Patrick Bright, Esq. at
WAGNER, ANDERSON
& BRIGHT, LLP
3541 Ocean View Blvd.
Glendale, California 91208

Phone: (213) 700-6637
Fax: (818) 249-9335
www.BrightPatentLaw.com
pbright@BrightPatentLaw.com

Bar Admissions and Education: Patrick F. Bright, Esq. is admitted to practice law in California (1976 to present) and New York (1969 to present). Mr. Bright's undergraduate degree is a BS in chemistry from Georgetown University. Mr. Bright holds a Juris Doctor degree with honors from George Washington University Law School 1969, and an L.L.M. in taxation from New York University, 1972. Mr. Bright is also trained as an accountant, including having passed all parts of the CPA examination.

Wagner, Anderson & Bright, Limited Liability Partnership (“WAB”): WAB is an intellectual property law firm. Every lawyer of WAB is an intellectual property lawyer; and the practice of WAB is limited to intellectual property matters–patents, trademarks, and copyright prosecution and litigation.

Patrick Bright, Esq., and each other lawyer of the Wagner, Anderson & Bright, LLP (“WAB”) law firm, is a duly licensed patent attorney, meaning that Bright and each other lawyer of the WAB law firm is licensed by the US Patent & Trademark Office (the United States government agency that issues patents to inventors, and issues trademarks) to represent inventors in applying to the US Patent & Trademark Office (“PTO”) for issuance of patents on the inventors’ inventions (referred to as “patent prosecution”). In addition, Bright, and each other lawyer of WAB, is licensed to appear before the PTO in all other kinds of PTO proceedings, including representing inventors , and parties challenging inventions, in PTO patent reexamination proceedings, PTO patent re-issuance proceedings, and PTO trademark applications and application proceedings.

To become licensed to represent parties before the PTO, Bright, and each other lawyer of WAP passed a rigorous nationwide test given by the PTO, plus met the hard science educational/experience requirements promulgated by the PTO for becoming licensed as a “patent attorney” (person entitled to practice before the PTO).

At WAB, Bright will continue his 40 year career of patent, trademark and copyright prosecution and litigation. At WAB, Bright will continue to be represent clients Bright represented at his previous law firm, Nordman Cormany Hair & Comptom, by agreement with the Nordman law firm. In addition, at WAB, Bright will continue to represent clients from Bright’s 20 years at his previous law partnership, Bright & Lorig, PC.

The formation of Bright’s new firm, WAB gives Bright enhanced abilities to represent clients in patent prosecution and patent litigation, as well as in trademark and copyright matters, because WAP is all licensed patent lawyers.

Representation of Inventors in Patent Litigation on a CONTINGENT FEE BASIS: Throughout his career as a patent lawyer, Mr. Bright and his law firms have represented inventors and other patent owners bringing lawsuits on a CONTINGENT FEE BASIS against companies infringing those patents, in worthy infringement suits. Mr. Bright is one of the very few experienced patent lawyers who represents inventors on a contingent fee basis, meaning that Mr. Bright is paid an attorneys fee only if the suit is won or settled, from the proceeds of the suit.

Free first consult to inventors and other patent holders to tell you whether Patrick F. Bright might be willing to represent you on a CONTINGENT FEE BASIS in suing companies infringing your patents. Contact Patrick F. Bright, Esq. by email to pbright@BrightPatentLaw.com.

Admission to Practice Before US Patent and Trademark Office: Mr. Bright has been licensed to practice before the US Patent and Trademark Office from 1966 to present, holding patent agent certificate No. 24,318. In his 39 year career prosecuting (applying for issuance of) patents in the US Patent and Trademark Office on behalf of inventor clients, Mr. Bright has obtained issuance of approximately 1000 patents for inventor clients. In addition, Mr. Bright has extensive experience representing parties in re-examination proceedings in the US Patent and Trademark Office, re-issuance proceedings in the US Patent and Trademark Office, and Appeals in the US Patent and Trademark Office. Only lawyers with hard science undergraduate degrees, who have taken and passed the national patent agent examination, and become licensed to practice before the US Patent and Trademark Office, can appear in US Patent and Trademark Office proceedings. Very few lawyers can match Mr. Bright's experience and results obtained before the US Patent and Trademark Office.

Litigation Advantages of Admission to Practice Before US Patent and Trademark Office: The majority of litigators who claim to be "patent lawyers" or "patent litigators" do not hold hard science undergraduate degrees, and so cannot be licensed, and are not licensed, to practice before the US Patent and Trademark Office. Because most patent litigators are not licensed to practice in the US Patent and Trademark Office, these lawyers cannot continue to represent the client when--as is very common in recent years--the defendant in a patent infringement lawsuit ongoing in US District Court applies in the US Patent and Trademark Office for re-examination of the patent(s) the plaintiff is suing to enforce; or where the plaintiff in a District Court patent infringement suit needs to apply to the US Patent and Trademark Office for re-issuance of a patent in litigation, to, inter alia, overcome alleged prior art located by the defendant(s). Mr. Bright can do all these things, and has a 39 year track record of getting clients exceptional results in the US Patent and Trademark Office.

