About Timothy
Tim’s extensive experience includes patent office litigation matters such as patent interference proceedings, Inter Partes Review and reexamination proceedings. He has shaped and executed winning strategies in patent litigations. In helping clients achieve their business goals, Tim devises strategies for maximizing the value of patent portfolios for litigation, licensing or acquisition. He develops and implements strategies for protecting his clients’ key technologies and for avoiding allegations of infringement.By working closely with clients to understand their business goals and inventions, Tim has developed intellectual property portfolios that have provided significant value to our clients. Tim has worked with clients of all sizes, and he takes a special interest in protecting the intellectual property portfolios of our clients as they grow.The technologies that Tim has handled are wide-ranging and include: mechanical and electromechanical devices, such as electric motors, scanners and plotters, printing press technology, IV delivery systems, blood-processing equipment, surgical instruments, diagnostic equipment, HVAC, and clean room systems; hardware and software inventions, such as image-processing systems, sound-processing systems, magnetic-resonance imaging, various types of tracking devices, remote-control devices, file servers, and web-based business methods; as well as recombinant proteins, antisense oligonucleotides, and a variety of pharmaceutical matters.Tim has also worked with clients to help ensure their products do not infringe third-party patents. He has decades of experience conducting clearance studies where the competitor’s patent was determined to be invalid, or where the client’s product was determined not to infringe.In other situations, Tim has provided guidance to clients to successfully design around competitors’ patents. Tim also has a great deal of experience preparing clearance opinions, when necessary for protecting clients from charges of willful patent infringement.Representative cases include:Kotowski et al. v. Mastronardi et al.Board of Patent Appeals and InterferencesMcGuire et al. v. Schmieding (lead attorney)Board of Patent Appeals and InterferencesThompson et al. v. Normand et al. (lead attorney)Board of Patent Appeals and InterferencesIn re U.S. Patent No. 6,835,887 (Activision Publishing, Inc.), In re U.S. Patent No. 6,369,313 (Activision Publishing, Inc.), In re U.S. Patent No. 6,225,547 (Konami Digital Entertainment Co., Ltd.)Inter Partes Reexamination Proceedings, USPTOUniversity of Western Australia, v. Academisch Ziekenhuis Leiden (lead attorney) Patent Trial and Appeal BoardIvera Medical Corp. v. Catheter Connections, Inc.United States District Court for the Southern District of CaliforniaCatheter Connections, Inc. v. Ivera Medical Corp.United States District Court for the District of UtahSoftspikes, LLC et al. v. MacNeill Engineering Company, Inc.Trisport, Ltd. et al. v. MacNeill Engineering Company, Inc. et al.United States District Court for the District of DelawareMacNeill Engineering, Inc. v. Trisport, Ltd.United States District Court for the District of MassachusettsHP Hood LLC v. Stremicks Heritage Foods LLCUnited States District Court for the Southern District of CaliforniaComair Rotron v. Papst Licensing GmbhUnited States District Court for the District of ColumbiaComair Rotron v. Nippon Densan Corporation and Nidec CorporationUnited States District Court for the District of ConnecticutComair Rotron, Inc. v. Matsushita Electric Corporation of America et al.United States Court of Appeals for the Federal CircuitUnited States District Court for the District of New JerseyB. Braun Medical, Inc. v. Abbott LaboratoriesUnited States Court of Appeals for the Federal CircuitUnited States District Court for the Eastern District of PennsylvaniaNetwork Appliance, Inc. v. BlueArc CorporationUnited States District Court for the Northern District of CaliforniaPrecision Engineered Systems v. v Printex Products Corp.United States District Court for the District of the Western District of New YorkAmgen, Inc. v. Hoffman-La Roche Inc.United States District Court for the District of MassachusettsAPP Pharmaceuticals, LLC v. Ameridose, LLCUnited States District Court for the District of New JerseyLinotype-Hell AG v. Intergraph CorporationUnited States District Court for the District of MassachusettsPreviously, Tim worked in New York and California in the legal department of a large, multinational computer manufacturer.https://www.nutter.com/people-Timothy-M-Murphy
Tim’s extensive experience includes patent office litigation matters such as patent interference proceedings, Inter Partes Review and reexamination proceedings. He has shaped and executed winning strategies in patent litigations. In helping clients achieve their business goals, Tim devises strategies for maximizing the value of patent portfolios for litigation, licensing or acquisition. He develops and implements strategies for protecting his clients’ key technologies and for avoiding allegations of infringement.By working closely with clients to understand their business goals and inventions, Tim has developed intellectual property portfolios that have provided significant value to our clients. Tim has worked with clients of all sizes, and he takes a special interest in protecting the intellectual property portfolios of our clients as they grow.The technologies that Tim has handled are wide-ranging and include: mechanical and electromechanical devices, such as electric motors, scanners and plotters, printing press technology, IV delivery systems, blood-processing equipment, surgical instruments, diagnostic equipment, HVAC, and clean room systems; hardware and software inventions, such as image-processing systems, sound-processing systems, magnetic-resonance imaging, various types of tracking devices, remote-control devices, file servers, and web-based business