Minding Your Business

Proskauer’s perspective on developments and trends in commercial litigation.

Photo of James Anderson

James Anderson

James Anderson is an attorney in the Litigation Department and a member of the firm’s Asset Management Litigation and Intellectual Property groups. Jim leverages his technological background and expertise to represent clients in sophisticated business and intellectual property disputes.

Jim has experience litigating cases for clients in the technology, life sciences, and financial services industries, including a significant number of pharmaceutical, biotech, consumer electronics, and asset management clients. He has litigated cases in state and federal courts throughout the United States, as well as before the International Trade Commission and Patent Trial and Appeal Board.

In addition to his commercial litigation practice, Jim advises clients on intellectual property strategy spanning the full range of patent, trademark, and trade secret protections. He has developed and maintained intellectual property portfolios in a broad range of industries, including consumer products, medical devices, machining and fabrication equipment, and semiconductor devices. Jim is registered to practice before the United States Patent and Trademark Office.

Jim also maintains an active pro bono practice. He has been awarded for his work on behalf of victims of domestic violence and abuse.

Jim has a degree in Mechanical Engineering, with a concentration in energy, power, and fuel cell technologies, from the University of Connecticut. Prior to joining Proskauer, Jim served as a judicial intern in the U.S. District Court for the District of Connecticut and represented clients with the UConn Intellectual Property and Entrepreneurship Law Clinic.

Subscribe to all posts by James Anderson

“Sue First, Ask Questions Later” Approach to Records Inspection Suits Rejected by Court of Chancery

Characterizing the decision to bring a books and records inspection action after filing a plenary or substantive action as “[i]nherently contradictory,” the Delaware Court of Chancery recently dismissed a Section 220 action brought by a group of investors.  The decision signals that the Court of Chancery remains alert to the use of books and records … Continue Reading
LexBlog

This website uses third party cookies, over which we have no control. To deactivate the use of third party advertising cookies, you should alter the settings in your browser.

OK