Brand owners recently gained a new weapon for their arsenal in the ongoing fight against counterfeit products sold on online marketplace giant Amazon.com.
Nikola L. Datzov
Assistant: Dawn Marshall, 612.492.7830
“Every problem has a solution. My goal is to strategically guide my clients toward the best one.”
Nick is an intellectual property attorney who leverages his computer science background and experience in the federal courts to help clients resolve a wide range of complex intellectual property law disputes.
Nick is a member of Fredrikson & Byron P.A.’s Intellectual Property Litigation, Artificial Intelligence, and Anti-Counterfeiting Groups. He represents clients in intellectual property litigation throughout the United States, including popular patent venues such as Delaware, Illinois, California, and Texas. Nick has also successfully represented parties in inter partes review proceedings before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board and on appeal before the Federal Circuit and Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals. In addition, Nick advises clients in pre-suit matters relating to intellectual property and technology-related disputes.
Prior to joining Fredrikson & Byron, Nick served as a law clerk to judges in the U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit. Before law school, Nick worked for an international technology and business consulting company, assisting Fortune 50 companies in complex technology projects and initiatives. In his spare time, he enjoys pursuing various technology projects, such as designing and building custom water-cooled computers. Coming from a family of engineers as well as a career in business, Nick appreciates and understands the importance of intellectual property rights for both companies and inventors.
Nick has been selected by his peers as a Rising Star in Patent Litigation for the past three years (awarded to only 2.5% of Minnesota attorneys). In addition to advising clients, Nick has presented and written on issues relating to patent subject matter eligibility, the intersection of patents and trade secrets, IP issues relating to computer software, artificial intelligence, and anti-counterfeiting. Nick has also served as an adjunct professor at Mitchell Hamline School of Law, teaching classes on Intellectual Property Remedies and legal analysis.
Articles & Presentations
December 18, 2017
The District of Minnesota recently issued its fourth post-Alice decision, this time addressing the question of patent subject matter eligibility for a check processing patent.
July 12, 2017
The Honorable Donovan Frank recently issued only the second decision in the District of Minnesota to address the question of patentable subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101 in the context of a motion to dismiss.
October 19, 2016
The Federal Circuit’s recent patent eligibility opinion in McRO Inc. v. Bandai Namco Games America, 2016 WL 4896481 (Fed. Cir. Sept. 13, 2016) is the latest to find claims involving computer technology that survive a § 101 challenge.
Your First Shot to Invalidate a Patent May be Your Last—District of Minnesota Holds Issue Preclusion Bars Party from Presenting ANY Invalidity Arguments
August 30, 2016
The District of Minnesota recently held that the doctrine of issue preclusion bars a party from making any invalidity arguments or re-construing claims of a patent it has previously litigated.
April 15, 2016
Preliminary injunctions in patent litigation are tough to win at the district court. Even if you do, you may still need to defend the decision at the Federal Circuit. Given the high-reversal rate of claim constructions on appeal, it is a good idea to raise multiple patent claims to support an injunction. Otherwise, as the Federal Circuit’s recent reversal of the preliminary injunction in Luminara Worldwide, LLC v. Liown Elecs. Co., No. 2015–1671, 2016 WL 797925 (Fed. Cir. Feb. 29, 2016) illustrates, putting all your eggs in one basket may prove costly.
January 22, 2016
It is not uncommon for a party seeking to license or acquire a patent to request information from the patent holder regarding the patent’s validity and strength. Often, this includes highly confidential documents between the patent holder and attorneys, which are generally privileged and protected from disclosure. However, disclosing privileged documents to a third party usually constitutes a waiver of the privilege. In limited circumstances, the “common interest doctrine” allows two or more entities with a joint interest to share privileged information without waiving its protection. This can include, for example, communications between separate parties negotiating a patent license. Before disclosing any privileged communications to a potential licensee, though, a patent holder should carefully consider whether they may be discoverable in subsequent litigation by a party seeking to invalidate the patent.
October 13, 2015
For all the protection the attorney-client privilege offers, it presents a bevy of potential pitfalls that may lead to the ultimate disclosure of the privileged documents.
Want to Preliminarily Enjoin the Sale of an Infringing Device? Be Prepared to Show the Value of Your Patent
September 3, 2015
Recently, the District Court of Minnesota denied a patent holder’s motion to preliminarily enjoin the sale of an infringing device because the patentee failed to show a sufficient nexus between the allegedly infringing technology and lost sales.
March 13, 2014
A three year old patent suit has been stayed pending review in the Patent Trial and Appeal Board. The stay is the first granted in the District of Minnesota since the Leahy-Smith America Invents Act created a new procedure for challenging Covered Business Method patents. When granting the stay, the Court expressed “grave doubts” about the validity of the patents.
PUBLICATIONS & PRESENTATIONS
- “Digital Health: Emerging Legal, Regulatory and Ethical Issues,” Fredrikson & Byron Health Law Webinar Series, January 16, 2019
- Presenter, “The Year in Review for Minnesota IP Litigation,” MIPLA Stampede, May 2018
- Moderator, “Trade Secret Conference,” hosted by Intellectual Property Institute at Mitchell Hamline School of Law, April 21, 2017
- Presenter, “The Year in Review for Minnesota IP Litigation,” MIPLA Stampede, June 2016
- “Patent Licensing – Think Twice before Sharing Privileged Documents with a Potential Patent Licensee: You May Be Making It Easier for a Party to Later Invalidate the Patent,” The Licensing Journal, April 2016
- “Want A Preliminary Injunction? Show The Value Of Your Patent,” Law360, October 2015
- “The Machine-or-Transformation Patentability Test: The Reinvention of Innovation,” 33 Hamline Law Review 281, Spring 2010
- “The Ultimate Car Entertainment System: The Carputer,” ACM Crossroads, December 2006
Honors & Education
- Hamline University School of Law, J.D., 2011,summa cum laude
- The University of South Dakota, B.S., Computer Science, 2006, summa cum laude
- Minnesota, 2011
- United States District Court for the District of Minnesota, 2013
- Minnesota Super Lawyers, Rising Star – Intellectual Property Litigation, 2017-2018
- Minnesota State Bar Association, North Star Lawyer, 2015
- Minnesota Federal Bar Association Judge Jacob Dim Award for Excellence in the Study of Federal Law
- Judge John R. Brown Admiralty Moot Court Competition – National Champion, Best Oralist, Best Petitioner’s Brief
- Hamline Law Review, Managing Editor, 2010-2011, Associate, 2009-2010
- Best Oralist in 1L Class
- Best Brief in 1L Section
- Judicial law clerk, the Honorable Kermit E. Bye, Judge for the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit
- Judicial law clerk, the Honorable Leo I. Brisbois, United States Magistrate Judge for the District of Minnesota
- Minnesota State Bar Association
- American Bar Association
- Federal Bar Association
- Minnesota Federal Bar Association – Law School Outreach Committee
- Hon. Jimmie V. Reyna IP Inn of Court