Wei-Chih Hsu

Associate | He/Him/His

Overview

Wei-Chih Hsu focuses his practice on patent litigation before the U.S. International Trade Commission, the Federal Circuit, and U.S. districts courts for clients in various industries. Wei-Chih also assists clients in due diligence analysis and patent prosecution.

Before his private practice, Wei-Chih graduated cum laude from Indiana University Maurer School of Law, where he was an editor of Indiana Law Journal and IP theory.

Prior to the law school, Wei-Chih was an Intellectual Property manager in a leading display panel manufacturer in Taiwan, where Wei-Chih oversaw issuance of hundreds of patents in the United States, Mainland China, and Taiwan and assisted with patent litigation matters.

Career & Education

|
    • ON Semiconductor
      IP Intern, 2018
    • Au Optronics
      Intellectual Property Manager, 2017
      Senior Patent Engineer, 2011–2017
    • ON Semiconductor
      IP Intern, 2018
    • Au Optronics
      Intellectual Property Manager, 2017
      Senior Patent Engineer, 2011–2017
    • National Cheng Kung University, B.S., Electrical Engineering, 2007
    • National Chiao Tung University, M.S., Electrical and Control Engineering, 2009
    • Indiana University - Bloomington, Maurer School of Law, J.D., cum Laude, 2020
    • National Cheng Kung University, B.S., Electrical Engineering, 2007
    • National Chiao Tung University, M.S., Electrical and Control Engineering, 2009
    • Indiana University - Bloomington, Maurer School of Law, J.D., cum Laude, 2020
    • U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
    • Illinois
    • U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO)
    • U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
    • Illinois
    • U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO)
    • Mandarin
    • Taiwanese
    • Mandarin
    • Taiwanese

Wei-Chih's Insights

Client Alert | 4 min read | 02.26.24

Update on Director Review Grants of PTAB Decisions 2.5 Years After Arthrex

Starting in June 2021, the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) instituted a policy to allow for the Director of the USPTO to review certain decisions by the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) issued in inter partes reviews (IPRs) and post grant reviews (PGRs).  That process, known as Director Review, was created in response to the decision in United States v. Arthrex, Inc., whereby the Supreme Court held that final written decisions of administrative patent judges in IPR proceedings must be subject to the review of the Director of the USPTO before they become the decisions of the agency.  141 S. Ct. 1970 (2021)....

Representative Matters

  • Representing Graco Children’s Products and its supplier, Wonderland Nurserygoods of Taiwan, in a patent litigation against Baby Trend and three of its suppliers in China regarding certain play yards and strollers.
  • Representing a diamond distributor before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit to defend the winning of summary judgment.
  • Defending leading consumer electronic brands before U.S. District Courts against patent infringement accusations.
  • Advising Kymco Capital and Kwang Yang Motor Co. in the first publicly traded electric vehicle motorcycle company in the United States.
  • Advising leading software and telecommunications companies on patent procurement.

 

 

 

Wei-Chih's Insights

Client Alert | 4 min read | 02.26.24

Update on Director Review Grants of PTAB Decisions 2.5 Years After Arthrex

Starting in June 2021, the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) instituted a policy to allow for the Director of the USPTO to review certain decisions by the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) issued in inter partes reviews (IPRs) and post grant reviews (PGRs).  That process, known as Director Review, was created in response to the decision in United States v. Arthrex, Inc., whereby the Supreme Court held that final written decisions of administrative patent judges in IPR proceedings must be subject to the review of the Director of the USPTO before they become the decisions of the agency.  141 S. Ct. 1970 (2021)....

Recognition

  • International Patent Drafting Competition: First Place 2019
  • CALI Awards for Highest Grade in Advanced Patent Law, Spring 2019; Intellectual Property Law Clinic, Fall 2019
  • Indiana University Maurer School of Law: Dean’s Honors, Spring 2018 - Fall 2019

Wei-Chih's Insights

Client Alert | 4 min read | 02.26.24

Update on Director Review Grants of PTAB Decisions 2.5 Years After Arthrex

Starting in June 2021, the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) instituted a policy to allow for the Director of the USPTO to review certain decisions by the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) issued in inter partes reviews (IPRs) and post grant reviews (PGRs).  That process, known as Director Review, was created in response to the decision in United States v. Arthrex, Inc., whereby the Supreme Court held that final written decisions of administrative patent judges in IPR proceedings must be subject to the review of the Director of the USPTO before they become the decisions of the agency.  141 S. Ct. 1970 (2021)....

Wei-Chih's Insights

Client Alert | 4 min read | 02.26.24

Update on Director Review Grants of PTAB Decisions 2.5 Years After Arthrex

Starting in June 2021, the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) instituted a policy to allow for the Director of the USPTO to review certain decisions by the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) issued in inter partes reviews (IPRs) and post grant reviews (PGRs).  That process, known as Director Review, was created in response to the decision in United States v. Arthrex, Inc., whereby the Supreme Court held that final written decisions of administrative patent judges in IPR proceedings must be subject to the review of the Director of the USPTO before they become the decisions of the agency.  141 S. Ct. 1970 (2021)....