Scott L. Bittman
Overview
Scott L. Bittman focuses on intellectual property litigation, inter partes reviews, counseling, and patent and trademark procurement. He has litigated cases before federal and state courts throughout the country, the Patent Trial and Appeals Board, the International Trade Commission, and the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit.
Career & Education
- Tufts University, B.S., cum laude, Mechanical Engineering, 2001
- Boston University School of Law, J.D., cum laude, 2005
- New York
- U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO)
- Massachusetts (Inactive)
- U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York
- U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York
- U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas
- U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan
- U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
Scott's Insights
Client Alert | 2 min read | 06.12.25
Acting USPTO Director Coke Morgan Stewart issued a Director Discretionary decision on June 6, 2025, in iRhythm Technologies Inc. v. Welch Allyn Inc., IPR2025-00363, -00374, -00376, -00377, and -00378 Paper 10 (PTAB June 6, 2025). This decision granted Patent Owner’s request for discretionary denials of institution in five related IPR challenges. It follows several recent Director decisions that have all discretionarily denied petitions for reasons other than the substantive merits of the challenges. However, this decision is the first one that relies upon “[s]ettled expectations of the parties, such as the length of time the claims have been in force,” a new consideration that was first articulated in the USPTO’s “Interim Process for PTAB Workload Management” memorandum (“Interim Memo”) dated March 26, 2025.
Client Alert | 2 min read | 06.06.25
USPTO Director Clarifies Burden on IPR Petitioners Relying on Prior Art Cited During Prosecution
Client Alert | 4 min read | 02.26.24
Update on Director Review Grants of PTAB Decisions 2.5 Years After Arthrex
Representative Matters
- Rogerson Aircraft Corp. v. Bell Helicopter (Tarrant County, TX). Representing Bell Helicopter in litigation brought by former business partner seeking several hundred million dollars in damages for trade secret misappropriation and breach of contract. Plaintiff claims that Bell misappropriated trade secrets relating to the specifications and requirements for helicopter avionics displays.
- Invacare Corp. v. Sunrise Medical (US) LLC (D.Del.). Represented Invacare Corporation in a six-patent offensive infringement litigation against Sunrise Medical in case related to suspension systems used in mid-wheel drive power wheelchairs that provide for enhanced stability. The case resulted in favorable settlement.
- BMW of North America, LLC v. Paice LLC (PTAB, Fed. Cir.). Represented BMW as Petitioner in three IPR proceedings related to hybrid vehicle control technology. All challenged claims from the three patents were invalidated. The decision was affirmed by the Federal Circuit.
- In re Certain Playards & Strollers(ITC). Represented Graco Children’s Products Inc. and its supplier, Wonderland Nurserygoods of Taiwan, in an ITC action against Baby Trend and three of its suppliers concerning infringement of four patents related to Graco’s Pack ’n Play playards and foldable strollers.
- Siemens Mobility, Inc. v. Westinghouse Air Brake Technologies (D. Del., PTAB, Fed. Cir.). Represented Siemens in a wide-ranging, multi-forum intellectual property dispute involving Positive Train Control technology, including a jury trial win resulting in a finding of willful infringement and a $15 million damages award, and defense of 15 IPRs.
- RPost, et al. v. Selligent, Inc. (E.D. Tex.). Represented defendant Selligent, Inc. and many of its customers in a patent infringement action involving five patents related to email authentication technology. The case was successfully dismissed with prejudice.
- Milwaukee Electric Tool Corporation, et al. v. Hilti, Inc. (E.D. Wisc., PTAB, Fed. Cir.). Represented defendant Hilti, Inc. in a patent infringement action, and in IPRs, involving lithium-based battery packs for use in power tools.
- Phoenix Licensing, L.L.C., et al v. General Motors LLC (E.D. Tex.). Represented defendant General Motors LLC in a patent infringement action involving mass marketing software.
- Network-1 Security Solutions, Inc. v. Avaya, Inc., et al. (E.D. Tex., PTAB, Fed. Cir.). Represented defendant Avaya Inc. in a patent infringement action, and in an IPR, involving Power over Ethernet (PoE) technology.
- Spread Spectrum Screening LLC. v. Eastman Kodak Company (N.D. Ill., W.D.N.Y., Fed. Cir.). Represented defendant Eastman Kodak Company in a patent infringement action involving halftone printing software brought by Acacia subsidiary. Invalidated the asserted patent via ex partereexamination, upheld on appeal.
