Iftekhar (Ifti) Zaim is an intellectual property litigator who has represented clients in matters and proceedings before the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, United States federal district courts, the International Trade Commission, the Court of International Trade, and the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“PTAB”). He primarily directs his practice towards utility and design patent litigation, post-grant proceedings before the PTAB, IP-related customs disputes, and trade secret litigation.
Ifti has managed Federal Circuit appeals, federal district court litigations, and PTAB proceedings. Most recently, Ifti managed and served as second-chair in the landmark case of LKQ v. GM, where the Federal Circuit, sitting en banc, delivered a comprehensive victory to Irwin IP’s client by overruling the long-running Rosen-Durling test for design patent obviousness.
Aside from managing the LKQ v. GM appeals and the AIA challenges that led to those appeals, Ifti managed a case involving allegations of trade secret misappropriation, breach of a non-compete agreement, and violations of the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act, asserted a client’s design patent in federal district court litigation, and was a member of the trial team in a utility patent infringement lawsuit in the Western District of Texas. Previously, Ifti co-drafted a petition upon which the PTAB instituted inter partes review of a patent touted by its Fortune 500 owner to be the foundation of a billion-dollar-per-year business, first-chaired oral arguments in a utility patent inter partes review proceeding, and participated in a high-stakes expedited action for emergency injunctive relief before the United States Court of International Trade.
Ifti has litigated technical subject matter spanning myriad technology areas, including media servers, self-balancing smartboards, large-scale servers and databases, automotive design and parts, vision science and related telemedicine, polymer chemistry, and dental healthcare products. He has a proven capability to quickly become fluent in virtually all types of technical and design subject areas, enabling him to rapidly acclimate to a wide variety of patent and trade secret contexts. In addition, Ifti provides counseling and transactional support, such as due diligence analysis in support of mergers and acquisitions.
Ifti also devotes a substantial portion of his practice to pro bono work. His pro bono practice primarily consists of helping artists, authors, and entertainers navigate around challenging intellectual property quandaries and assisting them in copyright, trademark, and licensing disputes.
Member, Chicago Bar Association
Member, AIPLA
U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
U.S. Court of International Trade
As a student at the University of Iowa College of Law, Ifti competed in four moot court tournaments. He placed third at the 2013 Saul Lefkowitz Trademarks Moot Court Competition (Midwest Regional) with the third-ranked brief nationally. He was a member of the University of Iowa’s 2013 Phillip C. Jessup International Moot Court Competition Team, and prior to that, won Best Oral Advocate in the Jessup Division of the University of Iowa College of Law’s Appellate Advocacy II Tournament.
Prior to law school, Ifti interned at a Houston electrical and computer engineering firm where he prepared and conducted stress tests and simulations for the company’s then in-development plant management software suite. In addition, as a member of the University of Texas at Austin’s Intercollegiate Olympic Taekwondo Team, Ifti twice competed at the National Collegiate Taekwondo Tournament, winning his division each time.
University of Iowa College of Law, J.D., 2013
Dean’s Award for Academic Excellence in Contracts and Sales (Highest grade in class)
Innovation, Business, and Law Award
Best Agent Award (University of Iowa College of Law Graduation Award) (for performance on the University of Iowa’s 2013 Phillip C. Jessup International Moot Court Tournament)
University of Texas at Austin, B.A. Economics, minor Mathematics, 2009
Illinois
Maybe The Third Time Is The Charm After All., Nokia of America Corp. v. Alexander Soto and Walter Soto, IPR2023-00680, IPR2023-00681, IPR2023-00682 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 3, 2024)
Standing in Limbo: What Platinum Optics v. Viavi Tells Us About IPR Appeals , Platinum Optics Tech. Inc. v. Viavi Solutions Inc., 2024 WL 3836107 (Fed. Cir. 2024)
District Court Injects Six Errors into Four-Factor Preliminary Injunction Test , Insulet Corp. v. EOFlow, Co. Ltd., 2024-1137 (Fed. Cir. June 17, 2024)
Isn’t It Obvious? , The Constitutional Origin of Patent Law’s Non-Obviousness Requirement
Challenging The Design Patent Obviousness Test: Debunking the Rationale for Low Rejection Rates , LKQ Corporation, Keystone Automotive v. GM Global Technology Operations LLC
