Skip To Content

Primary Practice Areas:

Industry Focus:

Education:

  • Rutgers University, J.D.
  • Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, B.S., Information Technology

Bar Admissions:

  • Delaware
  • New Jersey
  • New York
  • Pennsylvania
  • United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO)
  • United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
  • United States District Court for the District of New Jersey
  • United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania
  • United States District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania
  • United States District Court for the Southern District of New York
  • United States District Court for the District of Delaware

Languages:

  • English

Keith A. Jones (He/Him) focuses his practice on intellectual property and technology litigation, including patent, copyright, trademark, unfair competition, and trade secret cases in Federal District Courts across the country and at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. Keith also assists clients in Inter Partes Review proceedings before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board, in trademark cancellation proceedings before the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board, and with patent applications before the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office.

Keith A. Jones’s practice focuses on patent, copyright, trademark, unfair competition, and trade secret litigation; Inter Partes Review proceedings before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board; trademark cancellation proceedings before the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board; and the preparation and prosecution of patent applications.

Keith has litigated cases involving many technologies and industries, such as internet technologies, silicon processing, LCD displays, printing presses, solar panel support structures, medical products, electronic commerce, and other software. His focus in patent prosecution is on the electrical and computing related arts.

Prior to starting his career with Panitch Schwarze Belisario & Nadel, LLP, Keith was a research assistant at Rutgers University School of Law in Camden, New Jersey. Before this, he was a student volunteer with the Rutgers Domestic Violence Project providing legal information to victims of domestic violence to enable them to make informed decisions regarding their pursuit of restraining orders.

Keith is a member of the Delaware, Pennsylvania, New Jersey, and New York bars and is admitted to practice before the U.S. Patent & Trademark Office. He also is admitted to practice before the U.S. District Courts in the District of New Jersey, Eastern and Middle Districts of Pennsylvania, the District of Delaware, the Southern District of New York, and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit.

Keith received his bachelor’s degree in Information Technology from Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, with a concentration in communications and networking technologies. He then received his law degree from the Rutgers University School of Law at Camden, where he was a member of the Intellectual Property Law Society and president of the ice hockey team.

 

