William Valet joined the firm in 2014. He has experience in all phases of patent preparation and prosecution. Mr. Valet is experienced in a wide range of technologies, including the mechanical and electromechanical arts, electrical arts, medical devices, computer hardware and software, and optics and optical systems. He also conducts validity studies and clearance searches in addition to drafting patent applications and preparing responses to Office Actions.
Mr. Valet’s zeal for technical design and mechanical processes led him to pursue and obtain his mechanical engineering degree at Lehigh University. Experienced in a wide variety of fields, he has designed automation equipment for the medical diagnostics industry, evaluated and tested consumer products for Underwriters Laboratories, and helped develop the superconducting radio frequency cavities and liquid helium cryogenic plant for the National Synchrotron Light Source II project at Brookhaven National Laboratory. Excited by the prospect of protecting technical innovations, Mr. Valet went on to earn his J.D. from the Jacob D. Fuchsberg Law Center at Touro College.
- Touro College, Jacob D. Fuchsberg Law Center, J.D., 2015
- Lehigh University, B.S., Mechanical Engineering, 2006
- State of New York
- U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York
- U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York
Mr. Valet leverages his technical expertise to draft and prosecute patent applications for the firm’s clients. By understanding client business goals, he works with his colleagues to assess infringement risks during the preparation of patent applications, validity studies, and clearance searches. In order to understand the advances in his fields of technology and the evolution of patent law practice, he performs extensive research in addition to writing and publishing articles on recent IP developments.
- Improper Hindsight – The Forgotten Argument Given Renewed Teeth by the Federal Circuit
- Think that provisional application qualifies as prior art? Better think again.
- Federal Circuit Continues to Clamp Down on IPR Amendment Practice
- “Consisting of:” Not as Narrow as You Think
- Federal Circuit Lays Out Another Piece of the Software Patent Eligibility Puzzle
- Importing Limitations from the Specification into the Claims: When Is It Proper?