methods; as well as recombinant proteins, antisense oligonucleotides, and a variety of pharmaceutical matters.Tim has also worked with clients to help ensure their products do not infringe third-party patents. He has decades of experience conducting clearance studies where the competitor’s patent was determined to be invalid, or where the client’s product was determined not to infringe.In other situations, Tim has provided guidance to clients to successfully design around competitors’ patents. Tim also has a great deal of experience preparing clearance opinions, when necessary for protecting clients from charges of willful patent infringement.Representative cases include:Kotowski et al. v. Mastronardi et al.Board of Patent Appeals and InterferencesMcGuire et al. v. Schmieding (lead attorney)Board of Patent Appeals and InterferencesThompson et al. v. Normand et al. (lead attorney)Board of Patent Appeals and InterferencesIn re U.S. Patent No. 6,835,887 (Activision Publishing, Inc.), In re U.S. Patent No. 6,369,313 (Activision Publishing, Inc.), In re U.S. Patent No. 6,225,547 (Konami Digital Entertainment Co., Ltd.)Inter Partes Reexamination Proceedings, USPTOUniversity of Western Australia, v. Academisch Ziekenhuis Leiden (lead attorney) Patent Trial and Appeal BoardIvera Medical Corp. v. Catheter Connections, Inc.United States District Court for the Southern District of CaliforniaCatheter Connections, Inc. v. Ivera Medical Corp.United States District Court for the District of UtahSoftspikes, LLC et al. v. MacNeill Engineering Company, Inc.Trisport, Ltd. et al. v. MacNeill Engineering Company, Inc. et al.United States District Court for the District of DelawareMacNeill Engineering, Inc. v. Trisport, Ltd.United States District Court for the District of MassachusettsHP Hood LLC v. Stremicks Heritage Foods LLCUnited States District Court for the Southern District of CaliforniaComair Rotron v. Papst Licensing GmbhUnited States District Court for the District of ColumbiaComair Rotron v. Nippon Densan Corporation and Nidec CorporationUnited States District Court for the District of ConnecticutComair Rotron, Inc. v. Matsushita Electric Corporation of America et al.United States Court of Appeals for the Federal CircuitUnited States District Court for the District of New JerseyB. Braun Medical, Inc. v. Abbott LaboratoriesUnited States Court of Appeals for the Federal CircuitUnited States District Court for the Eastern District of PennsylvaniaNetwork Appliance, Inc. v. BlueArc CorporationUnited States District Court for the Northern District of CaliforniaPrecision Engineered Systems v. v Printex Products Corp.United States District Court for the District of the Western District of New YorkAmgen, Inc. v. Hoffman-La Roche Inc.United States District Court for the District of MassachusettsAPP Pharmaceuticals, LLC v. Ameridose, LLCUnited States District Court for the District of New JerseyLinotype-Hell AG v. Intergraph CorporationUnited States District Court for the District of MassachusettsPreviously, Tim worked in New York and California in the legal department of a large, multinational computer manufacturer.https://www.nutter.com/people-Timothy-M-Murphy
Tim’s extensive experience includes patent office litigation matters such as patent interference proceedings, Inter Partes Review and reexamination proceedings. He has shaped and executed winning strategies in patent litigations. In helping clients achieve their business goals, Tim devises strategies for maximizing the value of patent portfolios for litigation, licensing or acquisition. He develops and implements strategies for protecting his clients’ key technologies and for avoiding allegations of infringement.
By working closely with clients to understand their business goals and inventions, Tim has developed intellectual property portfolios that have provided significant value to our clients. Tim has worked with clients of all sizes, and he takes a special interest in protecting the intellectual property portfolios of our clients as they grow.
The technologies that Tim has handled are wide-ranging and include: mechanical and electromechanical devices, such as electric motors, scanners and plotters, printing press technology, IV delivery systems, blood-processing equipment, surgical instruments, diagnostic equipment, HVAC, and clean room systems; hardware and software inventions, such as image-processing systems, sound-processing systems, magnetic-resonance imaging, various types of tracking devices, remote-control devices, file servers, and web-based business methods; as well as recombinant proteins, antisense oligonucleotides, and a variety of pharmaceutical matters.
Tim has also worked with clients to help ensure their products do not infringe third-party patents. He has decades of experience conducting clearance studies where the competitor’s patent was determined to be invalid, or where the client’s product was determined not to infringe.
In other situations, Tim has provided guidance to clients to successfully design around competitors’ patents. Tim also has a great deal of experience preparing clearance opinions, when necessary for protecting clients from charges of willful patent infringement.
Representative cases include:
Previously, Tim worked in New York and California in the legal department of a large, multinational computer manufacturer.
https://www.nutter.com/people-Timothy-M-Murphy
Practice Areas
Education
Awards & Recognition
- Recognized: Litigation - Intellectual Property
- Recognized: Patent Law
- Practice Area: Litigation - Patent
- Selected by peers for inclusion in Best Lawyers in America® 2019-2021 for Intellectual Property Litigation.
- Tim was selected for inclusion in Super Lawyers® for 2005-2007 and 2010-2020 for intellectual property.
- Tim completed a joint engineering/law program at Columbia University in 1985, obtaining a degree in mechanical engineering with honors from Tau Beta Pi, as well as a law degree.
