Overview

Dara 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.

In 2015, 2016, and 2017 Dara was selected as a Washington, DC “Rising Star” in intellectual property by Super Lawyers Magazine.

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.

Experience

  • 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).
  • Loyalty Conversion Systems Corporation v. American Airlines, Inc. (Eastern District of Texas). Counsel for American Airlines, United Airlines, Delta Airlines, US Airways, and Frontier Airlines against Loyalty Conversion Systems Corporation in a patent infringement case filed in the Eastern District of Texas. The technology included converting loyalty points into other forms of credits and/or currency for purchase of good and/or services. Successfully argued that 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). In addition, filed two Covered Business Method Patent Review Petitions that were instituted on 101 grounds.
  • Gemalto, Inc. v. Merchant Customer ExchangeCommercial arbitration in which our client claimed improper termination of a service contract for the provision of a mobile payment platform. After a week-long arbitration before a three-judge panel, won $45.8 million (including attorney fees) for improper termination in a complete victory for our client.
  • 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).
  • Aeritas LLC v. Delta Air Lines Inc. and US Airways. Defended Delta Air Lines and US Airways in the District of Delaware. Aeritas LLC filed multiple actions in District of Delaware alleging infringement of the use of an electronic mobile boarding pass to gain entry on a flight. Aeritas, LLC v. Delta Airlines, Inc., No. 1:11-cv-00969 (D. Del., filed October 13, 2011); Aeritas, LLC v. US Airways Group, Inc. et al., No. 1:11-cv-01267 (D. Del., filed December 21, 2011).
  • 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).

Education

Franklin Pierce Law Center (now University of New Hampshire School of Law), JD

Pennsylvania State University, BS, Electrical Engineering

Admissions

  • District of Columbia
  • New York

Court

  • 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
  • US Patent and Trademark Office