How the practice works
A permanent core and specialists per matter
A small practice: one patent attorney runs a matter from review to result, and specialists the practice works with on an ongoing basis are brought in for specific work. Here is the arrangement without varnish, and every number that can be checked.
The core Олег Абраменко
Russian and Eurasian patent attorney, court-appointed forensic expert, software engineer by training. Runs a matter from review to result.
- Russian patent attorney No. 1905 — all four register specialisations: inventions and utility models; computer programs, databases and IC topographies; industrial designs; trademarks and service marks
- Eurasian attorney No. 436 (inventions) and No. 21 (industrial designs)
- Forensic expert: Sudex No. 6514/21, STO-NSE-2016
- Rospatent IT working group, member of the Chamber of Patent Attorneys
Specialists the practice works with on an ongoing basis are brought in for a specific matter. Their involvement is agreed in advance rather than surfacing in the invoice.
What this changes for you. The matter is run by a specialist in information technology who understands the substance, not the form.
Three qualifications in one matter
Normally these roles sit with different people and organisations: the engineer explains, the lawyer drafts, the expert works it out afterwards. When they are combined, the technical meaning does not get lost at the handovers.
Reads the architecture and the code
The review runs directly with the developers. The technical effect is derived from how the solution actually works, not from a product deck.
EducationMGUPI, 2013 — computer and automated systems software
Handles prosecution
The application is drafted to Rospatent and EAPO examination requirements from the start. The qualification covers all four objects: inventions and utility models, computer programs and databases, industrial designs, trademarks.
QualificationRU attorney No. 1905 · EAPO No. 436 and No. 21
Stress-tests the result
The claims are drafted so that use of the features can actually be proven. In a dispute the position is built by the same method the court applies.
QualificationSudex No. 6514/21 · STO-NSE-2016 · 9 matters
Why it matters. A patent drafted without understanding the architecture does not protect the product. A patent drafted without regard to proof does not survive a dispute. Combining the three roles closes both gaps inside a single piece of work.
What backs it up
Everything that can be checked against a document or a public register.
EducationMoscow State University of Instrument Engineering and Computer Science, 2013. Qualified as an engineer in computer and automated systems software.
Russian patent attorneyRegister No. 1905, registered 5 July 2017. Qualified in all four specialisations: inventions and utility models (from 05.07.2017); computer programs, databases and IC topographies, industrial designs, and trademarks and service marks (all from 10.01.2018).
Eurasian attorneyNo. 436 for inventions and No. 21 for industrial designs.
Forensic examinationAdvanced training in the examination of computer systems, Sudex, 2021, reg. No. 6514/21. Certificate of conformity to STO-NSE-2016.
Professional bodiesMember of the Rospatent working group on IT patenting. AIPPI member. Member of the Chamber of Patent Attorneys.
Sector experienceLed the IT practice at the Skolkovo IP Centre, 2013–2016.
International practiceSecondment at Thomson Reuters, London — patent searching and landscapes. Secondment at ArentFox, New York — drafting IT patent applications.
RecognitionLeaders League “highly recommended” ranking for patent prosecution.
Matters as an expert
The docket numbers are public and can be checked in the court registers.
СИП-625/2017
А40-222484/2018
А40-41799/2019
А40-155064/2020
А40-91346/2022
А40-174315/2022
А40-44431/2024
А33-35012/2024
№16/01/14.7-1452/2024 УФАС по Республике Татарстан
Publications
Articles in professional journals.
Establishing the use of computer-implemented invention featuresPatents and Licences, 2023, No. 4, p. 33
Problematic issues in examining inventions relating to computer-implemented methodsCollegial Readings, 2021 (with N. V. Denisenko)
A review of IT patent litigation in the Russian FederationJournal of the IP Court