About The Attorney

Peter Corcoran is the founder of The Corcoran Law Firm. Peter’s practice is focused on serving his clients through the practice of law in intellectual property (“IP”) (patents, trade secrets, trademarks, copyrights) and civil litigation matters nationally, and family law and criminal law matters in the Texarkana and Bowie County, TX areas (1 Peter 4:10). Peter offers contingency and hybrid-fee arrangements for IP and civil litigation and reasonable flat fee and hourly fee arrangements for family law and criminal law matters. For IP matters, Peter also handles inter partes reviews, covered business method reviews, licensing, and monetization throughout the United States.

Since 2000, Peter has litigated patent and other IP infringement cases from complaint through trial and appeal on both the plaintiff and defendant sides throughout the United States. He has a unique familiarity with patent law, local patent rules, and procedures in the federal district and appeals courts, especially in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas and the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. Peter served as a law clerk to retired Chief Judge Randall Rader of the Federal Circuit and to retired Chief Judge David Folsom of the Eastern District of Texas. From these clerkships and his litigation experience, Peter provides his clients with a distinct and unparalleled understanding of the federal district courts and the Federal Circuit.

Before founding The Corcoran Law Firm, Peter worked as an IP litigator at Kirkland & Ellis and Winston & Strawn–two of the nation’s top IP litigation firms. He also worked as an IP litigator at Thompson & Knight in Dallas and at the contingency IP litigation boutique Antonelli, Harrington & Thompson in Houston. At these firms, Peter gained the valuable IP litigation experience and creative skills that he continues to provide his clients today.

During law school, Peter served as a patent examiner at the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“PTO”) for four years, where he examined thousands of patent applications in the speech signal processing and computer software arts. This experience provided Peter with firsthand knowledge of the patent application process and PTO procedures. Before law school, Peter worked for Harris Corporation, developing user-interface software for the nation’s air traffic control system. This experience, in addition to his PTO experience, provided Peter with valuable knowledge of commercial software design, development, and testing that he uses when representing his clients in software patent infringement cases.

Peter’s bachelor and master’s degrees in electrical engineering, and his master’s degree in IP law, provide him an even deeper understanding of electrical, computer, software, semiconductor, and telecommunications technologies and their relationship to IP law. Peter has written and spoken and has been quoted regarding the latest IP topics and is an active member of multiple national IP bar associations.

Peter served in the United States Navy (active duty and reserves) and retired as a “Mustang” Commander (O-5) after beginning his career nearly twenty-seven years earlier as an enlisted Airman (E-1). For nineteen years, Commander Corcoran constructed, maintained, and modernized nuclear submarines, aircraft carriers, and surface ships as a project manager and engineer. He continues serving veterans by representing them pro bono before the United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims, the Federal Circuit, and the United States Supreme Court involving veterans’ benefits claims.

Litigation and Other Matters:

