
  • Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd v. Ibex PT Holdings Co., Ltd., IPR2018-00011, IPR2018-00012, IPR2018-00092, IPR2018-00093, IPR2018-00094, IPR2018-00095
  • Duke University v. Biomarin Pharmaceutical, Inc., Appeal No. 2018-1696 (Fed. Cir.) (Oct. 11, 2019) (on brief)
  • Daicel Corp. Celanese Int’l Corp., Appeal No. 18-2130 (Fed. Cir.) (Nov. 5, 2019) (on brief)
  • Daicel Corp. Celanese Int’l Corp., Appeal No. 18-2131 (Fed. Cir.) (Nov. 5, 2019) (argued) (on brief)
  • Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd v. Infobridge PTE. Ltd., IPR2017-00099, IPR2017-00100 (on remand)

Speaking Engagements

    Current Speaking Engagements

    Previous Speaking Engagements

  • Patent Law Institute 2020: Critical Issues & Best Practices

    PLI 2020: Live Webcast

    April 02 2020
  • New Trademark Developments and Rules in the U.S.P.T.O

    Trademark Day Sweden

    January 23 2020
  • Inter-Collegiate Licensing Association Winter Symposium

    ICLA Winter Symposium

    January 15 2020
  • Claim Drafting and Amendment Workshop Under EP and US Practices

    2019 JPAA Workshop

    November 01 2019


  • January 25, 2016

    Attacking a Patent at the PTO: Beware the Real Party in Interest

    by Eugene Perez | Corporate Counsel

    Patents are critical to the success of many companies, where having a good patent portfolio can protect commercial products, keep competitors out of the market and force licensing negotiations. Given the amount of patent litigation, with the latest patent reform laws of 2011, Congress has created new ways to attack and defend patents at the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) of the U.S. Patent & Trademark Office (PTO) instead of district court or the International Trade Commission. The idea was to create an alternative forum for contesting patent validity and to reduce the amount of patent litigation. However, around 80 percent of PTAB procedures have concurrent litigation, though sometimes a stay in the litigation is possible. These PTO procedures are called post-grant review (PGR), inter partes review (IPR) and a PGR solely for business method patents (CBM), with IPR being by far the most popular.

    Learn More
  • October 1, 2015

    Post Therasense: Why Supplemental Examination is Less Attractive

    by Eugene Perez and Chad Rink | World Intellectual Property Review

    It is likely that Therasense is the main reason that supplemental examination filings are so low and may not ramp up any time in the near future.

    Learn More