- Anvik Corporation v. ChiMei InnoLux Corporation (S.D.N.Y., Fed. Cir.). Represented defendant ChiMei InnoLux Corporation in a patent infringement action involving scanning microlithography systems for manufacturing LCD panels.
- Weight Watchers International, Inc. v. Curves International, Inc. (S.D.N.Y.). Represented plaintiff Weight Watchers International, Inc. in an action involving trademark infringement and false advertising.
- In re Certain Machine Vision Software, Machine Vision Systems, and Products Containing Same (ITC, D.Mass.). Represented respondents Fuji America Corp. and Fuji Machine Manufacturing Co., Ltd. in a patent infringement action at ITC and district court involving machine-vision system software.
Scott's Insights
Client Alert | 2 min read | 06.12.25
Acting USPTO Director Coke Morgan Stewart issued a Director Discretionary decision on June 6, 2025, in iRhythm Technologies Inc. v. Welch Allyn Inc., IPR2025-00363, -00374, -00376, -00377, and -00378 Paper 10 (PTAB June 6, 2025). This decision granted Patent Owner’s request for discretionary denials of institution in five related IPR challenges. It follows several recent Director decisions that have all discretionarily denied petitions for reasons other than the substantive merits of the challenges. However, this decision is the first one that relies upon “[s]ettled expectations of the parties, such as the length of time the claims have been in force,” a new consideration that was first articulated in the USPTO’s “Interim Process for PTAB Workload Management” memorandum (“Interim Memo”) dated March 26, 2025.
Client Alert | 2 min read | 06.06.25
USPTO Director Clarifies Burden on IPR Petitioners Relying on Prior Art Cited During Prosecution
Client Alert | 4 min read | 02.26.24
Update on Director Review Grants of PTAB Decisions 2.5 Years After Arthrex
Recognition
- Lawyers Alliance for New York: Cornerstone Award, 2019
Scott's Insights
Client Alert | 2 min read | 06.12.25
Acting USPTO Director Coke Morgan Stewart issued a Director Discretionary decision on June 6, 2025, in iRhythm Technologies Inc. v. Welch Allyn Inc., IPR2025-00363, -00374, -00376, -00377, and -00378 Paper 10 (PTAB June 6, 2025). This decision granted Patent Owner’s request for discretionary denials of institution in five related IPR challenges. It follows several recent Director decisions that have all discretionarily denied petitions for reasons other than the substantive merits of the challenges. However, this decision is the first one that relies upon “[s]ettled expectations of the parties, such as the length of time the claims have been in force,” a new consideration that was first articulated in the USPTO’s “Interim Process for PTAB Workload Management” memorandum (“Interim Memo”) dated March 26, 2025.
Client Alert | 2 min read | 06.06.25
USPTO Director Clarifies Burden on IPR Petitioners Relying on Prior Art Cited During Prosecution
Client Alert | 4 min read | 02.26.24
Update on Director Review Grants of PTAB Decisions 2.5 Years After Arthrex
Insights
- |
12.05.23
World Intellectual Property Review
Scott's Insights
Client Alert | 2 min read | 06.12.25
Acting USPTO Director Coke Morgan Stewart issued a Director Discretionary decision on June 6, 2025, in iRhythm Technologies Inc. v. Welch Allyn Inc., IPR2025-00363, -00374, -00376, -00377, and -00378 Paper 10 (PTAB June 6, 2025). This decision granted Patent Owner’s request for discretionary denials of institution in five related IPR challenges. It follows several recent Director decisions that have all discretionarily denied petitions for reasons other than the substantive merits of the challenges. However, this decision is the first one that relies upon “[s]ettled expectations of the parties, such as the length of time the claims have been in force,” a new consideration that was first articulated in the USPTO’s “Interim Process for PTAB Workload Management” memorandum (“Interim Memo”) dated March 26, 2025.
Client Alert | 2 min read | 06.06.25
USPTO Director Clarifies Burden on IPR Petitioners Relying on Prior Art Cited During Prosecution
Client Alert | 4 min read | 02.26.24
Update on Director Review Grants of PTAB Decisions 2.5 Years After Arthrex
