PRACTICE AREASIntellectual Property Litigation
Inter Partes Review
- University of Texas School of Law (J.D. 1999)
- Dartmouth College (A.B. Engineering Sciences 1996)
LICENSES & ADMISSIONS
- Licensed to practice by State Bar of Texas
- Licensed to practice at United States Patent and Trademark Office
- Admitted in Eastern, Western and Southern Districts of Texas
- Registered to practice before the United States Patent and Trademark Office
- Named Texas Super Lawyer, 2020
Six DiNovo Price Attorneys Recognized as 2020 Texas Super Lawyers & Rising Stars10/19/2020
The 2020 edition of Texas Super Lawyers, published by Thomson Reuters, has named five DiNovo Price partners – Andrew DiNovo, Adam Price, Christopher Goodpastor, Nicole Glauser, and Gregory Donahue – to its list of Super Lawyers and one associate, Daniel Schmid, to its list of Rising Stars.
DiNovo Price Recognized Among Top 5 IPR Firms by Patexia; Three Partners Recognized as Top 25 Performers12/17/2018
DiNovo Price LLP and partners Andrew DiNovo, Christopher Goodpastor, and Greg Donahue have been recognized for exceptional performance in the field of Inter Partes Review in Patexia Inc.’s 2018 IPR Intelligence Report, an annual report that provides rankings, statistics, and comprehensive analysis of IPR stakeholders.
"Huawei Reaches Deal to Settle E-Watch Phone Patent Suit," Law36001/27/2017 | Law360
A Texas federal judge signed off Friday on a confidential settlement that resolves allegations China-based telecom giant Huawei infringed e-Watch Inc. patents covering cellphone camera technology.
"Apple Latest to Settle E-Watch's Camera Phone Patent Row," Law36001/20/2017 | Law360
Apple Inc. has become the latest technology giant to reach a settlement ending e-Watch Inc.’s claims that the company is infringing two patents related to cellphone camera technology, according to a document filed in Texas federal court on Friday.
"Most Image Patent Claims Challenged By Apple Survive PTAB," Law36005/09/2016 | Law360
The Patent Trial and Appeal Board found Friday that Apple and ZTE showed that three claims of an e-Watch Inc. patent on digital image technology were invalid as obvious over prior art, but failed to show that eight other claims were unpatentable.