EVERYBODY VS. PROFITEERS, In Re: Go & Associates, LLC, No. 2022-1961 (Fed. Cir. Jan. 22, 2024)
Mahindra’s Not-a-Jeep Finds Redemption in Redesign , Mahindra v. FCA US LLC, No. 2:18-cv-12645 (E.D. Mich. July 19, 2023)
SCOTUS Stills Courts’ Inner Art Critic, Andy Warhol Foundation for the Visual Arts, Inc. v. Goldsmith, — S.Ct. —- (2023)
Sanctions for Attorney Misconduct at a Dep: Fact or Fiction? , James Corey Goode, et al v. Roger Richards Ramsaur, et al, (D. Col. 2023)
Publishers Take a Hatchet to Free Digital Libraries , Hachette Book Group, Inc. v. Internet Archive, No. 20-4160 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 24, 2023)
Continually Shifting Theories Costs Patentee Attorney’s Fees, Clinicomp Int’l, Inc. v. Cerner Corp, No. 17-cv-02479 (S.D. Cal. Feb. 3, 2023)
Can You Sell a Patented Method? Perhaps… But Not Today, F45 Training Pty Ltd. v. Body Fit Training USA Inc., 2022 WL 17177621 (D. Del. Nov. 17, 2022)
CAFC Affirms PTAB’s Invalidity Decision Vacated Under Arthex I and Reinstated By Arthex II, Despite Joint Request To Dismiss Proceeding, Polaris Innovations Ltd. v. Brent, 2019-1483 (Fed. Cir. Sept. 15, 2022)
CAFC Pours One Out for Lehman Brothers, Tiger Lily Ventures LTD. v. Barclays Capital Inc., et al (Federal Circuit 2022)
Should Fashion Designers Seek Design Patents over Trade Dress Protection?, In re Jasmin Larian LLC, 2022 BL 106326, TTAB, Serial No. 87522459
Her Name — Their Brand, JLM Couture, Inc. v. Gutman, No. 20-CV-10575-LTS-SLC (S.D.N.Y. Feb. 14, 2022)
Fractured Foundation → Fees, Energy Heating, LLC v. Heat On-The-Fly, LLC, No. 20-2038, 2021 WL 4782468 (Fed. Cir. Oct. 14, 2021)
Coming Back for Seconds, Campbell Soup Co. v. Gamon Plus, Inc., 2020-2344, 2021-1019 (CAFC, Aug. 19, 2021)
When “Shall” Does Not Do, Omni MedSci, Inc. v. Apple Inc., No. 2020-1715 (Fed. Cir. August 2, 2021)
Keeping the Burdens in Focus, Apple Inc. v. Corephotonics, Ltd., No. 2020-1438 (Fed. Cir. June 23, 2021)
Out of Sequence, Pacific Biosci. v. Oxford Nanopore, No. 2020-2155 (Fed. Cir. May 11, 2021)
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)
In Mind or in RAM, a Better Algorithm is an Algorithm, In re Board of Trustees of the Leland Stanford Junior University, No. 2020-1012 (Fed. Cir. Mar. 11, 2021)
Fax Error: Connection Failed, Infinity Computer Prods., Inc. v. Oki Data Americas, Inc., No. 2020-1189, 2021 WL 476067 (Fed. Cir. Feb. 10, 2021)
Two “Ands” Do Not Make An “Or”, SIMO Holdings Inc. v. Hong Kong uCloudlink Network Tech. Ltd., No. 2019-2411, 2021 WL 28210 (Fed. Cir. Jan. 5, 2021)
Retweeting Sanity: Federal Circuit Holds that PTAB Properly Considered Reply Evidence of Prior Art Status, VidStream LLC v. Twitter, Inc., No. 2019-1734, (Fed. Cir. Nov. 25, 2020)
TTAB Catches Mayweather Looking, In Re Mayweather Promotions LLC, Case No. 86753084 (TTAB Oct. 29, 2020)
The Internet Short-Circuits the Narrative, Shure Incorporated v. ClearOne, Inc., Case No. 17-cv-03078 (N.D. Ill. Sep. 1, 2020)
Filing Down the Bars Against the Doctrine of Equivalents, Bio-Rad Labs., Inc., et al. v. 10X Genomics, Inc., Case Nos. 2019-2255, 2019-2285 (Fed. Cir. Aug. 3, 2020)
Inter Partes Means Inter Partes, HUNTING TITAN, INC. V. DYNAENERGETICS EUROPE GMBH, IPR2018-00600, (P.T.A.B. JUL. 6, 2020)
Multi-Color Product Packaging Can Be Inherently Distinctive, In re Forney Indus., Inc., Case No. 19-1073 (fed. Cir. Apr. 8, 2020)
The Place of Business is People, In re: Google LLC, Case No. 2019-126 (Fed. Cir. Feb. 13, 2020)
When “Fight Hard” Pays Off, Blackbird Tech. LLC v. Health in Motion LLC, No. 2018-2393 (Fed. Cir. Dec. 16, 2019)
Airbus Snuffs Out Fire Prevention Patent, Airbus S.A.S. v. Firepass Corp., Case No. 2019-1803, ___ F.3d ___, 2019 WL 5849523 (Fed. Cir. Nov. 8, 2019)
Whose Line is it Anyway?, SIPCO, LLC v. Emerson Elec. Co., 939 F.3d 1301 (Fed. Cir. 2019)
Schrodinger’s Case, “Midwest Sports Athletic Alliance, Inc. v. Ricoh USA, Inc., Case No. 19-cv-00514, Dkt. 115 (E.D. Penn. Jul. 25, 2019); and Fall Line Patents, Inc. v. Zoe’s Kitchen, Case No. 18-cv-00407, Dkt. 106 (E.D. Tex. Jul. 26, 2019)”
Trademark Applicant Gets FUCT, Iancu v. Brunetti, 139 S.Ct. 224 (Jun. 24, 2019)
In Sony v. Iancu, Fed. Cir. Finds Everybody Wrong, Sony Corp. v. Iancu, 924 F.3d 1235 (Fed. Cir. 2019)
The Alice Pendulum Swings Back, Knocks Cisco Flat, SRI Int’l., Inc. v. Cisco Sys., Inc., 930 F.3d 1295 (Fed. Cir. 2019)
It’s All Fun and Games until Someone Falsifies CMI, GC2 Inc. v. Int’l Game Tech. PLC, et al, Case No. 16-cv-8794 (N.D. Ill. Feb. 26, 2019)
Texas Gives its Own Licensee the Horns, Gensetix, Inc. v. Baylor Coll. of Med., et al, 354 F.Supp.3d 759 (S.D. Tex. 2018)
Ancora v. HTC — Enfish Secured; Alice Abridged, Ancora Techs., Inc. v. HTC America, Inc., 908 F.3d 1343 (Fed. Cir. 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