Photo of James Anderson

James Anderson

Subscribe to James Anderson's Posts

Jim Anderson is a litigator and trial lawyer. Jim’s practice focuses on commercial litigation, with a particular emphasis on disputes at the intersection of intellectual property and private capital. Drawing on his engineering background and his experience in the courtroom, he has successfully represented leading technology and pharmaceutical companies in high-stakes litigation. He also litigates cases on behalf of asset managers and private lenders that serve those industries.

Jim recently achieved a defense verdict before a Delaware jury in a case involving fraud and patent infringement allegations against a medical device company. He represents clients across a range of diverse industries in trial and appellate courts across the country, as well as before administrative and arbitral bodies including the International Trade Commission, Patent Trial and Appeal Board, and international arbitration tribunals under ICC and CPR Rules.

In addition to his trial practice, Jim offers strategic counsel to asset managers, portfolio companies, and private lenders, helping them to navigate regulatory and litigation risks. He also has experience advising 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 USPTO.

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

Jim has a background in Mechanical Engineering, with a focus on energy, power, and fuel cell technologies. Prior to his career at 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.

Contact:Read more about James Anderson

On April 20, 2023, the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) announced several proposed rule changes that would have an impact on patent applicants, patent holders, and patent challengers. A common thread running through several of the rule changes is the requirement of increased disclosure from litigating parties, including disclosures of related parties, ownership interests, and all settlement agreements (and any related or collateral agreements) between the parties. While the proposed rule changes are subject to a public comment period, if implemented, they would (i) introduce several major changes to the process of challenging patents before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) and (ii.) significantly increase USPTO administrative fees.

The market for litigation finance shows no signs of slowing down, but pressure from rulemaking bodies and the judiciary may reshape whether and to what extent funding arrangements must be publicly disclosed. The use of litigation finance to fund claims that may not otherwise have been pursued or as a risk management strategy has continued to expand in recent years. For much of its history, parties were not required to disclose whether they were receiving litigation financing or the source of such funding, however the recent trend is toward increased transparency into funding arrangements.

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 inspection actions for improper purposes, including to subvert the ordinary conduct of civil discovery.