1. NYC Patent Lawyer Case Background
A small audio technology company in New York was accused of incorporating protected circuitry into a compact digital recording device. The allegation claimed that the product infringed a registered United States patent and that the conduct was willful. A NYC patent lawyer was engaged to assess both civil exposure and any potential criminal implications.
Allegations of Unauthorized Use
The complaining competitor asserted that the client replicated a patented internal signal processing structure. The patent at issue was registered with the United States Patent and Trademark Office pursuant to Title 35 of the United States Code. The complaint referenced 35 U.S.C. § 271, which defines patent infringement. The competitor further alleged that the conduct was intentional and commercially exploitative.
Criminal Exposure Assessment
Patent infringement is generally a civil matter under federal law. However, certain conduct such as trafficking in counterfeit goods may implicate 18 U.S.C. § 2320 if trademark counterfeiting is involved. A NYC patent lawyer evaluated whether the facts suggested criminal counterfeit activity or merely a technical design dispute. The analysis confirmed that the product bore no counterfeit trademark and did not misrepresent origin.
2. NYC Patent Lawyer Technical Analysis
The defense required a detailed claim construction review and engineering comparison. A NYC patent lawyer coordinated with a licensed patent professional to examine the scope of the asserted claims. The legal inquiry focused on whether the accused product fell within the literal claim language or the doctrine of equivalents.
Claim Construction and Scope
Under 35 U.S.C. § 112, patent claims define the metes and bounds of the invention. The team analyzed each independent claim and compared structural elements. The accused device utilized a distinct signal conversion pathway. The comparison demonstrated material architectural differences that avoided direct infringement.
Prior Art and Validity Concerns
The review also examined potential invalidity defenses under 35 U.S.C. §§ 102 and 103. Several earlier technical publications disclosed similar circuit logic. The existence of prior art raised substantial questions regarding novelty and nonobviousness. These findings weakened the credibility of any willful infringement theory.
3. NYC Patent Lawyer Legal Strategy
Strategic communication with investigators and counsel for the complaining party proved essential. A patent lawyer NYC prepared a technical memorandum explaining the distinctions and statutory framework. The memorandum clarified that patent disputes are ordinarily resolved in federal civil court rather than through criminal enforcement.
Response to Law Enforcement Inquiry
When a referral inquiry was made, counsel explained that federal patent statutes do not create general criminal liability for standard infringement claims. The absence of counterfeit labeling or fraud eliminated applicability of federal criminal statutes. Authorities determined that the matter did not warrant criminal prosecution. The dispute was more appropriately characterized as a civil intellectual property disagreement.
Preventing Escalation
The early submission of technical documentation prevented formal charging. Clear statutory analysis under Title 35 of the United States Code supported dismissal at the investigative stage. As a result, no indictment was issued. The matter concluded without criminal filing.
4. NYC Patent Lawyer Outcome and Guidance
The investigation concluded with no criminal charges. Authorities recognized that the case involved a technical patent scope dispute rather than criminal misconduct. A NYC patent lawyer can provide early intervention to clarify legal exposure and prevent unnecessary escalation.
Importance of Early Technical Review
Prompt engineering comparison often determines the trajectory of an investigation. Misunderstandings regarding claim scope can create unnecessary criminal referrals. Careful statutory interpretation under federal patent law protects businesses from improper characterization. Early strategic action can preserve reputation and operational stability.
If a business in New York faces allegations involving patented technology, our firm can evaluate claim scope, analyze federal statutes, and engage with investigators before formal charges arise. We can structure a defense grounded in Title 35 of the United States Code and related federal provisions to protect both the company and its leadership.
12 Feb, 2026
