Marc Weiner has practiced intellectual property law for over 30 years. Mr. Weiner represents large international corporations including several Global 500 companies, various sized companies and universities. Mr. Weiner has extensive experience advising clients regarding management of their worldwide patent portfolios including preparation and prosecution of patent applications.  He specializes in the fields of chemistry (organic, inorganic, polymers, pharmaceutical chemistry, materials science including steel, alloys, mining and semiconductors), biotechnology, mechanical and “mechatronics” patents.

In addition, Mr. Weiner counsels clients with respect to freedom to operate issues, validity and infringement opinions and post grant proceedings before the USPTO. Mr. Weiner routinely lectures to both clients and professional organizations around the world concerning U.S. patent statutory and case law developments. Mr. Weiner currently serves as the editor of the firm’s IP Update e-newsletter.

Mr. Weiner has a Bachelor of Science degree in chemical engineering from the Rutgers University College of Engineering (with Honors), a Bachelor of Arts degree in biological sciences from Rutgers College, a master’s degree in biotechnology from Johns Hopkins University, and a Juris Doctorate degree from the National Law Center, the George Washington University.

Speaking Engagements

    Current Speaking Engagements


  • September 15, 2015

    IP Update, Vol. 13, No. 7

    by Marc S. Weiner and MaryAnne Armstrong, Ph.D. | BSKB

    On August 13, 2015, Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) issued their per curiam decision regarding liability for divided infringement under §271(a). Akamai Technologies, Inc. v. Limelight Networks, Inc. CAFC Case Nos. 2009-1372, 2009-1380, 2009-1416, 2009-1417. Previously, on May 13, 2015, the CAFC handed down their decision in the Limelight remand from the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS). CAFC Case No. 2009-1372. In the remanded decision of May 13, 2015, the court found that Limelight was not guilty of direct infringement because Limelight and its customers were not acting as a single entity, nor was there a contractual relationship between Limelight and its customers. The CAFC then reconsidered the May 13, 2015 decision with an en banc panel.

  • August 4, 2015

    IP Update, Vol. 13, No. 6

    by Marc S. Weiner and MaryAnne Armstrong, Ph.D. | BSKB

    The July 30, 2015 Federal Register issued a statement that after receiving over sixty (60) comments from the public on on the 2014 Interim Patent Eligibility Guidance, the USPTO has produced a July 2015 Update: Subject Matter Eligibility.