Dara M. Kurlancheek is an Intellectual Property partner in Mayer Brown’s Washington DC office. She is a registered patent attorney whose practice focuses on complex patent litigation. Her experience encompasses all stages of litigation, from pretrial investigation through trial.
Dara has participated in jury trials, claim construction hearings, and is experienced in managing pretrial discovery such as depositions and motion practice. Dara works closely with clients to provide critical strategic advice and frequently takes a leading role in coordinating joint defenses in multiple-defendant litigations.
Having received a B.S. in Electrical Engineering, Dara has technical and legal experience across a wide range of technologies and industries, including electronic banking and payment systems, computer memory systems, customer service and payment acceptance technologies, video analytics, complex computer systems and software, website design software, sonar imaging systems, computer systems for backup of internet-based data processing, electronic billing information delivery systems, customer live-chat website features, and video indexing systems.
Dara also has extensive arbitration experience in domestic and international disputes, from arbitrator selection through hearing, award, and enforcement. She has second chaired multiple complex commercial arbitration hearings and conducted direct and cross-examinations of fact and expert witnesses.
Her arbitration and mediation experience includes a wide range of issues, including patent licensing disputes, software service contract disputes, and breach of contract claims related to a distributorship agreement.
While at The Pennsylvania State University, Dara worked at the Penn State Intellectual Property Office evaluating inventions for patentability and potential licensing opportunities. During law school, Dara was quarterfinalist in the J. Braxton Craven Constitutional Law National Moot Court competition.
- Franklin Pierce Law Center (now University of New Hampshire School of Law), JD
- Pennsylvania State University, BS
- New York
- District of Columbia
- US District Court for the Southern District of New York
- US District Court for the Eastern District of New York
- US District Court for the Eastern District of Texas
- buySAFE Inc. v. Google Inc. Represented Google against buySAFE’s claims of patent infringement. The technology includes online transaction performance guarantees. Successfully argued the claims covered unpatentable subject matter under 35 USC § 101 and won judgment on the pleadings pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(c).
- Brilliant Optical Solutions v. Google. Represented Google Fiber, Inc. in a patent infringement case filed in the Western District of Missouri where the Google Fiber System has been accused of infringement. Brilliant Optical Solutions, LLC v. Google Inc., No. 4:13-cv-00356 (W.D. Minn., filed April 10, 2013).
- Createads v. Web.com, Network Solutions and Register.com.Represented Web.com et. al in a patent infringement case in the D. of Delaware involving web development technology. CreateAds LLC v. Web.com Group Inc., et al., No. 1:12-cv-01612 (D. Del., filed November 29, 2012).
- Createads v. Media Temple. Defended Media Temple in a patent infringement case in the D. of Delaware involving web development technology. CreateAds LLC v. Media Temple, Inc., No. 1:13-cv-00115 (D. Del., filed January 18, 2013).
- Successfully obtained a judgment of priority on behalf of client in a patent interference related to computers that use point-to-point links to transfer data between a memory controller and buffered memory. (B.P.A.I. Decision 2010).
Rate : $$$