Mark Jotanovic, a registered patent attorney, practices out of the firm’s Troy office. He focuses his practice on intellectual property litigation and patent prosecution involving electrical, electro-mechanical, and software matters. He has worked in a wide range of electrical and computer technologies, including artificial intelligence (focusing on image recognition, machine learning, and neural networks), autonomous vehicles, cloud computing, smart home environments, and product design. His clients, which include companies of all sizes in a wide variety of industries such as automotive, artificial intelligence, computer software, consumer products, and retail, rely on Mark for guidance in all aspects of intellectual property litigation.
Mark has entered appearances as trial counsel before multiple Federal District courts throughout the country, including California, Michigan, Delaware, and Texas. His experience in patent prosecution and litigation positions Mark to successfully represent clients as lead counsel in inter partes review and post-grant proceedings. Mark has also argued at the Federal Circuit. In addition to his litigation experience, Mark advises clients on the proper use of Open Source Software, helping them better understand complex software licenses and copyright matters.
Mark has entered appearances as trial counsel before multiple Federal District courts throughout the country, including California, Michigan, Delaware, and Texas. His experience in patent prosecution and litigation positions Mark to successfully represent clients as lead counsel in inter partes review and post-grant proceedings. Mark has also argued at the Federal Circuit. In addition to his litigation experience, Mark advises clients on the proper use of Open Source Software, helping them better understand complex software licenses and copyright matters.
Education & Credentials
Education
University of Detroit Mercy School of Law
J.D.Wayne State University
B.S., Electrical Engineering- Presidential Scholar Recipient
Bar Admission
Acknowledgements
- Best Lawyers in America®
- Patent Law, 2023-2024
- Michigan Super Lawyers
- “Rising Star,” Intellectual Property, 2016-2022
Prominent Assignments
- Maxchief v. Plastic Development Group (Settlement – E.D. Michigan): Lead counsel for Defendant, Plastic Development Group (PDG) in a patent infringement matter regarding blow-molded tables. Successfully transferred the case to E.D. Michigan shortly after the Supreme Courts decision in TC Heartland. Also served as counsel to PDG during inter partes review proceedings to challenge the asserted patents validity. The Patent Trial and Appeal Board instituted on all grounds for all challenged claims. The case settled favorably shortly after transferring to PDG’s home forum and institution of the inter partes review. Case No. 2:17-cv-12662
- WP Banquet, LLC et al. v. Target Corporation et al. (Settlement – C.D. California): Lead counsel for furniture manufacturer Plastic Development Group and retailer Target accused of infringing four patents. Successfully moved to sever and stay the case for Plastic Development Group’s customer Target. Managed to secure a favorable settlement on behalf of Plastic Development group shortly thereafter. Case No. 2:16-cv-02082
- Ancora Techs. v. Apple, Inc. (Federal Circuit): Counsel for Ancora Technologies patent infringement action concerning computer software. Obtained a positive claim construction ruling for the patent holder on appeal to the Federal Circuit. Case No: 744 F.3d 732
- GeoTag, Inc. v. Domino’s Pizza Inc. (Summary Judgment – E.D. Texas): Successfully defended Domino’s Pizza in a patent infringement action in East Texas which also involved over 600 defendants. After the other defendants settled, Domino’s was sole defendant left in case. Court granted summary judgment of non-infringement in favor of Domino’s on five different grounds. Case No. 10-cv-0572
- Hoya Corporation v. Inland Diamond Products (PTAB): Lead Counsel in defending Inland Diamond Products relating to inter partes review petitions filed by Hoya. Case No. IPR2018-00178, IPR2018-00596
- ElectroJet Technologies, Inc. v. STIHL Incorporated (E.D. Virginia): Representing Electrojet in patent lawsuit relating to engine timing control. Case No. 2:17-cv-00224
- STIHL Incorporated et al v. ElectroJet Technologies, Inc. (PTAB): Defending Electrojet relating to inter partes review petitions filed by STIHL. Case No. IPR2018-00018, IPR2018-00020
- DietGoal, Inc. v. Domino’s Pizza, Inc. (E.D. Virginia): Successfully defended Domino’s in patent infringement action. Patent declared invalid as not directed to patentable subject matter. Case No. 2:12-cv-430
- Ancora Techs. v. Apple, Inc. (Federal Circuit): Counsel for Ancora Technologies patent infringement action concerning computer software. Obtained a positive claim construction ruling for the patent holder on appeal to the Federal Circuit. Case No: 744 F.3d 732
- Extang Corporation et al v. Truck Accessories Group, LLC d/b/a LEER, Inc. DDE-1-19-cv-00923
Professional Involvement
- State Bar of Michigan
- Federal Circuit Bar Association
Publications/Presentations
- Co-Author, "Doobie-ous Competition: How a Cannabis Company Can Use Employment Agreements to Protect Intellectual Property," Dickinson Wright IP Brief blog, September 2023
- Co-Author, "How To Protect Your Cannabis Trademarks in a Legal Landscape That Is Half-Baked," Dickinson Wright IP Brief blog, September 2023
- Co-Author, "Avoiding a Bad Trip: How Cannabis Companies Can Mitigate the Risk of an Infringement Lawsuit," Dickinson Wright IP Brief blog, August 2023
- Co-Author, “ChargePoint Seeks Supreme Court Review of Patent Ineligibility Ruling in ChargePoint, Inc. v. SemaConnect, Inc. Litigation,” Blog Post, October 2019
- Presenter, “Importance of Intellectual Property Law and How the America Invents Act (AIA) has Impacted the Industry,” University of Michigan – Dearborn, November 2014