- Representing a telecommunications provider as the defendant in district court litigation related to digital subscriber line (DSL) technology. (E.D. Tex.).
- Representing a multinational computer and electronics manufacturer as the respondent in an ITC investigation involving Wi-Fi related technology. Certain Electronic Computer Devices and Components Thereof, 337-TA-1382 (ITC).
- Representing a lithium-ion battery manufacturer as the appellee at the Federal Circuit. Maxell, Ltd. v. Amperex Tech. Ltd., No. 23-2285, -2256, -2257, -2258 (Fed. Cir.).
- Representing a medical equipment provider as the appellant and appellee at the Federal Circuit. Abiomed, Inc. v. Maquet Cardiovascular LLC, No. 24-1062 (Fed. Cir.); Maquet Cardiovascular LLC v. Abiomed, Inc., No. 23-2045 (Fed. Cir.).
- Representing a telecommunications company as the defendant in district court litigation relating to wireless routing technology. (E.D. Tex.).
- Representing a telecommunications company as the appellee at the Federal Circuit. (Fed. Cir.).
- Representing a consumer electronics company as the intervenor-appellee at the Federal Circuit. Roku, Inc. v. International Trade Commission, No. 2022-1386 (Fed. Cir.).
- Represented a global technology corporation as the defendant and counter-plaintiff in a district court litigation relating to voice solutions. Voxware, Inc. v. Honeywell International, Inc., et al., No. 1:2023-cv-00052 (D. Del.).
- Represented a network infrastructure provider as the defendant in district court litigation relating to digital subscriber line (DSL) technology. TQ Delta, LLC v. CommScope., et al., No. 2:21-cv-00310 (E.D. Tex.).
- Represented a telecommunications company as the defendant in district court litigation relating to digital subscriber line (DSL) technology. (E.D. Tex.).
- Represented a telecommunications company as the petitioner in six inter partes review proceedings related to digital subscriber line (DSL) technology. (PTAB).
- Represented a national real estate brokerage as the defendant in a district court litigation relating to 3D virtual tour technology. Obtained a rare jury verdict of both non-infringement and invalidity. (W.D. Tex.).
Senior Associate,
- Phone: +1 704 444 1283
- Email: nic.marais@alston.com
Leveraging his trial and appellate experience, Nic effectively navigates complex intellectual property issues for his clients.
- Represented a global technology corporation as the complainant in an ITC investigation and district court litigation involving various barcode scanning technologies. Barcode Scanners, Scan Engines, Mobile Computers with Barcode Scanning Functionalities, No. 337-TA-1321 (ITC); Certain Barcode Scanners, Scan Engines, Mobile Computers with Barcode Scanning Functionalities, Products Containing the Same, and Components Thereof, No. 337-TA-1317 (ITC); Honeywell Int’l Inc. et al. v. Zebra Techs. Corp., et al., No. 6:22-cv-00442 (W.D. Tex.); Honeywell Int’l Inc. et al. v. Zebra Techs. Corp., et al., No. 6:22-cv-00517 (W.D. Tex.).
- Represented a global technology corporation as the complainant in an ITC investigation involving various barcode scanning technologies. Certain Barcode Scanners, Scan Engines, Products Containing the Same, and Components Thereof, No. 337-TA-1165 (ITC).
Nic Marais routinely represents clients in complex intellectual property litigation matters before U.S. District Courts and the U.S. International Trade Commission (ITC). Nic has considerable trial experience, and relies on that experience in developing his cases. Nic also regularly handles matters at the appellate level. He is a former law clerk for the Hon. Kara F. Stoll of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit and former extern for the Hon. Frank M. Hull of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit. Nic was recognized in Best Lawyers: Ones to Watch® in 2024.
Nic received his J.D., with high honors, from the Emory University School of Law, where he was elected to the Order of the Coif and was awarded the ABA-Bloomberg BNA Award for Excellence in Intellectual Property. Before law school, Nic completed his master’s and undergraduate degrees in bioengineering at Clemson University.
-
Patent Case Summaries February 19, 2025Patent Case Summaries | Week Ending February 14, 2025A weekly summary of the precedential patent-related opinions issued by the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit and the opinions designated precedential or informative by the Patent Trial and Appeal Board.Patent Case Summaries February 19, 2025Patent Case Summaries | Week Ending February 14, 2025A weekly summary of the precedential patent-related opinions issued by the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit and the opinions designated precedential or informative by the Patent Trial and Appeal Board.
-
Press Release February 13, 2025Alston & Bird Secures ITC Win for ASUS in Patent Infringement Dispute Against LenovoAlston & Bird defended ASUS against claims that its computer products infringed three patents owned by Lenovo. In a victory for ASUS, the International Trade Commission on February 5 determined that all asserted claims in the three patents asserted by Lenovo were not infringed, invalid or both.Press Release February 13, 2025Alston & Bird Secures ITC Win for ASUS in Patent Infringement Dispute Against LenovoAlston & Bird defended ASUS against claims that its computer products infringed three patents owned by Lenovo. In a victory for ASUS, the International Trade Commission on February 5 determined that all asserted claims in the three patents asserted by Lenovo were not infringed, invalid or both.
