About Austin
Austin Bonderer trained first as an engineer and then as a lawyer. He earned a B.S. in engineering from the University of Virginia in 1995 and returned to high school for a J.D. at The Catholic University of America Columbus School of Law, graduating in 2001. The technical and legal strands of his background form his work on patents and highbrow property matters.
He began his expert lifestyles at the United States Patent and Trademark Office, serving as a patent examiner in 1999. That position gave him firsthand exposure to patent prosecution and the practical necessities of patentability. After law school he moved into private practice and then into company work. By 2005 he was running as a patent lawyer at his own workplace, and in 2007 he joined Foxconn / Hon Hai Precision Industry Co. as in-house patent counsel.
The in-house role positioned him at the intersection of product development and highbrow property strategy. He recommended on patent filings and portfolio management, worked with engineers and outside counsel, and treated clearance and prosecution issues that occur in global production. Prior knowledge at the USPTO knowledgeable how he evaluated prior art and drafted claims that could stand up to exam.
Bonderer holds registration with the United States Patent and Trademark Office and maintains active club within the California State Bar, which he joined in 2008. He is admitted to practice in Pennsylvania and California and is registered before the USPTO. That aggregate of registrations reflects the twin threads of his profession: technical training and patent practice.
Today he operates The Law Office of Austin Bonderer, PC. The firm handles patent prosecution and counseling, including drafting and prosecuting utility patent applications, preparing workplace action responses, and advising clients on patentable subject matter. He advocates for individual inventors and corporate clients, drawing on prior in-residence knowledge when advising firms on how to align patent strategy with product timelines and manufacturing worries.
Clients and colleagues describe him as methodical in how he approaches patent claims and practical when assessing enforcement risk and prosecution alternatives. He continues to draw on his engineering background when parsing technical specs and on USPTO knowledge when framing arguments at some point of exam. His current practice facilities on patent prosecution and related counseling matters.
