Peter Schechter on Muck Rack

Peter Schechter

As seen in: BRINK, CNN, Medium, O Globo, Forbes, Los Angeles Times, MarketWatch, The Hill, The Hub (Johns Hopkins University), Miami Herald, The Dallas Morning News and
Political commentator and cohost of @altamarpodcast | Co-Founder @immigrantfooddc | FMR: Senior Vice President, @AtlanticCouncil and Founding Director @ACLatAm
Is this you? As a journalist, you can create a free Muck Rack account to customize your profile, list your contact preferences, and upload a portfolio of your best work. Claim your profile

Get in touch with Peter

Contact Peter, search articles and posts on X, monitor coverage, and track replies from one place.

Learn more about Muck Rack

Actions

Share this page

Is this you?

As a journalist, you can create a free Muck Rack account to customize your profile, list your contact preferences, and upload a portfolio of your best work.
Claim your profile

Articles

Is Writing Your Own Dictionary Dangerous? Yes.

|
By Garrett L. Sternhagen, Peter Schechter
| Mondaq
While a patent practitioner's work may not qualify for hazard pay, significant responsibilities include imagining how a patent may be interpreted in the future and avoiding potential negative consequences arising from the words the practitioner used to describe an invention.
Open in Who Shared View Duplicates (4) Issue with article?

Federal Circuit Drives Another Nail Into Patent Owners' Coffins In Ingenico v. IOENGINE

|
By Peter Schechter
| Mondaq
In what has to rank as one of the most anti-patent owner decisions of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in recent years, the court held that “IPR estoppel does not preclude a [failed IPR] petitioner from relying on the same patents and printed publications as evidence in asserting a ground [of invalidity at a subsequent district court trial] that could not be raised during the IPR.”1 In resolving a sharp split of district court authority on the scope of Inter Partes Review...
Open in Who Shared View Duplicates (2) Issue with article?

Same Language In Different Claims May Have Different Meanings

|
By Autumn Villarreal, Peter Schechter
| Mondaq
On September 16, 2024, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) vacated and remanded an invalidity ruling by the U.S. District Court for the District Minnesota which concluded that independent claims using the same language to define different boundaries of a "substantially rigid portion/segment" of a catheter were "mutually exclusive" and, therefore, indefinite.
Open in Who Shared Issue with article?
See all 101 articles

Actions

Share this page

Is this you?

As a journalist, you can create a free Muck Rack account to customize your profile, list your contact preferences, and upload a portfolio of your best work.
Claim your profile

Get in touch with Peter

Contact Peter, search articles and posts on X, monitor coverage, and track replies from one place.

Learn more about Muck Rack
 •  Privacy  •  Terms  •  Security and Legal  •   •   •   • 

© 2026 Muck Rack

SOC 2® Certified