Adam Reis primarily focuses on intellectual property litigation and arts and entertainment representation. Adam has successfully litigated several cases to favorable pre-trial resolution, including in several U.S. District Courts, the American Arbitration Association, and the International Trade Commission. His patent work has involved various technologies, such as dental appliances, video slot machines, winches, self-balancing smartboards, and automotive mirrors. He has also drafted patent infringement and invalidity opinions. Adam’s arts and entertainment work has been on behalf of musicians, photographers, sculptors, translators, and art dealers. In addition to litigation, Adam has represented clients in transactional matters on numerous occasions, including drafting agreements relating to IP asset purchase, assignment, and licensing; creative collaboration; songwriter split; music production and publishing; and talent and modeling agency representation.
Member, Lawyers for the Creative Arts Associates Board (2019-2021)
Chair, Intellectual Property Law Committee, Chicago Bar Association (2019-2020)
United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois
United States District Court for the Western District of Michigan
United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
During a break from practicing, Adam built and launched an application using artificial intelligence to simplify the process of understanding patents.
During law school, Adam served as a board member for the Chicago-Kent Intellectual Property Law Society; helped establish an alumni-student mentor program; represented clients through the Chicago-Kent Intellectual Property Clinic; served as a shift supervisor helping pro se litigants at the Chicago-Kent Self Help Web Center in the Richard J. Daley Center in Chicago; and competed in the Saul Lefkowitz Moot Court Competition.
Before starting law school, Adam worked as an Associate Chemist in Chromatography for Patheon Pharmaceuticals Inc. in Cincinnati, Ohio. As an undergraduate, Adam focused his research on membrane protein structure.
Chicago-Kent College of Law, J.D., 2015
Certificate in Intellectual Property Law
Dean’s Honor List, Fall 2013 – Spring 2015
CALI Award, Comparative IP, 2014
Dean’s Distinguished Public Service Award (250+ Hours)
Miami University, B.A. Chemistry, 2010
Fullstack Academy, Full-stack Web Development, 2020
Illinois
California
The Pitfalls of Proprietary Information: Boeing Hit With $72M Trade Secrets Verdict , Zunum Aero, Inc. v. The Boeing Company et al., No. 2:21-CV-00896-JLR, (W.D. Wash. May 30, 2024)
Defending Against Willfulness Without Waiving Privilege, Duke University v. Sandoz, Inc., 18-cv-00997 (D. Colo. Nov. 3, 2022)
Federal Circuit Limits the Scope of IPR Statutory Estoppel, In re: DMF, Inc., a California Corporation., No. 2021-153 (Fed. Cir. Sept. 9, 2021)
Another Texas Mandamus Ruling, In re Samsung Elecs. Co., Ltd., No. 2021-139, 2021 WL 2672136
Castles Made of Sand, Free Stream Media Corp., v. Alphonso Inc., No. 2019-1506, (Fed. Cir. May 11, 2021)
Fair Use Ping-Pong, Google LLC v. Oracle America, Inc., No. 18-596, 2021 WL 124090 (Apr. 5, 2021)
Trumped Up Kicks: Nike Patent Claim Once Again Invalidated by PTAB Despite CAFC Remand, Adidas AG v. Nike, inc., IPR2013-00067 (PTAB, Mar. 1, 2021)
Unanswered Demand Letters and Intervening Rights, John Bean Technologies Corp. v. Morris & Assoc., Inc., 2021 WL 641987 (Fed. Cir. Feb. 19, 2021)
Rubik’s Cube Design Not Functional, Rubik’s Brand Limited, v. Flambeau, Inc., et al., No. 17CV6559PGGKHP, 2021 WL 363704 (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 31, 2021
Windy City’s Patent Could Not Weather The Alice Storm, Windy City Innovations, LLC v. Facebook, Inc., 411 F. Supp. 3d 886 (N.D. Cal. 2019), aff’d, No. 2020-1153, 2021 WL 423151 (Fed. Cir. Feb. 8, 2021)
Nearly Nixed by a “So Called Index”: Microsoft Narrowly Avoids Defeat After PTAB Throws Out Prior Art, Microsoft Corporation et al. v. Uniloc 2017 LLC, (IPR2019-01116)
