What inspired you to pursue a career in intellectual property, and what advice would you give to others considering a similar path?

The variety of technologies in IP disputes captured my interest. I enjoy mastering new subjects and learning new technologies at issue in IP disputes fits well with that passion. If learning something new every day is your passion, then IP litigation is a good fit. If you are interested in intellectual property, then I would recommend pursuing a degree that allows you to sit for the patent bar as that will maximise your potential opportunities. That said, if you’re past the window to get a technical degree, I have practised with some great IP lawyers without one – the key is to demonstrate your ability to learn technology.

As an accomplished trial lawyer, what, in your view, are the key characteristics of a winning strategy before the courts?

Consistency and clarity of message are the most important characteristics of a good litigation strategy. Most IP disputes are highly complex, with experts on both sides of every issue. Success boils down to who connects best with the jury, and that is easier when your broader points are clear, consistent and supported by evidence that is easy to digest.

How is the M&A landscape hitting patent valuation practices, and how do you expect these trends might evolve in the next five years?

I don’t interface directly with the M&A marketplace and cannot speak to the impact of the M&A landscape on patent valuation. However, from my litigation-based perspective, the biggest impacts on patent valuation have been:

• the effective abolishment of injunctive relief for patent infringement;
• the Federal Circuit’s anathema for large patent infringement damages awards; and 
• the uncertainty created by post-grant challenges. 

I do not expect any of these to change for the better in the next five years.

You have worked with a range of companies – from start-ups to Fortune 500 – in a wide variety of industries, such as telecoms, banking and medical. How do you adapt your approach depending on the type of client you are dealing with?

My approach to a case is not based on client size or industry, but rather on the unique picture of what it takes to achieve success. I work with the client in every case to determine what success looks like for that dispute. Then I develop a strategy to achieve that success. This approach is the same for every case – what differs is the definition of success and the following strategy to reach it.

If you could change anything about the US enforcement landscape, what would it be, and do you think it is likely to happen?

The availability of injunctive relief in patent disputes needs to be a credible possibility in order to restore balance to the US patent system. Far too many companies – especially large and influential ones – choose to infringe on intellectual property rather than engage in appropriate licensing discussions, and that is because of the minimal current risk of injunctive relief. Unfortunately, I do not foresee this changing in the near term.