-
Press Release February 5, 2025Alston & Bird Secures Another Victory for Amperex in Patent Infringement Dispute with MaxellAlston & Bird represented Amperex Technology Limited in multiple appeals by Maxell at the Federal Circuit. In a series of related wins for Amperex, the court affirmed four Patent Trial and Appeal Board rulings invalidating the claims of four Maxell patents. The patents—U.S. Patent Nos. 8,691,446; 9,077,035; 9,166,251; and 9,350,019—relate to rechargeable lithium-ion batteries and were asserted by Maxell against Amperex in a case pending in the Western District of Texas.Press Release February 5, 2025Alston & Bird Secures Another Victory for Amperex in Patent Infringement Dispute with MaxellAlston & Bird represented Amperex Technology Limited in multiple appeals by Maxell at the Federal Circuit. In a series of related wins for Amperex, the court affirmed four Patent Trial and Appeal Board rulings invalidating the claims of four Maxell patents. The patents—U.S. Patent Nos. 8,691,446; 9,077,035; 9,166,251; and 9,350,019—relate to rechargeable lithium-ion batteries and were asserted by Maxell against Amperex in a case pending in the Western District of Texas.
-
Press Release November 8, 2024Alston & Bird Secures Jury Verdict Defeating Claims of Patent Infringement Against NokiaAlston & Bird successfully defended Nokia of America Corporation against allegations that its router products infringed three patents owned by Correct Transmission.Press Release November 8, 2024Alston & Bird Secures Jury Verdict Defeating Claims of Patent Infringement Against NokiaAlston & Bird successfully defended Nokia of America Corporation against allegations that its router products infringed three patents owned by Correct Transmission.
-
Patent Case Summaries September 25, 2024Patent Case Summaries | Week Ending September 20, 2024A weekly summary of the precedential patent-related opinions issued by the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit and the opinions designated precedential or informative by the Patent Trial and Appeal Board.Patent Case Summaries September 25, 2024Patent Case Summaries | Week Ending September 20, 2024A weekly summary of the precedential patent-related opinions issued by the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit and the opinions designated precedential or informative by the Patent Trial and Appeal Board.
-
Patent Case Summaries August 14, 2024Patent Case Summaries | Week Ending August 9, 2024A weekly summary of the precedential patent-related opinions issued by the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit and the opinions designated precedential or informative by the Patent Trial and Appeal Board.Patent Case Summaries August 14, 2024Patent Case Summaries | Week Ending August 9, 2024A weekly summary of the precedential patent-related opinions issued by the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit and the opinions designated precedential or informative by the Patent Trial and Appeal Board.
-
Patent Case Summaries July 17, 2024Patent Case Summaries | Week Ending July 12, 2024A weekly summary of the precedential patent-related opinions issued by the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit and the opinions designated precedential or informative by the Patent Trial and Appeal Board.Patent Case Summaries July 17, 2024Patent Case Summaries | Week Ending July 12, 2024A weekly summary of the precedential patent-related opinions issued by the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit and the opinions designated precedential or informative by the Patent Trial and Appeal Board.
-
Patent Case Summaries April 10, 2024Patent Case Summaries | Week Ending April 5, 2024A weekly summary of the precedential patent-related opinions issued by the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit and the opinions designated precedential or informative by the Patent Trial and Appeal Board.Patent Case Summaries April 10, 2024Patent Case Summaries | Week Ending April 5, 2024A weekly summary of the precedential patent-related opinions issued by the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit and the opinions designated precedential or informative by the Patent Trial and Appeal Board.
-
Patent Case Summaries October 18, 2023Patent Case Summaries | Week Ending October 13, 2023A weekly summary of the precedential patent-related opinions issued by the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit and the opinions designated precedential or informative by the Patent Trial and Appeal Board.Patent Case Summaries October 18, 2023Patent Case Summaries | Week Ending October 13, 2023A weekly summary of the precedential patent-related opinions issued by the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit and the opinions designated precedential or informative by the Patent Trial and Appeal Board.
-
In the News August 4, 2023Law360 | Honeywell Wants $2.65M in Fees for Barcode Royalty FightScott Stevens, Ben Pleune, Michael Hoernlein, Stephen Lareau, Lauren Griffin, Brandon Springer, and Nic Marais are noted for representing Honeywell.In the News August 4, 2023Law360 | Honeywell Wants $2.65M in Fees for Barcode Royalty FightScott Stevens, Ben Pleune, Michael Hoernlein, Stephen Lareau, Lauren Griffin, Brandon Springer, and Nic Marais are noted for representing Honeywell.
Bar Admissions
- North Carolina
- U.S. Patent and Trademark Office
Education
- Emory University (J.D., 2018)
- Clemson University (M.S., 2015)
- Clemson University (B.S., 2014)