Eric Zelepugas maintains a versatile intellectual property practice focused on post-grant proceedings before the USPTO’s Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB), patent litigation in district court and the ITC, and domestic and foreign patent prosecution. Eric currently leads Avantech Law’s PTAB post-grant practice, where he primarily represents patent owners in high-stakes inter partes review proceedings and related strategic counseling.

Eric has developed a national reputation for his PTAB advocacy, particularly in defending patent owners against complex and coordinated validity challenges. Since 2025, he has served as lead counsel in dozens of co-pending PTAB proceedings. His post-grant matters span technologies such as automotive connectivity systems, medical devices, retail merchandise display systems, communications systems, and consumer electronics. His practice emphasizes early procedural and strategic positioning, including discretionary denial issues, real-party-in-interest disputes, estoppel considerations, and parallel district court coordination.

Most recently, the USPTO designated several of Eric’s PTAB matters as “Informative” decisions, highlighting his successful advocacy on important issues involving consistency between district court invalidity positions and PTAB proceedings. In Ford Motor Company v. AutoConnect Holdings LLC, IPR2025-01342, IPR2025-01383, and IPR2025-01524, Paper 27 (May 12, 2026) (designated informative May 13, 2026), the Board vacated notices granting institution and denied institution after Eric brought to the Office’s attention that the petitioner advanced indefiniteness arguments in district court that were inconsistent with positions taken before the PTAB. The decision addressed the insufficiency of petitioner efforts to cure those inconsistencies only after institution and after the issue was raised before the Office. The designation of these matters as informative reflects the significance of the proceedings and Eric’s role in shaping PTAB practice concerning candor, procedural fairness, and discretionary institution considerations.

Eric has also served as lead counsel for multiple companies at the ITC, successfully defeating a motion for a temporary exclusion order where an adverse result could have significantly impacted his clients’ operations. Eric was instrumental in obtaining favorable claim constructions and leveraging those rulings to defeat allegations of infringement and likelihood of success on the merits. The ITC recently found the asserted claims of the patent underlying that investigation to be invalid.

While his practice extends to many technological sectors, Eric particularly enjoys leveraging his Electrical Engineering background in areas such as artificial intelligence, electronic devices, cellular communications, signal processing, DICOM imaging systems, automotive technologies, and media delivery and consumption systems.

Eric’s diverse range of experiences positions him well to provide strategic counsel to his clients. His years of patent litigation experience help him craft enforceable claims designed to withstand legal challenges, while his decade-plus of patent prosecution experience allows him to develop creative and expansive strategies in contested PTAB proceedings and litigation.

Admissions

  • Illinois Supreme Court
  • U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois
  • United States Patent and Trademark Office

Recognition

  • Illinois Super Lawyers “Rising Star” (2023-2024)

Representative Matters (Plaintiff)

(PTAB) – Ford Motor Company v. AutoConnect Holdings LLC – Eric served as lead counsel for the patent owner in multiple inter partes review proceedings involving connected vehicle technologies. The PTAB designated resulting decisions as “Informative,” addressing discretionary denial and procedural integrity issues where petitioner positions before the PTAB conflicted with indefiniteness arguments asserted in parallel district court litigation.

(PTAB) – Toyota Motor Corp. v. AutoConnect Holdings LLC – Eric served as lead counsel for the patent owner in inter partes review and post-grant review proceedings involving automotive and connected vehicle technologies. Eric successfully secured discretionary denial of a number of the petitions, preserving the client’s patent rights and avoiding institution of trial. The proceedings involved significant coordination with parallel litigation strategy, and newly determined discretionary denial arguments—such as settled expectations—in a newly bifurcation of discretionary issues in front of the USPTO Director.

(NDOH) – Diamabrush LLC v. Malish Corporation – Eric’s team took over a case that included de minimis pleadings of patent infringement. After performing his own investigation, Eric amended the pleadings to more substantively reflect the strength of his client’s patent case. These efforts paved the way to a relatively quick and favorable settlement, including helping to resolve other non-patent related issues in a parallel arbitration proceeding.

(NDIL) – RTC Industries, Inc. v. Fasteners for Retail, Inc. – Eric’s team filed multiple district court cases asserting nine patents against two of Fasteners for Retail’s (FFR) products. Eric was crucial in opposing a motion to consolidate the cases, which would have impeded the progress of the first filed case and would have required significant narrowing of the asserted patents and claims to comply with the local rules (which limited final infringement contentions to 10 claims per patent and no more than 20 claims overall). All district court cases settled before trial.

(PTAB) – Comcast Cable Communications, LLC v, Rovi Guides, Inc. – Eric’s team prepared and filed over 100 IPR petitions, with Eric leading efforts on a dozen of those petitions. The large number of petitions was part of a filing strategy to limit estoppel effects by filing multiple parallel petitions, which ultimately might not have been instituted, but would preserve arguments that any references relied upon within procedurally dismissed parallel petitions were not and could not have been reasonably raised in an instituted parallel petition. This filing strategy was also helpful in achieving a favorable global settlement.

Representative Matters (Defendant)

(ITC) – Certain Disposable Vaporizer Devices – R.J. Reynolds (RJR) initiated a Section 337 investigation at the ITC asserting infringement of a recently issued patent against forty-six respondents. In addition to its complaint, RJR filed a rare motion for a temporary exclusion order, which streamlined the already compact ITC investigation schedule. Within two months, Eric’s team conducted fact discovery, expert discovery, and an evidentiary hearing. Eric was crucial in successfully defeating the TEO motion and set the stage for success for the permanent phase of the investigation. Not only did Eric take lead on the claim construction and non-infringement arguments that led to the successful denial of the TEO motion, but he continued to lead such efforts throughout the formal Markman proceedings and Expert discovery in the permanent phase.

(NDIL) – Journay Financial Services, LLC et al v. American Green Smoke Wholesale, Inc. et al – Eric represented American Green Smoke Wholesale (AGS), which had purchased vaping products from a third party for resale. Journay sued AGS, asserting that such products were counterfeit and infringed on its Trademarks. Eric led negotiations resulting in a quick (within three months of his appearance) and favorable settlement and dismissal of his client from the case, thereby avoiding the potentially large statutory damages available under 15 U.S.C. § 1117(c).

(PTAB) – Fasteners for Retail, Inc. v. RTC Industries, Inc. – In response to Eric’s team asserting nine patents against FFR, FFR responded with four inter partes review petitions challenging a subset of those asserted patents. Eric’s team was successful in getting all four inter partes review petitions procedurally dismissed by providing substantial evidence that an unnamed real-party-in-interest was controlling the filing of the Petitions, which FFR was unable to credibly dispute or disprove.

 

 

 

Publications

  • U.S. Patent No. 9,041,545