Vinu Raj counsels clients at all stages of growth in developing new technologies and bringing them to market. Whether advising startups or Fortune 500 companies, he strives to help his clients achieve their business objectives and maximize their intellectual property and technology assets.
Vinu assists clients in securing domestic and international patent protection on innovations in a variety of technology areas. His practice focuses on all aspects of patent prosecution and counseling relating to various fields of computer software, including artificial intelligence and machine learning, blockchain and cryptocurrency, online payment systems, Internet technology, networking and wireless communications, cloud computing, mobile devices, web browsers, geophysical modeling, geographical information systems, large-scale data analysis and storage, databases and related structures, and image processing. He also advises clients through freedom to operate and product clearance opinions, due diligence investigations, and patent portfolio valuations to help his clients navigate patent landscapes and assess the risk of patent infringement before bringing new products to market.
Vinu also has experience representing clients in contested proceedings before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office and investigations before the U.S. International Trade Commission (ITC). He also has represented clients in patent infringement litigations before numerous U.S. district courts. His engineering background and skills in patent drafting and prosecution allow him to evaluate patents from a unique perspective and provide strategies for developing his clients’ positions with respect to non-infringement and invalidity.
Prior to beginning his legal career, Vinu worked as a software engineer for several years at one of the world’s largest multinational telecommunications companies. As an engineer, he was instrumental in developing software applications targeting various development platforms, including those for desktop computers and mobile devices. Now, as a patent lawyer, Vinu relies on his technical background and engineering skills to better serve his clients.
- Houston Intellectual Property Law Association (HIPLA), Former Chair of Membership Committee
- Houston Bar Association
- Minority Intellectual Property Lawyers Association
- Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) Bar Association of the United States Patent and Trademark Office
- United Way, Young Leader
- “PTAB May Raise a New Ground of Unpatentability Only Under 'Rare Circumstances'” (analysis of the POP’s Hunting Titan, Inc. v. DynaEnergetics Europe GmbH decision), The Patent Law. 46-48 (July-Aug. 2020).
- “Working Draft Distributed to Members of Well-Known Standard Setting Group Was Not a Publication,” IP Beacon: Patent Law Review, July 23, 2019.
- “Federal Circuit Relies on Claim Construction and Precedent to Find Software Claims Patent Eligible,” Lexology, November 16, 2016.
- “No prior conception where contemporaneous disclosures failed to show knowledge of complete and operative method of making invention,” Lexology, April 30, 2013.
- “Prior art’s disclosure of result-effective variables that overlap claimed ranges is sufficient to support a finding of obviousness,” Lexology, October 31, 2012.
- “Same claim terms used in related patents have the same meaning,” Lexology, September 28, 2012.
- “Prior art's disclosure of a preferred embodiment does not “teach away” from inferior alternatives,” Lexology, July 31, 2012.
J.D., University of Houston Law Center, 2009, Publications Editor, Houston Journal of Health Law and Policy
B.S., Computer Science, University of Texas at Austin, 2002
Judicial Intern for the Honorable Stephen Wm. Smith, U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas, May-June 2007
District of Columbia
U.S. Patent and Trademark Office
In Hunting Titan, Inc. v. DynaEnergetics Europe GmbH, the Precedential Opinion Panel (POP) of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (Board) held that the Board may raise a ground of unpatentability a petitioner did not advance or sufficiently develop in opposition to a patent owner’s motion to amend but noted that the Board “should do so only under rare circumstances.” Background Hunting Titan filed a [...]