• Voit Technologies, LLC v. Del-Ton, Inc., No. 18-1536 (Fed. Cir, docketed Feb. 8, 2018 ) (represent Appellant Voit Technologies in appeal from the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina involving the eligibility of U.S. Patent Nos. 8,510,154 and 8,630,894 under 35 U.S. § 101).
• Talent Broker Technologies LLC v. Musical.ly, Inc., No 2:17-cv-8532-SJO-MRW (C.D. Cal., filed Nov. 22, 2017) (represent Plaintiff Talent Broker Technologies for patent infringement of U.S. Patent Nos. 8,510,154 and 8,630,894, titled “Method and System for Searching For and Monitoring Assessment of Original Content Creators and the Original Content Thereof”).
• Zito LLC v. CRJ, Inc., No. 1.17-cv-01733-JKB (D. Md., filed Jun. 23, 2017) (represent Plaintiff Zito LLC for patent infringement of U.S. Patent Nos. 7,398,921 and 9,443,369, titled “User-Specific Dispensing System”).
• Audio Evolution Diagnostics, Inc. v. AMD Global Telemedicine Inc., No. 1:16-cv-1280-LPS (D. Del., filed Dec. 20, 2016) (represent Plaintiff Audio Evolution Diagnostics for patent infringement of U.S. patent Nos. 8,920,343 and 8,870,791, titled “Apparatus for Acquiring and Processing of Physiological Auditory Signals” and “Apparatus for Acquiring, Processing, and Transmitting Physiological Sounds,” respectively).
• Wetro Lan LLC v. [5 Defendants], 5:16-cv-152 [to -156]-RWS (E.D. Tex., filed Oct. 4, 2016) (represent Plaintiff Wetro Lan in actions for patent infringement of U.S. Patent No. 6,795,918, titled “Service Level Computer Security”).
• Listou Search Technologies LLC v. The Mens Wearhouse, Inc. and Stanley Korshak, LP, 5:16-cv-144 and -145-RWS (E.D. Tex., filed Sept. 21, 2016) (represent Plaintiff Listou Search Technologies in actions for patent infringement of U.S. Patent No. 6,216,139, titled “Integrated Dialog Box For Rapidly Altering Presentation of Parametric Text Data Objects On A Computer Display”).
• Reef Mountain LLC v. [9 Defendants], 5:16-cv-132 [to -140]-RWS (E.D. Tex., filed Sept. 15, 2016) (represent Plaintiff Reef Mountain in actions for patent infringement of U.S. Patent No. 8,239,481, titled “System and Method for Implementing Open-Control Remote Device Control”).
• Venadium LLC v. [5 Defendants], Nos. 5:16-cv-118 [to -122]-RWS (E.D. Tex., filed Aug. 31, 2016) (represent Plaintiff Venadium in actions for patent infringement of U.S. Patent No. 6,330,549, titled “Protected Shareware”).
• Novocrypt LLC v. [6 Defendants], 5:16-cv-108 [to -113]-RWS-CMC (E.D. Tex., filed Aug. 22, 2016) (represent Plaintiff Novocrypt in actions for patent infringement of U.S. Patent No. 7,743,213, titled “Portable Storage Device With Network Function”).
• Packet Tread LLC v. [9 Defendants], 5:16-cv-86 [to -94]-JRG-CMC (E.D. Tex., filed July 9, 2016) (represent Plaintiff Packet Tread in actions for patent infringement of U.S. Patent No. 6,310,864, titled “Voice Echo Cancellation for SVD Modems”).
• Counsel of Record, Brief for Amicus Federal Circuit Bar Association in support of Petitioner Curtis Scott, Curtis Scott v. Robert McDonald, Secretary of Veterans Affairs, No. 15-1054 (U.S. Supreme Court, filed Mar. 21, 2016).
• ICON Health & Fitness, Inc. v. W.A.Y.S.S., Inc., No. IPR2016-121 (USPTO PTAB, filed Oct. 30, 2015) (represented patent owner W.A.Y.S.S. in inter partes review of U.S. Patent No. 5,785,631, titled “Exercise Device”).
• Avenue Innovations, Inc. v. Telebrands Corporation, No. 5:15-cv-174-RWS (E.D. Tex., filed Oct. 29, 2015) (represented Plaintiff Avenue Innovations in action for patent infringement of U.S. Patent No. 6,340,189, titled “Universal Device for Facilitating Movement Into and Out Of a Seat”).
• Avenue Innovations, Inc. v. E. Mishan & Sons, Inc., No. 5:15-cv-166-RWS-CMC (E.D. Tex., filed Oct. 9, 2015), No. 1:16-cv-3086-KPF (S.D.N.Y.) (represent Plaintiff Avenue Innovations in action for patent infringement of U.S. Patent No. 6,340,189, titled “Universal Device for Facilitating Movement Into and Out Of a Seat”).
• Venadium LLC v. [20 Defendants], Nos. 5:15-cv-114 [to -133]-RWS (E.D. Tex., filed July 16, 2015) (represented Plaintiff Venadium in actions for patent infringement of U.S. Patent No. 6,330,549, titled “Protected Shareware”).
• Chrimar Systems Inc. DBA CMS Technologies and Chrimar Holding Company LLC v. Allied Telesis Inc., No. 6:15-cv-652-JRG-JDL (E.D. Tex., filed July 2, 2015) (represented Defendant Allied Telesis in a multi-patent infringement action involving Power over Ethernet (“PoE”) powered devices and PoE power sourcing equipment).
