Barry is a Chambers ranked IP litigator who tries cases in district courts throughout the country, at the USPTO, and at the ITC. A chemical engineer by training, Barry litigates patent disputes in the chemical, mechanical and electrical arts, and has significant experience with trademark and antitrust litigation. In addition, Barry has successfully argued appeals to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. Outside of the courtroom, Barry assists clients with due diligence, opinions, and patent portfolio development.

Real-world industry experience distinguishes Barry’s practice. Before becoming an attorney, he worked for several years as a chemical engineer, first in a hydrosulfuric acid manufacturing plant, and then in various oil refineries on the East Coast, where he specialized in anti-foulant and anti-corrosion chemical technologies. Before joining the firm, Barry was a partner at Oblon McClelland Maier & Neustadt, a large intellectual property boutique in Alexandria, Virginia, where he was co-chair of the patent litigation and ITC practice groups. He also spent three years as a patent litigation associate at Arnold & Porter in Washington, D.C.

Barry has been selected by his peers for inclusion in Best Lawyers in America for the past several years in the fields of Intellectual Property Litigation, Patent Litigation, and Patent Law.  He has been named by Best Lawyers as Baltimore’s Patent Litigation “Lawyer of the Year” for the last 3 years (2017-2019).  In 2018, he was named by the Maryland Daily Record as one its Leadership in Law honorees.

In addition to his practice, Barry has been active in the Maryland State Bar Association’s Intellectual Property Section for the past several years, and served as Section Chair in 2016 - 2017. He has also served on the Board of Directors for Boys Hope Girls Hope Baltimore, and just finished serving a two-year term as the organization’s Chairman of the Board. Barry was recently named to the board of the Economic Alliance of Greater Baltimore.  Outside of the office, Barry coaches youth baseball and basketball for the Severna Park Green Hornets organization.

Barry is the Office Managing Partner of the Baltimore, MD office and the leader of Womble Bond Dickinson’s U.S. Chemicals Subsector (Manufacturing). He is AV rated by Martindale Hubbell.

Presentations and Publications

  • Co-author (with Christine Dupriest), Patent Rights: What the Federal Circuit Giveth, the Supreme Court Taketh Away? The Federal Lawyer, Jan./Feb. 2013
  • Co-author (with Jim Lennon), Predicting Patentability in the Unpredictable Arts: A Look Back at the Federal Circuit’s 2012 Decisions on the Obviousness of Chemical Innovations,, January 21, 2013
  • Patent Trolls Hiding in the International Trade Commission?, April 13, 2012
  • What Non-U.S. Companies Should Know About the ITC, April 3, 2009
  • There are Limits to How Tricky One’s Questioning Can Be, February 22, 2006
  • Obviousness Standard: Leveraging Latest PTO and Court Guidance -- Overcoming Challenges of Obviousness and Attacks on Patent Validity, Strafford Webinar, June 1, 2017
  • Claim Construction Caselaw Update:  Mechanical and Chemical Arts, American Intellectual Property Law Association Webinar, June 9, 2015
  • Obviousness Standard After the AIA: Leveraging Latest PTO and Court Guidance, Strafford Webinar, January 15, 2015
  • Co-presenter (with Kristen Cramer), Hidden Dangers When Choosing Outside Counsel and Teaming Up with Similarly Situated Defendants: Ethical Implications of Beauty Contests, Hot Potatoes and Joint Defense Agreements, Association of Corporate Counsel’s Greater Philadelphia Delaware Valley Chapter (DELVACCA), Philadelphia, PA, Dec. 4, 2014

Civic and Professional Activities

  • Intellectual Property Owners Association, Litigation Section
  • Lehigh Lawyers Association
  • Maryland State Bar Association, Intellectual Property Section, Chair, 2016-2017; Chair-Elect, 2015 -2016 ; Membership Chair, 2014-2015.
  • Board of Directors, Boys Hope Girls Hope of Baltimore
  • Board of Directors, University of Maryland School of Law’s Intellectual Property Entrepreneurship Clinic.
  • Board of Directors, Economic Alliance of Greater Baltimore
  • League Director and Coach, Severna Park Green Hornets Basketball

Honors and Awards

  • Chambers USA 2018 Ranked Lawyer, Intellectual Property, Maryland
  • Best Lawyers: Recognized in The Best Lawyers in America© in the fields of Litigation - Intellectual Property, Litigation - Patent, Patent Law, 2012 – Present
  • Received the Best Lawyers™ Patent Litigation "Lawyer of the Year" award in Baltimore, 2017 - 2019
  • Leadership in Law (Daily Record 2018)

Any result the lawyer or law firm may have achieved on behalf of clients in other matters does not necessarily indicate similar results can be obtained for other clients.