Patent Licensing: Mr. Bright has extensive experience representing patent holders in licensing negotiations, in litigation involving licensing issues, and in the sale of patents and patent rights.

Patent Litigation: From 1976 to date, Mr. Bright has focused on patent solicitation and patent/trade secret litigation involving complex technology issues. From 1990 to 2005, Bright was a name partner of his own firm, Bright & Lorig, PC, which he and his partner are now dissolving to join larger firms. Before founding Bright & Lorig, P.C., Mr. Bright was a partner at Kendrick, Netter & Bennett, another Los Angeles patent law firm. In over 30 years doing patent litigation, Mr. Bright and his firms have represented companies ranging from large multinationals such as Litton Industries, now Northrop Grumman Corp., Teledyne, Sulzer Medical, and Unova, to smaller companies such as Sirius Satellite Radio, Inc. and Digital Instruments, now a part of Veeco, a major manufacturer of atomic force and other scanning electron microscopes. Bright was trial counsel for an individual who obtained one of the larger damage awards for an individual patentee in Coyle v. Sega, a case which resulted in a $44 million payment for willful patent infringement. Mr. Bright was second chair in the Litton v. Honeywell patent infringement case which provided a jury verdict of $1.2 billion for willful infringement. Mr. Bright represented Litton in the US Patent and Trademark Office in successfully obtaining reissuance of this patent for Litton, strengthening the patent, before Litton sued Honeywell for infringement. Mr. Bright has also had lead responsibility in several Markman litigations (claim interpretation tried to District Courts pursuant to the Federal Circuit Markman decision) in the years since Markman issued.

Mr. Bright was lead defense lawyer in a number of trade secret and patent cases resulting in either dismissals or settlement on terms considered beneficial by his clients. Mr. Bright was co-counsel in McCormick -Morgan, Inc. v. Teledyne Industries, Inc., reported in 765 F6 11 (ND 1991 Cal.) where he represented Teledyne Industries, Inc., a case establishing a waiver of attorney-client privilege could not be temporally limited.

Mr. Bright and his firm successfully represented Celeritas, a small technology company, in a patent infringement suit against AT&T and Rockwell, settling with AT&T, and recovering a 68 million judgment after jury trial against Rockwell. Mr. Bright was also lead trial counsel in a case entitled Core-Vent Corp. v. Implant Innovations Inc., reported at 53 F.2d 1252 ( Fed. Cir. 1995), which is a leading Federal Circuit case on finality of judgments. Mr. Bright successfully represented an individual inventor in a patent infringement suit against Apple Computer in CD CA District Court, settling the suit for 5 million dollars.

Mr. Bright has been principal trial and patent counsel for two corporations that were acquired in the 1990's by larger corporations for sums in excess of $400 million. Mr. Bright had principal responsibility for solicitation and enforcement of the patents of these entities.

Appellate Work: In addition to District Court litigation, Mr. Bright has been counsel in numerous patent appeals in the Federal Circuit, and on petitions for certiorari/opposition to petitions for certiorari made to the US Supreme Court.

Expert Witness Work: Mr. Bright's combination of education and experience make him the ideal expert witness on patent law issues, including validity, infringement and damages issues. Mr. Bright has served as an expert witness on patent law matters in several cases; has testified in depositions as an expert at least 10 times; and have testified at trials as an expert at least three times. In one of the three cases, the parties for whom Mr. Bright testified defensed the plaintiff's claim. In a second matter, where Mr. Bright testified for plaintiff, plaintiff recovered a judgment in excess of $25 million. In the third case, the party for plaintiff for whom Mr. Bright testified was defensed, but for reasons unrelated to Mr. Bright's testimony.

Trademark and Copyright Work: In his 29 years practicing before the US Patent and Trademark Office, Mr. Bright has successfully registered numerous trademarks, including "Public Storage" and "Panda Express"; and has represented clients in trademark infringement disputes and trademark licensing. Mr. Bright is also competent to handle copyright registration, licensing and infringement matters.

Professional Associations, Teaching, Writing: Mr. Bright is a member of the American Intellectual Property Law Association, the Los Angeles Intellectual Property Association, and the Los Angeles County Bar Association. Mr. Bright is a past president of the LAIPLA (Los Angeles Intellectual Property Lawyers Association). Mr. Bright has lectured for Practicing Law Institute, and has co-authored articles for PLI Publications.