Intellectual Property Attorney Eugene Shkurko Joins Hiscock & Barclay
Former Kodak In-House Counsel Eugene I. Shkurko has joined Hiscock & Barclay’s Rochester office as a member of the firm’s Patents & Prosecution Practice. He brings nearly 20 years of experience handling corporate intellectual property matters for Fortune 100 companies to his practice.
Shkurko is skilled in all aspects of intellectual property, including patent preparation and prosecution, intellectual property licensing, and patent litigation support. His advanced degrees in electrical and computer engineering from the State University of New York at Buffalo (B.E.C.E, 1998 and M.E.E., 1990), along with an MBA from the Simon Graduate School of Business at the University of Rochester (2011) and J.D. from the University of New Hampshire School of Law (1992) provides him with an invaluable understanding of both the technical and business aspects of his clients’ products and business goals.
Prior to joining Hiscock & Barclay, Shkurko was in-house counsel in the engineering and legal departments of the Eastman Kodak Company and prior to that served as patent counsel for IBM. He is admitted to practice before the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office and is a member of the NYS Bar Association’s IP Law Section and the Rochester Intellectual Property Law Association.
Hiscock & Barclay, LLP, listed as a “Top 250 Firm” by The National Law Journal, is a full-service, 200-attorney law firm, with offices throughout the major cities of New York State, as well as in Boston, Washington, D.C. and Toronto, providing comprehensive legal and business counsel to a diverse client base in 31 practice areas. For more information on Hiscock & Barclay, visit www.hblaw.com.
- The Supreme Court Finally Weighs In On The Boundaries Of Copyrightability For Useful Articles
- U.S. District Court In Hawaii Issues TRO to Block Second Travel Ban the Day Before it is Set to Take Effect
- No Apportionment of Fault Where the State Occupies the “Empty Chair”
- New York Appellate Court Holds that Assault Did Not Relieve Insurer of Duty to Defend under Homeowners’ Policy