Skip to Content

Eric is a registered patent attorney and senior intellectual property litigator at Lombard & Geliebter with a diverse range of intellectual property experience, including patent litigation and prosecution, trademark litigation and prosecution, and copyright registration. He advises clients ranging from multinational corporations to small businesses to entrepreneurs and startups on all matters related to the protection and enforcement of intellectual property rights.

He focuses his practice on patent litigation, representing clients in federal district court and in Section 337 investigations before the U.S. International Trade Commission. Eric is experienced in all aspects of patent litigation, including pre-suit diligence, infringement and validity strategies, claim construction, discovery, motion practice, pretrial preparation, and trial.

His technology experience covers a range of applications, including biotechnology, consumer products, food production, macrophotography, wireless digital communications, optical disc drives, electronic imaging, analog power detectors, intrinsically safe circuits, and “fire-safe” paper technology.

In addition to patent litigation, Eric also has experience preparing and prosecuting patent applications before the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, managing patent portfolios, and providing strategic counseling to clients to identify and protect their intellectual property.

Eric also has extensive experience with trademark litigation and prosecution matters, including representing clients in trademark disputes in federal district court and before the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board.

Prior to joining the firm, Eric was an associate in the Boston offices of Pepper Hamilton LLP and Foley Hoag LLP.

Eric is admitted to practice in Massachusetts, and before the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit, and the United States Patent and Trademark Office.

Representative Matters

  • Lopez v. Foot Locker Stores, Inc., et al., No. 1:19-cv-01271 (S.D.N.Y.) Defended national department store chain Nordstrom, Inc. in trademark infringement action.
  • Lopez v. True Religion Sales, LLC et al, 1:18-cv-10595 (S.D.N.Y.) Defended multinational retailer Urban Outfitters, Inc. in trademark infringement action.
  • Cosmetic Warriors Limited v. Luscious Group LLC, et al., No. 1:18-cv-04803 (N.D. Ill.) Defended independent cosmetics maker in trademark infringement action by IP holding company of global retailer.
  • Lumos Technology Co., Ltd. v. JEDMED Instrument Company, No. 1:16-cv-06939 (S.D.N.Y.) Defended medical device distributor in patent infringement action relating to macrophotography.
  • Tandem Goods LLC v. Casper Sleep Inc., No. 1:17-cv-06670 (S.D.N.Y.) Represented inventor/start-up manufacturer and designer of bedding products in patent infringement action against nationally recognized competitor.
  • Galderma S.A. v. Skinn Cosmetics, LLC, et al., No. 2:16-CV-02366 (C.D. Cal.) Represented global dermatological company in seeking declaratory judgment of non-infringement of defendant’s trademark.
  • Zany Toys, LLC v. Pearl Enterprises, LLC, No. 3:13-cv-05262 (D.N.J.) Represented manufacturer of popular, nationally recognized consumer toy in action for trademark and trade dress infringement.
  • Certain Optical Disc Drives, Components Thereof, and Products Containing the Same, U.S. International Trade Commission Investigation No. 337-TA-897. Represented complainant in patent infringement action asserting six patents relating to technology essential to contemporary optical disc drives against major manufacturers of laptop computers, Blu-ray disc players, and video game systems, including Lenovo, LG, Nintendo, Panasonic, Samsung, Toshiba, and MediaTek.
  • Certain Electronic Imaging Devices, U.S. International Trade Commission Investigation No. 337-TA-850. Represented complainant in patent infringement action asserting four patents relating to technology used in connection with electronic imaging devices against major manufacturers of smartphone, including HTC, Pantech, Huawei, and ZTE.
  • Enterasys Networks, Inc. v. Foundry Networks, LLC, et al., No. 1:05-cv-11298 (D. Mass.) Represented plaintiff in patent infringement action asserting four patents relating to networking technology (switches, LAN networking).
  • Siemens Healthcare Diagnostics, Inc. v. Enzo Life Sciences, Inc., No. 4:10-cv-40124 (D. Mass.) Represented clinical diagnostic testing supplier in appeal of decision by Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences regarding the priority of invention of patent claims covering nucleic acid hybridization assays.
  • Ride, Inc. et al. v. APS Technology, Inc. et al., No. 3:11-cv-1721 (D. Conn.) Represented defendant manufacturer in contract dispute involving patents for oil well drilling technologies.                          
  • Max-Planck-Gesellschaft zur Förderung der Wissenschaften e.V. et al. v. Whitehead Institute for Biomedical Research et al., No. 1:09-cv-11116 (D. Mass.) Defended University of Massachusetts in action by Max Planck Institute and Alnylam Pharmaceuticals against three co-owners of patent applications directed to therapeutic uses of RNA interference (RNAi).
  • Certain Reduced Ignition Proclivity Cigarette Paper Wrappers and Products Containing Same, U.S. International Trade Commission Investigation No. 337-TA-756. Defended European specialty paper manufacturer delfortgroup AG and U.S. importer in patent infringement action asserting two patents relating to “fire-safe” paper technology.
  • Bedessee Imports Inc. et al. v. Republic of Guyana et al., No. 1:09-cv-02846 (E.D.N.Y.) Defended foreign government and state-owned sugar company against action for trademark infringement.