Since 2016 I have been the client engagement manager for U.S. and international clients of InventIP. We have grown from the two founding partners to over 27 attorneys and engineers at the firm, located in Noida, India.

Ken Sheets is Of Counsel with Kenealy Vaidya LLP. Mr. Sheets is a registered patent attorney and has over fifteen years’ experience representing global technology companies in patent and trademark portfolio development. His practice includes all levels of patent application preparation and prosecution, providing freedom to operate opinions, performing post-grant proceedings, and portfolio monetization. Mr. Sheets has extensive experience preparing and prosecuting patents in the areas of search engines, signal processing, broadband and network communications, VOIP, and telecom technologies. As outside counsel for a leading broadband and DSP technology company in Texas, he trained and assisted inventors to prepare invention disclosures and managed the in-house patent committee. As in-house patent counsel with a leading services and technology corporation, Mr. Sheets managed IP procurement and acquisition, due diligence for mergers and acquisitions, litigation matters, and developed a successful outsourced patent practice. Mr. Sheets has represented clients in various phases of intellectual property and contract dispute litigation in federal district and state courts and the U.S. I.T.C. including patent, trademark, and copyright suits, Internet defamation, and post-grant patent and trademark proceedings. Technology of asserted patents include medical, biotech, software, electrical, telecom, and mechanical devices. A number of the court decisions received precedential status.Mr. Sheets graduated with a B.S. in civil-environmental engineering from the U. of Oklahoma, and he is currently pursuing a degree in electrical engineering from G.M.U. He received his law degree from the U. of Tulsa College of Law in 1999. He is admitted to practice in Virginia and before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, the Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, the E. and W. District Courts of Virginia, and the US Patent & Trademark Office.

Representative cases include:-Harrier Technologies, Inc. v. CPA Global Limited, 3:12CV00167 (D. Conn. 2012) (Contract); -Whitserve LLC v. Patrafee AB et al, 3:11CV00562 (D. Conn. 2011) (Defendant-Patent); -Whitserve LLC v. Computer Packages, Inc., 3:06CV1935 (D. Conn. 2006) (Intervening Third-Party Defendant- Trade Secret: successfully stopped competitors from possessing and using client's trade secrets); -Whitserve LLC v. Computer Patent Annuities Inc., 3:04CV01897 (D. Conn. 2004) (Cross Plaintiff- Trade Secret).

Representative cases include:- Eastern America Trio Products, Inc. v. Tang Electronic Corp., 97 F.Supp.2d 395 (S.D. N.Y. 2000) (Defendant- Patent, Trademark, Trade Dress, and Copyright)- Spectrum Creations, Inc. v. Catalina Lighting, Inc., 2001 WL 1910566 (W.D. Tx. 2001) (Defendant/Cross Plaintiff- Copyright)- Abstracts Associates v. Hewlett Packard, Pentax, Polaroid, Epson America (D. Md. 2001) (Plaintiff - Patent)- Waymark Corp. v. Porta Sys. Corp. 2000 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 22462 (S.D. Fla. 2000), rev'd in part, Waymark Corp. v. Porta Sys. Corp. 245 F.3d 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (Plaintiff - Patent and Trademark: successfully stopped Defendant from producing infringing device; set precedent regarding exportation of components)- Catalina Lighting, Inc. and Home Depot USA, Inc. v. Lamps Plus, Inc., 295 F.3d 1277 (Fed. Cir. 2002) (Declaratory Judgment Plaintiff- Patent: set precedent in that no double dipping of damages allowed for design and utility patents covering the same device.)- Mylan Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v. Kremers Urban Dev. Co., 2003 WL 22711586 (D. Del. 2003) (Plaintiff- Patent: $50M settlement for clients Mylan and Esteve Chemica)- Audubon Commission v. Philadelphia Insectarium (TTAB 2004) (Petitioner- Trademark: client cancelled respondent's trademark)- In the Matter of Certain Plastic Grocery and Retail Bags (US ITC 337-TA-492) (Respondent- Patent: favorable settlement allowed client to keep operating and importing)- Classen Immunotherapies, Inc. v. King Pharmaceuticals, Inc. and Elan Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 403 F.Supp.2d 451 (D. Md. 2005); 466 F.Supp.2d 621 (D. Md. 2006). (Plaintiff- Patent)- Classen Immunotherapies, Inc. v. Biogen Idec, 304 F. App'x 866 (Fed. Cir. 2008) cert. granted, judgment vacated, Classen Immunotherapies, Inc. v. Biogen IDEC, 130 S. Ct. 3541, 177 L. Ed. 2d 1119 (U.S. 2010) and aff'd in part, Classen Immunotherapies, Inc. v. Biogen IDEC, 659 F.3d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 2011). (Plaintiff- Patent)