top of page
Trademarks and patents for mechanical inventions
About
Kamran Emdadi

Kamran Emdadi’s practice focuses

on all aspects of patent prosecution.

Mr. Emdadi’s experience includes substantial software experience, wireless communications devices, semiconductor fabrication, packet switching, telephony, digital communications, artificial intelligence software and LCD displays. He has successfully procured patents in the fields of software, electronic hardware devices and telecommunications. 

Prior to law school, Mr. Emdadi was a patent prosecution specialist at a patent firm, a patent agent and worked as an examiner for the US Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) for several years, where he concentrated on multiplex communication devices and wireless communication devices.


Mr. Emdadi is an adjunct professor at George Mason University where he teaches patent strategy and other legal topics for technology professionals.


Mr. Emdadi is a member of the American Intellectual Property Law Association. 
 

Kamran Emdadi
Principal
kamran.emdadi@gmail.com

516 Susan Constant Dr.

Virginia Beach VA 23451

+1.571.437.7660

PRACTICES

Intellectual Property

EDUCATION

University of Baltimore JD

George Mason University, B.S.E.E., M.S.E.E.
 

ADMISSIONS

District of Columbia

U.S. Patent Office

EXPEREINCE

Engineer – 2 years

USPTO Examiner - 2 years

Patent Preparation

and Prosecution - 18 years

 

COURTS

U.S. Patent and Trademark Office

Detailed patent prosecution experience

Mr. Emdadi’s experience with patents has continuously included telecommunications technologies such as:  packet switching, broadband digital communications, RF, antenna, optical and cellular.  


His Experience at the USPTO include three years of work specifically in art unit classifications:  370 (multiplexing), 375 (TX/RX), 379 (Telephony) and 455 (Cellular).  Mr. Emdadi’s name is displayed on the following patents which he examined and ultimately allowed as a patent examiner at the USPTO.  His knowledge of what should be included in an allowable telecommunications patent is based on years of experience on both ends of the patent prosecution cycle, both at the USPTO and in private practice.

 

  • 7,006,495  Transmitting multicast data packets 

  • 6,999,413  Packet switching apparatus 

  • 6,996,063  Applicable PDU range test and calculation for window-based polling 

  • 6,977,908  Method and apparatus for discovering computer systems in a distributed multi-system cluster 

  • 6,788,647  Automatically applying bi-directional quality of service treatment to network data flows 

  • 6,724,736  Remote echo cancellation in a packet based network 

  • 6,704,292  Use of remote poll to facilitate determining network topology 

  • 6,680,931  Data multiplex broadcasting method, data multiplex broadcasting system, receiving device, and recording device 

  • 6,678,252  Method and apparatus for dynamic source routing in ad hoc wireless networks 

  • 6,636,490  Self-installation of wireless access network terminals 

  • 6,631,122  Method and system for wireless QOS agent for all-IP network 

  • 6,628,660  Finite state machine with associated memory 

  • 6,603,735  PN sequence identifying device in CDMA communication system 

  • 6,594,270  Ageing of data packets using queue pointers 

  • 6,584,069  Packet filtering apparatus that applies a plurality of filtering conditions including different comparison criteria to a single packet 

  • 6,570,885  Segment-controlled process for controlling castouts from a communication cache in a port in any of multiple nodes in a communications network 

  • 6,549,532  Allocation of uplink radio resources in a radio communication system 

  • 6,515,998  Table data retrieving apparatus retrieving table in which reference data is stored by using retrieval key 

 

In private practice, Mr. Emdadi has worked for various patent law firms while representing numerous telecommunications companies including:  Hughes, CommScope, Lucent, Siemens, Samsung, Nokia and Broadcom.

He has successfully prosecuted patent applications resulting in allowed patents for each of the above-noted companies, with particular emphasis on Lucent, Nokia and Broadcom.  His knowledge of how to write a patent application is based on anticipating the result of the Patent Examiner’s examination approach, while taking into consideration the patent rules and laws which dictate the correct approach to expounding the complex details of a telecommunications patent. 

bottom of page