• Chrimar Systems Inc. dba CMS Technologies and Chrimar Holding Company LLC v. IPitomy Communications LLC, No. 6:15-cv-582-JRG-JDL (E.D. Tex., filed June 22, 2015) (represented Defendant IPitomy Communications in a multi-patent infringement action involving Power over Ethernet (“PoE”) powered devices and PoE power sourcing equipment).
• Oberalis LLC v. [25 Defendants], Nos. 2:15-cv-1052 [to -1076]-JRG (E.D. Tex., filed June 19, 2015) (represented Plaintiff Oberalis in actions for patent infringement of U.S. Patent No. 5,911,140, titled “Method of Ordering Document Clusters Given Some Knowledge Of User Interests”).
• Genaville LLC v. [25 Defendants], Nos. 5:15-cv-76 [to -100]-JRG (E.D. Tex., filed June 14, 2015) (represented Plaintiff Genaville in actions for patent infringement of U.S. Patent No. 5,999,927, titled “Method and Apparatus for Information Access Employing Overlapping Clusters”).
• Expert System Technologies LLC v. Trane, Inc., No. 5:15-cv-74-RWS (E.D. Tex., filed June 5, 2015) (represented Plaintiff Expert System Technologies in action for patent infringement of U.S. Patent No. 6,959,296, titled “Systems and Methods of Choosing Multi-Component Packages Using an Expert System”).
• LGRT Pro LLC v. [25 Defendants], Nos. 5:15-cv-51 [to -70]-RWS-CMC, 5:16-cv-42 [to -46]-RWS (E.D. Tex., filed May 22, 2015 & April 1, 2016 ) (represented Plaintiff LGRT Pro in actions for patent infringement of U.S. Patent No. 6,895,554, titled “Method of Document Assembly”).
• Sally May-Frankum v. Jaxco Industries, Inc., No. 4:15-cv-1102 (S.D. Tex., filed Apr. 28, 2015) (represented Plaintiff Sally May-Frankum in patent and trademark infringement and deceptive trade practices action involving U.S. Design Patent No. D541,144 to a “Clamp for Flexible Food Packages and Wrappers” and trademark infringement of U.S. Trademark Nos. 4,190,833 and 2,950,107 for the mark “Loaf-Lock”).
• Kelemen’s Kreations, LLC v. Emsco Group, Inc., No. 1:15-cv-163-RGA (D. Del., filed Feb. 17, 2015) (represented Plaintiff Kelemen’s Kreations in patent and trademark infringement and deceptive trade practices action involving U.S. Patent No. 6,145,899 to a “Shock Absorbent Shovel” and U.S. Trademark No. 3,306,175 for the mark “Impact Eliminator”).
• Counsel of Record, Brief for Amicus MUSC Foundation for Research Development in support of Commil USA, LLC, Commil USA, LLC v. Cisco Systems, Inc., No. 13-896 (U.S. Supreme Court, filed Jan. 27, 2015).
• KelDar, Inc. v. Mayborn USA, Inc. et al., No. 2:14-cv-905-JRG-RSP (E.D. Tex., filed Sept. 23, 2014) (represented Plaintiff KelDar in breach of non-disclosure agreement and trade secret misappropriation involving an “Apparatus For Preparing Infant Formula From Powder”).
• KelDar, Inc. v. The Betesh Group Holding Corp., No. 2:14-cv-904-JRG-RSP (E.D. Tex., filed Sept. 23, 2014) (represented Plaintiff KelDar in patent infringement action involving U.S. Patent No. 5,671,325 to an “Apparatus For Preparing Infant Formula From Powder”).
• Represented pro bono a veteran in an appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit involving a claim for veterans’ benefits.
• Represented a plaintiff inventor in patent infringement actions against fifty-four defendants before the District of Delaware involving patented website data display and sorting technology.
• Represented a plaintiff doctor before the Central District of California in a patent infringement action involving a patented in vitro fertilization method.
• Represented a plaintiff U.S. multinational oilfield products and services company in an arbitration involving patent infringement of downhole drilling and three-dimensional surface display technologies.
• Represented a defendant-appellee U.S. oilfield products and services company in an appeal from a summary judgment ruling of non-infringement in the Southern District of Texas to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit involving patented pipe wrap sealing technology.
• Represented a defendant U.S. multinational networking company before the District of Delaware in a patent infringement suit involving patented power consumption management across multiple computer systems.
• Represented a defendant U.S. multinational computer company before the Eastern District of Texas in a patent infringement suit involving patented network-based customer service solutions.
• Represented a defendant U.S. multinational computer processor design and manufacturing company before the Northern District of California in a patent infringement suit involving five patents covering semiconductor manufacturing technologies.
• Represented a defendant-appellant Japanese multinational automobile design and manufacturing company in an appeal from jury verdicts of infringement and patent validity from the Eastern District of Texas to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit involving patented online menu selections for customizing car orders.
