Paul Devinsky
Litigation - Patent
Litigation - Patent
Create an account to contact this attorney
Are you this attorney? Claim or manage this listing by signing in or creating an attorney account.
Paul Devinsky advises clients on patent, trademark and trademark litigation and counseling, as well as copyright counseling. He is also active in intellectual property (IP) licensing, transactions and due diligence, as well as post-issuance US Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) proceedings such as reissues and inter partes review, covered business method patent review and post grant review, and appellate (Federal Circuit) advocacy.Read full biography: https://www.mwe.com/people/devinsky-paul/ Paul Devinsky advises clients on patent, trademark and trademark litigation and counseling, as well as copyright counseling. He is also active in intellectual property (IP) licensing, transactions and due diligence, as well as post-issuance US Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) proceedings such as reissues and inter partes review, covered business method patent review and post grant review, and appellate (Federal Circuit) advocacy.Read full biography: https://www.mwe.com/people/devinsky-paul/ Paul Devinsky advises clients on patent, trademark and trademark litigation and counseling, as well as copyright counseling. He is also active in intellectual property (IP) licensing, transactions and due diligence, as well as post-issuance US Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) proceedings such as reissues and inter partes review, covered business method patent review and post grant review, and appellate (Federal Circuit) advocacy. Read full biography: https://www.mwe.com/people/devinsky-paul/
Typical Consultation
$150-$300
Typical Hourly Range
$250-$450/hr
Fee Model Notes
Hourly or flat-fee billing is common.
Estimates vary by market, complexity, urgency, and attorney experience.
Recognized in Best Lawyers since 2021
Shirley Ortiz
Paul Devinsky's deep experience in intellectual property law, particularly his recognition in patent and trademark litigation, was the primary reason we engaged him. With nearly five decades of practice, his knowledge of the legal landscape is undeniable. Our case involved defending a trademark opposition for a new product line, and his strategic advice during the initial counseling phase was sound and grounded in practical precedent. However, the overall experience felt somewhat transactional. While he was always prepared for our meetings, communication between them was often slow, with responses to emails taking several days. This created some anxiety as we navigated tight filing deadlines. The work product was competent, but for the premium associated with a firm like McDermott Will & Schulte, we expected a more proactive and responsive partnership. He is clearly a skilled attorney, but the execution on client service felt just adequate for our needs.