McCormick, Paulding & Huber PLLC

A long record in a defined field

McCormick, Paulding & Huber PLLC has a single office in Hartford, Connecticut. The firm traces its history back more than 100 years and states that it has practiced exclusively in intellectual property throughout that period. Its work serves domestic and international clients, including start-up companies and multinational businesses.

The practice covers patents, trademarks, copyrights, trade secrets, litigation, post grant proceedings, due diligence, legal opinions, and internet domain names. This range addresses both the creation of intellectual property rights and disputes over those rights. It also covers business decisions that depend on ownership, validity, or infringement analysis.

What the focused model means

An intellectual property matter often combines technical facts with rules set by statutes, courts, and federal agencies. Patent work may require an attorney to understand how an invention operates before preparing claims that define its legal scope. Trademark and copyright matters raise different questions about brand identity, creative works, registration, use, and ownership.

In my opinion, the firm's exclusive concentration on intellectual property gives prospective clients a clear account of its work. The site identifies concrete services and explains the technical backgrounds within the attorney group. That information helps a business assess whether the firm's experience relates to the technology or rights at issue.

How the attorney team is built

The firm's website names eleven attorneys: John C. Linderman, Marina F. Cunningham, Gerald L. DePardo, Jeanne M. Tanner, Mallory S. Hein, Justin Durelli, John C. Hilton, Scott McNeil, Raymond R. Mandra, Mark R. Myers, and Jack W. Hayes. The site states that its partners and associates belong to one or more state bars and hold registrations to practice before the United States Patent and Trademark Office. USPTO registration is directly relevant to representing inventors and patent applicants before that agency.

The attorney group has academic backgrounds in aeronautical engineering, biology, chemistry, computer and systems engineering, computer science, electrical engineering, industrial engineering, materials science, mechanical engineering, pharmaceutical studies, and physics. Those fields cover many of the technologies that appear in patent applications and disputes. Some attorneys began their careers at Bell Laboratories or United Technologies Corporation, while several have worked as in-house counsel.

Named credentials and prior roles

Managing partner Marina F. Cunningham holds a mechanical engineering degree from Columbia University, a master's degree in engineering from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, and a law degree from the University of Connecticut School of Law. She previously worked as a design supervisor at AT&T Bell Laboratories. That engineering and industry background relates closely to the technical analysis involved in patent work.

Justin Durelli is a partner with bachelor's and master's degrees in chemical engineering from the University of Connecticut. He earned his law degree at Quinnipiac University School of Law and previously worked in General Electric's Global Patent Operation. His practice includes patent prosecution involving mechanical and electromechanical technologies.

Jeanne M. Tanner has prosecution, litigation, and in-house experience as a patent attorney. She earned bachelor's and master's degrees in engineering from MIT and a law degree from George Mason University School of Law. Before joining the firm, she worked as intellectual property counsel at Cytonome and advised senior management.

Other stated backgrounds

John C. Linderman is of counsel and holds a mechanical engineering degree from MIT. He received his law degree from the University of Connecticut School of Law. His work includes intellectual property matters and litigation involving patents, trademarks, and copyrights in state and federal courts.

Gerald L. DePardo earned bachelor's and master's degrees in electrical engineering, respectively, at Northeastern University and Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute. He received his law degree from the University of Connecticut School of Law. Mallory S. Hein earned her law degree at Quinnipiac University School of Law, and her listed work includes corporate and incorporation matters, appeals, and litigation.

The firm states that attorneys receive training in prosecution, litigation, and licensing. That structure gives attorneys contact with several stages in the life of an intellectual property right. It can also help them see how language used during registration may affect a later license, opinion, or dispute.

Patent, trademark, and copyright services

Patent procurement begins with an invention and a decision about the protection worth seeking. In a typical matter, counsel studies an invention disclosure, identifies the features that may support patent claims, and prepares an application for the USPTO. The agency may issue office actions that require legal argument, claim amendments, or both.

The firm's patent services sit beside post grant proceedings and opinion work. Post grant disputes can place the validity of an issued patent before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board. An opinion may address infringement, validity, or freedom to operate, depending on the question a client needs answered.

Brand and creative work

Trademark procurement generally requires attention to the proposed mark, the listed goods or services, and existing marks that may create a conflict. The USPTO examines an application and may raise objections that call for a written response. Use records, ownership documents, and renewal deadlines can remain relevant after registration.

Copyright procurement concerns original works such as software, text, visual material, and other protected expression. Registration records identify the claimant and the work, while contracts may determine who owns rights created by an employee or outside contributor. The firm lists copyright disputes as part of its litigation work as well.

Internet domain name matters can overlap with trademark rights when a domain incorporates a protected brand or creates confusion. These disputes may involve registration records, website use, correspondence, and proof of trademark rights. The firm's inclusion of domain names gives clients a stated service for that online form of brand conflict.

Protection, disputes, and business review

Trade secret work depends heavily on the information at issue and the steps used to protect it. Common records include confidentiality agreements, employment terms, access controls, internal policies, and communications about disclosure. A dispute may turn on whether the information had economic value and whether its owner took reasonable protective measures.

IP litigation can involve patents, trademarks, copyrights, or trade secrets. Courts may address ownership, validity, infringement, available remedies, and procedural issues. Technical documents, product records, source materials, licenses, and witness testimony often shape the factual record.

Proceedings and written analysis

The firm's litigation practice includes state and federal courts. Its post grant work adds an agency forum for challenges involving issued patents. Each setting has its own deadlines, discovery rules, written submissions, and decision-makers.

Due diligence usually supports a transaction, investment, license, or other business decision. Counsel may review registrations, pending applications, assignments, licenses, disputes, and ownership records. The goal is to identify what rights exist, who controls them, and which obligations affect their use.

Legal opinions address a defined question after counsel reviews the relevant rights and facts. Patent opinions may require claim interpretation and comparison with a product or process. Trademark and copyright opinions may focus on ownership, protectable material, prior rights, or the planned use of a name or work.

Domestic base and international connections

Hartford places the firm's office between Boston and New York, two major business and legal centers. The firm also describes working relationships with law firms in every major United States city and in more than 50 foreign commercial centers. Those relationships matter because intellectual property rights depend on the laws and procedures of each jurisdiction.

An international filing program requires choices about countries, deadlines, local counsel, translations, and filing routes. Trademark portfolios also require country-specific decisions about registration and use. The firm's stated foreign relationships provide a means of coordinating local assistance when a matter reaches outside the United States.

Overall assessment

As a reviewer, the most useful feature is the close match between the firm's stated services and the backgrounds it identifies. The record shows an intellectual property practice with engineering and science training, USPTO registrations, litigation work, and prior industry experience. It also names services that address registration, enforcement, transactions, and written risk analysis.

McCormick, Paulding & Huber presents a focused option for companies, inventors, and rights holders with intellectual property matters. Prospective clients can compare the relevant technology, forum, and type of right with the experience stated for the attorney team. The firm operates through its Hartford office and coordinates with law firms in major United States cities and more than 50 foreign commercial centers.