• Represented a defendant U.S. multinational electronics design and manufacturing company before the Eastern District of Texas in a multi-defendant patent infringement suit involving patented secured credit card reading and debiting technologies.
• Represented a plaintiff U.S. company before the Northern District of California in a patent infringement suit involving patented touch screen protectors for mobile telephones and computer displays.
• Represented defendant U.S. hotel companies before the Eastern District of Texas in a multi-defendant patent infringement suit involving online advertising.
• Represented a defendant U.S. corporation and its subsidiary hotels before the Eastern District of Texas in a multi-defendant patent infringement suit involving online advertising.
• Represented defendant U.S. electronics design and manufacturing companies before the Eastern District of Texas in a multi-defendant patent infringement suit involving power preservation in computer architectures.
• Represented a defendant U.S. corporation and its subsidiary clothing companies before the Eastern District of Texas in a multi-defendant patent infringement suit involving website store locator technologies.
• Represented a plaintiff U.S. multinational electronics design and manufacturing company before the Central District of California in a patent infringement suit involving five patents covering high-definition video and audio television technologies.
• Represented two defendant Japan multinational mobile communications companies before the Eastern District of Texas in a multi-defendant patent infringement suit involving six patents covering wireless telecommunication systems.
• Represented a defendant U.S. computer and mobile telephone accessories company before the Northern District of California in a multi-defendant patent infringement suit involving wireless networking technologies.
• Represented a defendant U.K. multinational oil company in a multi-district litigation suit before the Eastern District of Louisiana involving an oil spill disaster in the Gulf of Mexico.
• Represented a defendant U.S. airlines company before the Eastern District of Texas in a multi-defendant patent infringement suit involving server-client computer communications.
• Represented a defendant Switzerland multinational electronics design and manufacturing company before the Eastern District of Texas in a multi-defendant patent infringement suit involving six patents covering optical computer mice technologies.
• Represented a defendant Switzerland multinational electronics design and manufacturing company before the Eastern District of Texas in a multi-defendant patent infringement suit involving three patents covering video compression technologies for video conferencing.
• Represented a plaintiff Israel multinational pharmaceutical company in a patent appeal from the Southern District of New York to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit involving hormone replacement therapy treatments for female menopause patients.
• Represented complainant U.S. multinational companies before the U.S. International Trade Commission in a Section 337 investigation for patent infringement of four patents covering smartphone user interfaces, operating systems, and data synchronization.
• Represented a plaintiff U.S. multinational medical devices company before the Southern District of California in a patent infringement suit involving five patents covering spinal implant and spinal nerve detection technologies.
• Represented a plaintiff Israel multinational pharmaceutical company before the District of Nevada in a patent infringement suit involving women’s contraceptive pills.
• Represented a defendant U.S. electronics company before the Central District of California in a declaratory judgment patent infringement suit involving radio frequency identification tags for pets.
• Represented a defendant U.S. multinational integrated circuit design and manufacturing company before the Western District of Texas in a patent infringement suit involving five patents covering microprocessor functions of converting floating point values to integers.
• Represented a declaratory judgment defendant German multinational fan design and manufacturing company before the District of Kansas, Federal Circuit, and the U.S. Supreme Court regarding the Federal Circuit’s subject matter jurisdiction over counterclaims of patent infringement in non-patent infringement actions.

