Bar Admissions

  • New York
  • U.S. Patent and Trademark Office

Court Admissions

  • U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
  • U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York
  • U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York
  • U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit


  • J.D., Georgetown Law Center, 1974
  • B.S., Aerospace Engineering, cum laude, University of Notre Dame, 1970
T +1 212.218.2240
F +1 212.218.2200

Anthony M. Zupcic

Senior Counsel

Anticipating your opponents' next move is what has made Tony Zupcic a leading interference practitioner. With over forty years of experience, Tony has been lead attorney in well over sixty interferences since the 1980's while also being involved in other complex USPTO proceedings such as reexaminations and more recently IPRs.

Representative Clients

  • Canon
  • Gilead
  • IBM
  • Forward Pharma
  • Amgen

Significant Matters

  • Gilead v. Idenix in interference No. 105,871 involving novel nucleoids useful for treating HCV and interference no. 105,981 involving method of treating HCV with a nucleoside compound.
  • IBM against Rambus in interference Nos. 105,467 and 105,911 involving memory systems.
  • Amgen against Human Genome Sciences in Interference No. 105,613 involving a key receptor in the immune system.
  • INA against Delphi in Interference No. 105,468 involving automobile valve lifters.
  • Medtronic Navigation, Inc. against GE Medical Systems Global Technology in Interference No. 105,415 involving surgical navigation technology.
  • Helmholtz-Zentrum Fur Infektionsforschung Gmb, exclusive licensor to Bristol-Myers Squibb, against Sloan-Kettering Institute for Cancer Research in Interference No. 105,298 involving epothilone C and epothilone D.
  • Bristol-Myers Squibb against Tolerance Therapeutics, LLC in Interference Nos. 105,105; 105,106; and 105,107 involving fusion proteins.
  • Matsushita v. Sakaguchi in Interference No. 105,263 relating to semiconductors.
  • Stiller v. Heid in Interference No. 105,044 involving a specimen transport mechanism.
  • West v. Van Damme in Interference No. 105,031 involving photosensitive printing plates.
  • Shinomiya v. Hanya in Interference No. 104,097 involving liquid crystal displays.
  • Riseman v. Kobayashi in Interference No. 103,780 relating to laser beam printer technology.
  • Kaneko v. Sakaegi in Interference No. 103,000 involving camera white balance.
  • Hoshino v. Tanaka in Interference No. 103,208 relating to autofocus.
  • Katayama v. Levien in Interference No. 103,587 involving halftone imaging.
  • Canon Inc. against various parties in Interference Nos. 102,090; 102,091, 102,092; 102,323; 103,212; 103,187; and 103,213, all relating to liquid crystal display technology.
  • Shibuzaki v. Furuichi in Interference No. 101,822 relating to copy magnification in an electrophotographic copying machine.
  • Lawrence v. Suzuki in Interference No. 101,692 relating to sheet sorters.
  • Ito v. Masuda in Interference No. 101,278 relating to a scanning mechanism in an electrophotographic copying machine.