Celebrity Photos, Social Media, Standing, and a Strip Club, Carmen Electra, et al. v. Idaho Business Holdings LLC, et al., (D. AZ Sep. 24, 2020)
Seeking to Re-Add Inventor After Request to Remove Justified, Egenera, Inc. v. Cisco Sys., Inc., 2020 WL 5084288, (Fed. Cir. Aug. 28, 2020)
Arizona Mandates SaaS Providers Implement API, CDK Glob. LLC v. Brnovich, 2020 WL 4260506, (D. Ariz. July 24, 2020)
Lanham Act Section 2(c) is Viewpoint Neutral, Prevents “Trump Too Small” Trademark Registration to Third Party, In re Steve Elster, Serial No. 87749230 (T.T.A.B. July 2, 2020)
Is Skin a Tangible Medium? The Second Circuit Won’t Touch, Mourabit v. Klein, No. 19-2142-CV, 2020 WL 3042131 (2d Cir. June 8, 2020)
No One Can Own the Copyright to Annotated State Statutes, Georgia, et al., Petitioners v. Public.Resource.Org, Inc., 590 U.S. __ (2020)
Bad Faith Needed for Injunction of Patent Infringement Threat, Myco Indus., Inc. v. BlephEx, LLC, No. 2019-2374, 2020 WL 1647245, (Fed. Cir. Apr. 3, 2020)
Settlement Agreement Renders Case Moot, Plain and Simple, Serta Simmons Bedding, LLC v. Casper Sleep Inc., No. 2019-1098, 2020 WL 717771 (Fed. Cir. Feb. 13, 2020)
PTAB Finds RPX Member Google is not Real Party in Interest or Privy, RPX Corporation v. Publishing Technologies, LLC, IPR2018-01131, Paper 44 (PTAB Jan. 7, 2020)
Ninth Circuit Reverses District Court’s Dismissal of Claims Alleging Taylor Swift Stole Lyrics to “Shake It Off”, Hall v. Swift, 782 F. App’x 639 (9th Cir. 2019)
If You’re An Influencer, Be Prepared To Influence, Vacchi v. E*TRADE Fin. Corp., No. 19CV3505 (DLC), 2019 WL 4392794 (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 13, 2019)
“District Court [Tool]barred From Ruling on Patent Eligibility without First Construing Claims”, MyMail, Ltd. v. ooVoo, LLC, 934 F.3d 1373 (Fed. Cir. 2019)
When is a Patent Challenge Undeliverable?, Return Mail, Inc. v. United States Postal Serv., 139 S. Ct. 1853 (2019)
PTAB Makes Precedential the Discretion to Deny Institution of Serial Petitions Brought by Co-Defendants, Valve Corp. v. Elec. Scripting Prods., Inc., Case IPR2019-00062, -00063, -00084, Paper 11 (PTAB Apr. 2, 2019) (designated: May 7, 2019)
Federal Circuit Affirms Trademark Webpage Specimen Must Contain Information Essential to Purchasing Decision, In re Siny Corp., 920 F.3d 1331 (Fed. Cir. 2019)
Failure to Disclose Algorithm Fatal on Two Fronts, Konami Gaming, Inc. v. High 5 Games, LLC, 2018 WL 1020120 (D. Nev. Feb. 22, 2018), aff’d, No. 2018-1723, 2019 WL 1110283 (Fed. Cir. Mar. 11, 2019)
“Surviving a Challenge Under Alice v. CLS Bank May Preclude CBM Review”, IBG LLC v. Trading Techs. Int’l, Inc., 757 F. App’x 1004 (Fed. Cir.), cert. denied, 140 S. Ct. 278 (2019)
Federal Circuit Affirms Decision Allowing Amended Claims, Valeo N. Am., Inc. v. Schaeffler Techs. AG & Co. KG, 748 F. App’x 333 (Fed. Cir. 2019)
Federal Circuit Holds Demand Letters Are Sufficient to Establish Personal Jurisdiction, Jack Henry & Assocs., Inc. v. Plano Encryption Techs. LLC, 910 F.3d 1199 (Fed. Cir. 2018)
Assignor Estoppel Does Not Apply To Ipris, Arista Networks, Inc. v. Cisco Sys., Inc., 2017-1525, 2018 WL 5851331 (Fed. Cir. Nov. 9, 2018)
150 N Wacker Drive Suite 700
Chicago, IL 60606
(312) 667-6080
© 2024 Irwin IP LLP. All Rights Reserved.
Attorney Advertising. The material and information contained on these pages and on any pages linked from these pages are intended to provide general information only and not legal advice. You should consult with an attorney licensed to practice in your jurisdiction before relying upon any of the information presented here. The acts of sending email to any email addresses listed on this website or viewing information from this website do not create an attorney-client relationship. The listing of verdicts, settlements, and other case results is not a guarantee or prediction of the outcome of any other claims.
We use cookies to optimize site functionality and give you the best possible experience. By using this site, you agree to allow the use of cookies for analysis of site traffic and advertising purposes. Cookie Policy