Publications & Panels:

• Quoted in, J. Council, Texas Patent Attorneys Fear for Eastern District’s Patent Docket as Supreme Court Eyes Venue, Texas Lawyer, Dec. 15, 2016 (regarding U.S. Supreme Court’s review of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit’s decision in TC Heartland LLC v. Kraft Foods Group Brands LLC, No. 16-341 (U.S. Supreme Court), regarding patent venue and where patent infringement cases may be filed).
• Quoted in, C. Dickerson, Appeal bond amount decreased in patent infringement case between ION Geophysical, WesternGeco, Southeast Texas Record, Dec. 9, 2016 (regarding the pending seven-year patent infringement case between ION Geophysical Corp. and WesternGeco LLC in the Southern District of Texas).
• Quoted in, J. Council, ‘Alice’ in Patentland: Turning Point for Patent Litigation, Texas Lawyer, Apr. 4, 2016 (regarding the U.S. Supreme Court’s effect of Alice v. CLS Bank on patent law).
• Counsel of Record, Brief for Amicus Curiae Federal Circuit Bar Association in support of the veteran petitioner, Curtis Scott, Curtis Scott v. Robert McDonald, Secretary of Veterans Affairs, No. 15-1054 (U.S. Supreme Court, filed Mar. 21, 2016).
• Quoted in, B. Sandburg, Supreme Court’s Copaxone Ruling Could Increase Expert Witness Testimony, The Pink Sheet Daily – Pharma & MedTech Business Intelligence, Jan. 20, 2015 (regarding the U.S. Supreme Court’s ruling in Teva v. Sandoz).
• Quoted in, J. Council, Parties Back at Federal Circuit in Important Patent Case, Texas Lawyer, Aug. 7, 2014 (regarding the U.S. Supreme Court’s remand of the Highmark and Octane Fitness cases).
• Counsel of Record, Brief for Amicus Curiae Houston Intellectual Property Law Association in Support of Neither Party, Teva Pharm. USA, Inc. v. Sandoz, Inc., No. 13-854 (U.S. Supreme Court, filed Jun. 20, 2014).
• Patent and Trademark Appeal Summaries, in Monthly Case Digest (Fed. Cir. Bar Assoc.).
• Quoted in, Speak Up: Memorable Quotes From the Year Gone By, Texas Lawyer, Dec. 16, 2013 (re “white whale” quote in J. Council, Cybor Warrior Fort Worth Lawyer Targets Federal Circuit Precedent, Texas Lawyer, Mar. 11, 2013).
• Co-panelist, Results of Surveys of the Bench & Bar, Can’t Anyone Feel My Pain?, 17th Ann. E.D. Tex. Bench & Bar Conf., Oct. 30, 2013.
• Quoted in, J. Council, Cert Grant in Texas Case Could Impact Attorney Fees in Patent Suits, Texas Lawyer, Oct. 7, 2013 (regarding Supreme Court cert grants in Highmark Inc. v. Allcare Health Mgmt. Sys. and Octane Fitness v. Icon Health & Fitness).
• Strategies to Save Resources and Reduce E-Discovery Costs in Patent Litigation, 21 Tex. Intell. Prop. L.J. 103-34 (Summer 2013); updated & repub’d in 30 The Computer & Internet Lawyer 1-19 (Dec. 2013).
• A Statistical Review of Patent Appeals from the Eastern District of Texas to the Federal Circuit, St. Bar of Tex., Intell. Prop. L. Sect. Newsl., Spring 2013.
• Quoted in, J. Council, Cybor Warrior Fort Worth Lawyer Targets Federal Circuit Precedent, Texas Lawyer, Mar. 11, 2013 (re CAFC’s en banc review of Lighting Ballast Control LLC v. Philips Elec. N. Am. Corp.).A Study of Eastern District of Texas Patent Appeals to the Federal Circuit: 2008-2012, E.D. Tex. Fed. Ct. Prac. EDTexweblog (Jan. 31, 2013, 6:51 PM).
• Peter Corcoran, Roy Payne (U.S.M.J., E.D. Tex., Marshall Div.), Michael Smith (Partner, Siebman, Burg, Phillips & Smith) & Jennifer Ainsworth (Partner, Parker, Bunt & Ainsworth), Key E.D. Texas Patent Decisions & Federal Circuit Trends, 16th Ann. E.D. Tex. Bench & Bar Conf., Oct. 26, 2012.
• Peter Corcoran, T. John Ward (U.S.D.J., E.D. Tex., Ret.), Larry Phillips (Partner, Siebman, Burg, Phillips & Smith) & Matthias Kamber (Partner, Keker & Van Nest), An Insider’s View of Best Practices in the Eastern District of Texas and the Federal Circuit, 15th Ann. E.D. Tex. Bench & Bar Conf., Sept. 26, 2011.
• Peter Corcoran, Kevin Neels & Nathan Barczi (The Brattle Group), Patent Damages and Complex Multi-Patent Products, Thomson Reuters Webinar, July 21, 2010.
• In re TS Tech USA Corp., 551 F.3d 1315 (Fed. Cir. 2008), In re Genentech, Inc., 566 F.3d 1338 (Fed. Cir. 2009), In re Volkswagen of Am., Inc., 566 F.3d 1349 (Fed. Cir. 2009), in Ann. Rev. of Intell. Prop. L. Dev.: 2008-09 (A.B.A. Sect. Intell. Prop. L., Jan. 2010).The Scope of Claim Amendments, Prosecution History Estoppel, and the Doctrine of Equivalents after Festo VI, 9 Tex. Intell. Prop. L.J. 159
• (Winter 2001).Administrative Procedure Act Standards Governing Judicial Review of Findings of Fact Made by the Patent and Trademark Office, 7 Rich. J.L. & Tech. 1 (Fall 2000) (won third place in Tex. Intell. Prop. L.J. 1999-2000 writing competition, see 9 Tex. Intell. Prop. L.J. iii).
• A Comparison of the Anticybersquatting Consumer Protection Act and The Uniform Domain-Name Dispute Resolution Policy of the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers, Markmonitor (Sept. 1, 2000).

