new-email-outline

Focuses on complex contested matters in Federal Courts and before the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office. Mr. Kosma has served as counsel in numerous U.S. District Court trials and has successfully argued multiple appeals. Mr. Kosma approaches litigation like a businessman and relies on instinct to get results, whether it be taking a case through trial, or keeping clients out of the court room altogether through settlement or implementing licensing programs. Mr. Kosma’s cases regularly assert damages in the 100s of millions of dollars.

Mr. Kosma has argued in federal district courts across the country, and has successfully assisted clients before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. Representing clients on a broad range of complex commercial issues, Mr. Kosma’s litigation experience has come in all shapes and sizes. His experience ranges from successfully winning a contract case on summary judgment, to enforcing a brand’s trademark rights in a full trial proceeding before the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board and later in District Court, to successfully asserting patents against large international companies.

Mr. Kosma leverages his years of patent and trademark prosecution experience to counsel clients and provide the best enforcement strategies. With a heavy emphasis in the medical, computer, electrical and mechanical arts, Mr. Kosma has combined his patent litigation and prosecution experience to represent clients in over ten Inter Partes Review (IPR) and Covered Business Method Review (CBM) proceedings before the PTAB.

Education

J.D. Seton Hall University 2008
B.S. Northeastern University, Mechanical Engineering 2003

Court Admissions

State of Colorado
State of Connecticut
State of New York
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
U.S. District Courts (Connecticut and others)
U.S. Patent and Trademark Office
U.S. Supreme Court

Associations

American Bar Association​

Blog Posts

Patents are Never Invalid, April 16, 2019
Extending Your Patent’s Life Utilizing Appeals, December 18, 2018
IPR Estoppel – Anything You Say May Be Used Against You In A Court Of Law, September 26, 2017
While Fame Is All-Or-Nothing For Some And Relative For Others, This Is Not To Be Confused At The TTAB, June 7, 2017
Federal Circuit Severely Limits Patents Eligible for CBM Review, November 22, 2016

Litigation/Contested Matters

United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit

WhitServe LLC v. Dropbox, Inc.
WhitServe LLC v. Donuts Inc. & eNom, LLC
Hylete LLC v. Hybrid Athletics, LLC
Karl Storz Endoscopy-America v. Integrated Medical Systems
MeadWestvaco Corp. v. Rexam Beauty
Karl Storz Imaging, Inc. v. Pointe Conception Medical, Inc.
WhitServe LLC v. Computer Packages, Inc. et al.

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Dropbox, Inc. v. WhitServe LLC IPR2019-01018
Dropbox, Inc. v. WhitServe LLC IPR2019-01019
Synaptive Medical Inc. v. Karl Storz Endoscopy-America, Inc. IPR2018-00462
Karl Storz Endoscopy-America, Inc. v. Novadaq Tech., Inc. IPR2015-01847
Stryker Corp. v. Karl Storz Endoscopy-America, Inc. IPR2015-00672
Stryker Corp. v. Karl Storz Endoscopy-America, Inc. IPR2015-00673
Stryker Corp. v. Karl Storz Endoscopy-America, Inc. IPR2015-00674
Stryker Corp. v. Karl Storz Endoscopy-America, Inc. IPR2015-00675
Stryker Corp. v. Karl Storz Endoscopy-America, Inc. IPR2015-00677
Stryker Corp. v. Karl Storz Endoscopy-America, Inc. IPR2015-00678
Stryker Corp. v. Karl Storz Endoscopy-America, Inc. IPR2015-00679
Stryker Corp. v. Karl Storz Endoscopy-America, Inc. IPR2015-00764
GoDaddy.com, LLC v. WhitServe LLC CBM2015-00072
GoDaddy.com, LLC v. WhitServe LLC CBM2015-00066
Square, Inc. v. Protegrity Corp. CBM2014-00182
Voltage Security, Inc. v. Protegrity Corp. CBM2014-00024
Google Inc. v. WhitServe LLC IPR2013-00249

Trademark Trial and Appeal Board

Bliss World LLC v. Kosmatology LLC
Hylete LLC v. Hybrid Athletics, LLC
Quality Vision Intl. Inc. v. Karl Storz Endoscopy-America, Inc.
Hybrid Athletics, LLC v. Hylete LLC

United States District Court

AlexSam, Inc. v. Aetna Inc. (D. Conn.)
Hybrid Athletics, LLC v. Hylete LLC (D. Conn.)(Mot. Squash Subpoena on behalf of CrossFit, Inc.)
Karl Storz Endoscopy-America, Inc. v. Stryker Corp. et al. III (N.D. Cal.)
Karl Storz Endoscopy-America, Inc. v. Steris Corp. (N.D. Ohio)
Bombas LLC v. Maison Impeccable (N.Y.S.D.)
WhitServe LLC v. Dropbox, Inc. (D. Del.)
Verilux, Inc. v. Circadian Optics et al. (D. Conn.)
WhitServe LLC v. Donuts Inc. et al. (D. Del.)
WhitServe LLC V. eNom, LLC (D. Del.)
Hybrid Athletics, LLC v. Hylete, LLC (D. Conn.)
Karl Storz Endoscopy-America, Inc. v. Synaptive Medical, Inc. (N.Y.S.D.)
Hawk Technology Systems, LLC v. Bozzuto’s, Inc. (D. Conn.)
RegenLab USA LLC  v. Estar Technologies Ltd. et al. (N.Y.S.D.)
Hawk Technology Systems, LLC v. St. Vincent’s Medical Center (D. Conn.)
Novadaq Technologies v. Karl Storz GmbH & Co. K.G. et al. (N.D. Cal.)
Karl Storz Endoscopy-America, Inc. v. Stryker Corp. et al. II (N.D. Cal.)
Karl Storz Endoscopy-America Inc. v. Integrated Medical Systems Intl. Inc. (N.D. Ala.)
Pentair Sudmo GmbH v. SPX Corp. et al. (D. Del.)
WhitServe LLC v. GoDaddy.com, Inc. et al. (D. Conn. / D. Mass.)
WhitServe LLC v. Patrafee AB et al. (D. Conn.)
Karl Storz Endoscopy-America Inc. v. Richard Wolf Medical Instruments Corp. (N.D. Ill.)
WhitServe LLC v. Dennemeyer & Co. LLC et al. (D. Conn.)
MeadWestvaco Corp. et al. v. Rexam PLC, et al. (E.D. Va.)
Lemont Aircraft Corp. v. Cooler Master USA Inc. et al. (D. Conn.)
Verilux Inc. v. Ottlite Tech. Inc. (D. Conn.)
Ottlite Tech. Inc. v. Verilux, Inc. (M.D. Fla.)
Bendix Commercial Vehicle Systems LLC, et al. v. Haldex Brake Products Corp. (N.D. Ohio)
Shake-Away Inc. v. Weiser Group LLC et al. (D. Conn.)
Karl Storz Endoscopy-America, Inc. v. FemSuite, LLC (N.D. Cal.)
United Aluminum Corp. v. BOC Group Inc. (D. Conn.)
Abraxis Bioscience, Inc. v. Navinta LLC (D.N.J.)
WhitServe LLC v. Computer Packages, Inc. et al. (D. Conn.)

© Copyright 2021 Whitmyer IP Group