  • Serving as first chair, Barry represented DynaEnergetics in three intellectual property litigations brought by GEODynamics in the Eastern District of Texas:
    • After a four-day jury trial involving a method patent, in March 2017, DynaEnergetics obtained a complete defense verdict, including a finding of noninfringement and three different bases of invalidity for each of the patent claims. At a subsequent bench trial on the trademark “reactive,” Judge Payne issued a judgment canceling GEODynamics’ incontestable trademark, finding that it was generic.
    • Barry led a team at the PTAB that successfully invalidated all asserted claims of a product patent in an inter partes review proceeding.  The final decision was issued in March 2018.
    • After a four-day jury trial in October 2018, DynaEnergetics obtained a complete defense verdict of a product patent, including a finding of noninfringement and invalidity of each of the patent claims.      
  • Barry led the patent team in an antitrust case involving allegations of sham patent litigation in the District of Minnesota for a publicly traded paperboard company. The district court granted summary judgment in favor of the firm’s client, finding no liability, and the case is currently on appeal to the 8th Circuit.
  • Barry served as first-chair litigator in a landmark patent infringement case for client Saint-Gobain, one of the world’s largest glass companies and the leading windshield manufacturer for European cars. Saint-Gobain won a $10.9 million damages award against a Chinese windshield manufacturer, and the jury found the infringement was willful. The district court subsequently doubled the damages award and granted Saint-Gobain attorneys’ fees and costs for a total award exceeding $24 million.
  • At the International Trade Commission, Barry has represented both complainants and respondents in several matters. As one example, he represented SMC Corporation in a Section 337 proceeding involving connectors used in pneumatic-control systems and was instrumental in the Commission’s finding of noninfringement, which was affirmed on appeal.
  • Barry has successfully represented clients (both patentees and petitioners) at the USPTO in inter partes review (IPR) proceedings. Barry’s technical background, combined with his advocacy and cross-examination skills that have been honed through years of litigating patent disputes, make him ideally suited for IPR proceedings, either by themselves or in conjunction with district court litigation. For instance, he represented a defendant carpet tile manufacturer, Tandus Centiva Inc., in patent infringement cases in the Northern District of Georgia, inter partes reviews at the USPTO, and appeals to the Federal Circuit. Barry led a team that successfully defeated a motion for a preliminary injunction and then convinced the district court to stay the litigation. The USPTO subsequently canceled all of the challenged claims of three asserted patents, and the Federal Circuit affirmed.
  • Barry also has significant appellate experience at the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit emanating from district court litigation. In a seminal case involving the applicability of Section 102(g), Barry successfully argued that United States reproduction of technology conceived overseas does not qualify a United States manufacturer as a prior inventor under the statute. Solvay S.A. v. Honeywell Int’l, Inc., 622 F.3d 1367 (Fed. Cir. 2010)

Bar admissions

1999, Maryland

2001, District of Columbia

Registered to practice in:

  • Maryland
  • District of Columbia
  • US Patent and Trademark Office

Admitted to practice before:

  • Supreme Court of the United States
  • US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
  • US International Trade Commission
  • US Court of International Trade
  • US District Court for the District of Colorado
  • US District Court for the District of Maryland
  • US District Court of the Western District of Michigan
  • Court of Appeals of Maryland
  • District of Columbia Court of Appeals


  • J.D., 1999, University of Maryland School of Law
    • Maryland Law Review
    • Moot Court Board
    • Order of the Coif
  • B.S., 1992, Lehigh University
Get connected

Twitter Icon LinkedIn Icon Facebook Icon YouTubeIcon