Assisted with:

• Martin J. Adelman, Randall R. Rader, John R. Thomas & Harold C. Wegner, Cases and Materials on Patent Law (2d ed. 2003).
• Roger E. Schechter & John R. Thomas, Intellectual Property: The Law of Copyright, Patents and Trademarks (2003).

Education:

• Master of Laws, Intellectual Property Law, 2007
  Georgetown University Law Center
  Washington, DC
  With Distinction, Dean’s List
• Juris Doctor, 2001
  American University Washington College of Law
  Washington, DC
  Administrative Law Review
• Master of Science, Electrical Engineering, 1995
  Johns Hopkins University
  Baltimore, MD
• Bachelor of Science, Electrical Engineering, 1995
  Florida Institute of Technology
  Melbourne, FL
  with Honor, Tau Beta Pi, Eta Kappa Nu

Technology Areas

Electronics, Computer Architectures, Analog and Digital Communications, Networks, Cryptography, Databases, Medical Devices, Graphical User Interfaces, and Software Applications

Clerkships

• Chief Judge Randall Rader
  United States Court of Appeals
  for the Federal Circuit
  Washington, District of Columbia
  2009-2010
• Chief Judge David Folsom
  United States District Court
  for the Eastern District of Texas
  Texarkana, Texas
  2004-2005

Government Service

• Commander (O-5) (retired)
  United States Navy (active duty and reserves)
  1987-2014
• Patent Examiner
  United States Patent and Trademark Office
  Arlington, Virginia
  1995-1999

Memberships

• Eastern District of Texas Bar Association
  • Bench Bar Planning Committee
• Federal Circuit Bar Association
  • Co-Chair, Veterans Pro Bono Committee (Member, Amicus Committee)
• American Bar Association
  • Intellectual Property Law and Litigation Sections
• American Intellectual Property Law Association
  • Texas State Bar Association
    • Intellectual Property Law Section
• Houston Intellectual Property Law Association
  • Former Chair, Amicus Committee
• Association of Federal Circuit Law Clerks

Admissions:

• Texas
• California
• District of Columbia
• United States Patent and Trademark Office
• United States District Courts for the Eastern, Northern, Western, and Southern Districts of Texas
• United States District Courts for the Northern, Central, and Southern Districts of California
• United States Courts of Appeals for Veterans Claims and the Fifth and Federal Circuits
• United States Supreme Court