George Chen is a nationally recognized, award-winning intellectual property lawyer who litigates high stakes IP disputes and manages and prosecutes IP portfolios.  He serves on the global Board of Directors of Bryan Cave Leighton Paisner LLP, which has 30 offices and 1,300 lawyers worldwide, and also is the leader of the IP Practice in the Phoenix office.

George partners with long-term clients to develop, protect, litigate, and license patents, copyrights, trademarks, and trade secrets.  He has been recognized by (1) Best Lawyers of America as the Intellectual Property Litigation “Lawyer of the Year”, the Patent Law “Lawyer of the Year”, and the Copyright Law “Lawyer of the Year”, all in Phoenix; (2) IAM Patent 1000 as a “World’s Leading Patent Professional”; (3) World Trademark Review as a “World’s Leading Trademark Professional”; (4) Super Lawyers as a “Top 50 Attorney” in Arizona; (5) the State Bar of Arizona as the “Member of the Year”; and (6) the Arizona Foundation for Legal Services & Education as a “Top Pro Bono Attorney”.

George has testified before Congressional committees, has appeared in the media (including on NBC News), and is a co-inventor of 4 U.S. patents.  He was a past President of NAPABA, representing the interests of over 60,000 APA lawyers and judges across the country.  George serves as a member of the ABA House of Delegates, a Commissioner on the Commission for Women in the Profession, and an Advisory Committee member of the Task Force on the Law and Artificial Intelligence.

Articles, Publications, and Appearances


Tips On Numerical Ranges From Fed. Cir. Philip Morris Ruling  – March 14, 2024

Co-author for an article regarding RAI Strategic Holdings Inc. v. Philip Morris Products SA where the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit ruled that a claimed numerical range was adequately supported by the detailed description despite the detailed description disclosing only a broader numerical range than what was claimed.


Practice Tips To Help Keep Patent Reissuance Options Open – October 20, 2023

Co-author for an article regarding In re Float’N’Grill LLC where the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit ruled that it is improper for a reissue claim to omit a limitation from the original patent claim that covers “the invention disclosed in the original patent” because such an omitted limitation is required by 35 USC § 251.


6 Joint-Inventorship Lessons from Fed. Circ.’s Hormel Ruling – August 3, 2023

Co-author for an article regarding HIP Inc. v. Hormel Foods Corp. where the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit ruled that co-inventorship is based on how the claim invention is described in the patent and how the collaboration between co-inventors occurred, not merely the fact that the collaboration occurred.


Fed. Circ. Light Case Illuminates Scope of IP Claim Language – June 5, 2023

Co-author for an article regarding Lite-Netics LLC v. Nu Tsai Capital LLC where the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit held the claim language of “a … magnet” was construed as a singular magnet in view of how the claimed invention was described in the patent.


What Really Doomed Kidney Test Patents In Federal Circuit Ruling – December 16, 2022

Co-author for an article regarding CareDx Inc. v. Natera Inc. where the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit’s ruling supports not asserting patent claims in a lawsuit where some of the claims might not be subject matter eligible under 35 U.S.C. § 101.