July 31, 2020
Fitch, Even, Tabin & Flannery is pleased to announce that Catherine J. Toppin has joined the firm’s Chicago office as partner. She brings with her a distinctive blend of private practice and in-house intellectual property law experience.
Catherine’s IP practice encompasses preparation and prosecution of utility and design patents in the electrical/mechanical arts, global patent and trademark portfolio management, due diligence, opinion work, trademark prosecution, and licensing and other transactional matters. She has provided strategic IP counsel to clients ranging from startups and small businesses to venture capital firms, global corporations, and nonprofit organizations.
After establishing her IP law practice at a large Boston-based firm, Catherine spent seven years working in a leadership capacity in varying roles with the corporate legal department at General Electric. Among other responsibilities, she provided extensive IP counsel and managed global patent portfolios for multiple business divisions.
Catherine earned her J.D. from the University of Maryland Francis King Carey School of Law and holds a B.S.E. in Electrical Engineering from Princeton University. She remains a dedicated member of the Princeton community, serving on the Leadership Advisory Council of the Princeton School of Engineering and Applied Sciences and on the board of the Association of Black Princeton Alumni. Catherine has received several awards for her professional and public service contributions, including the National Bar Association’s Diversity in Tech Award and the Network Journal’s 40 Under Forty Achievement Award.
Catherine’s diverse experience in IP law combined with her notable management and leadership skills make her a welcome addition to the Fitch Even team.
- Fitch Even Partner Nikki Little Quoted in ALA's Legal Management MagazineAugust 4, 2020 Read more
IP Alert | Substitute Claims in IPR Proceedings Can Be Rejected Under § 101August 3, 2020
On July 22, in Uniloc 2017 LLC v. Hulu, Inc., the Federal Circuit ruled that the PTAB may analyze 35 U.S.C. § 101 patent eligibility for proposed substitute claims in an IPR proceeding. Read more