Memberships
  • Philadelphia Intellectual Property Law Association (PIPLA), Board of Governors, 2016 — 2018
District Court Cases – asserting and defending patent, trademark, copyright and trade secret rights
  • Pierre Fabre v. Annora Pharma, District of Delaware. Represented Plaintiffs, a French pharmaceutical company, French university, and French hospital, in a Hatch-Waxman case involving two patents covering a novel use for an existing drug. After a two-day bench trial, the parties settled following the Court’s comments that it would likely find for the Plaintiffs and exclude the Defendant’s proposed generic drug from the market until the patents expire.
  • PeriRx v. The Regents of the University of California, Eastern District of Pennsylvania.  Represented the University of California in a patent licensing dispute.  Obtained partial dismissal of Plaintiff’s claims at the pleadings stage and summary judgment victory on the remaining claims and an award of a portion of the University’s attorneys’ fees.
  • Zoetis v. Boehringer Inhelheim Vetmedica, Southern District of New York.  Represented Plaintiff Zoetis, a multinational animal health company, in a patent licensing dispute.  Case settled after obtaining favorable summary judgment ruling on interpretation of the relevant contract.
  • Web 2.0 Technologies v. Moxtra, District of Delaware.  Represented defendant Moxtra, a provider of team collaboration/document sharing software, in a patent infringement action filed by a patent assertion entity. The Court granted Moxtra’s initial Motion to Dismiss at the pleadings stage and the parties negotiated a dismissal with prejudice shortly after the filing of an Amended Complaint.
  • ImmerVision v. LG Electronics, District of Delaware.  Represented Plaintiff and patent owner ImmerVision, Inc., a Canadian lens design company, in a patent infringement action.  Case settled after obtaining favorable claim construction ruling and a favorable validity ruling in a parallel Inter Partes Review proceeding.
  • Regalo v. Munchkin, District of Delaware. Represented plaintiff Regalo in a patent infringement case over child safety devices. Case settled favorably after highly successful claim construction opinion was issued.
  • Life Alert v. Stealth Technologies and HSN, District of Delaware; Life Alert v. International Marketing Group, Eastern District of Missouri. Represented plaintiff Life Alert in parallel design patent and copyright infringement cases over emergency telephones. Cases settled favorably during discovery.
  • Tamr v. CloudTamer.io, District of Delaware. Represented plaintiff Tamr, Inc., a data integration software provider, in trademark infringement, anticybersquatting, and unfair competition case regarding use of the mark TAMR. Early favorable settlement achieved.
  • Elgin Power v. Jerry Farmer, District of Delaware.  Represented defendant against his former employer in misappropriation of trade secrets and breach of contract action.  Obtained early-stage procedural dismissal to minimize cost to client.
  • Blackbird Technologies v. Hyperikon, District of Delaware. Represented defendant Hyperikon, Inc., in a patent infringement case filed by a patent assertion entity regarding LED bulbs. Early favorable settlement achieved.
  • Mattern & Associates v. Cozen O’Connor, Eastern District of Pennsylvania. Represented plaintiff, Mattern & Associates LLC, in a copyright infringement litigation against a law firm regarding its use of Mattern’s copyrighted documents. Early favorable settlement achieved.
Arbitration – out-of-court disputes over IP rights
  • Defended a European pharmaceutical company against multi-million dollar claims of theft of trade secrets and improper inventorship of patents at the American Arbitration Association. After a two-week hearing, the arbitration panel rejected all claims.
Post-Grant Matters (Patent Trial and Appeal Board) – proceedings challenging or defending patent validity before the USPTO, including Inter Partes Reviews (IPRs)
  • LG Electronics v. ImmerVision (IPR2020-00179, IPR2020-00195). Represented owner of patent on panoramic image capture and lens design with localized enhanced resolution.  Obtained final decisions upholding challenged patent claim.
  • Hamamatsu v. SiOnyx (IPR2016-01910). Represented petitioner over patent on textured semiconductor imager devices, including through appeal to the Federal Circuit. Obtained a final decision invalidating majority of challenged claims and affirmance on appeal.
  • Hamamatsu v. Harvard College (Harvard University) (IPR2016-01143). Represented petitioner over patent on textured semiconductor material. Obtained a final decision invalidating majority of challenged claims
Trademark Trial and Appeal Board (TTAB) – proceedings challenging or defending trademark registrations
  • Spring Meadow Nursery v. The Conard-Pyle Company.  Represented Conard-Pyle, a leading horticultural product company and developer of the KNOCK OUT rose brand, in an opposition to its efforts to obtain a trademark registration for a new KNOCK OUT variant.  Initiated use of the TTAB’s Accelerated Case Resolution process to reduce client fees and obtained a final ruling denying the opposer’s claims and allowing the registration to issue.
  • Lincoln National Life Insurance v. Kansas City Life Insurance. Represented Lincoln National in challenging the registration of ACCELETERM as a trademark. Successfully cancelled the registration through the Alternative Case Resolution process.
Appellate Matters
  • LG Electronics v. ImmerVision (Case 21-2037, Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit).  Represented appellee and patent owner ImmerVision, Inc. in appeal of final written decisions by the Patent Trial and Appeal Board’s decision to uphold the validity of ImmerVision’s patents.  Obtained a precedential decision affirming the Board’s decision.

 

  • Best Lawyers in America®, “Ones to Watch” – Litigation, 2021-2023
  • IAM, Patent 1000, Recommended Lawyer, 2024-Present
  • IP Star, Managing Intellectual Property, 2024
  • Super Lawyers: Pennsylvania, 2024-Present; “Rising Star”, 2021-2022

Keith lives in Ambler, Pennsylvania with his wife and children.  As the father of a child with cerebral palsy, Keith is a passionate advocate for expanding access to services for children with disabilities. He enjoys playing with a local ice hockey team and is an accomplished musician, writing and performing music along with playing the bass guitar and guitar. In the rare times that his schedule permits, he enjoys traveling with his wife.

Kieth Jones singing and playing bass on stage

Let's Plan

Panitch Schwarze commits the time to listen to and evaluate each client’s unique needs so we can advise on the best forms of IP protection.

Contact Us
Sign Up for Our Newsletter