Wayne Helge

Bunsow De Mory

Partner

277 South Washington Street
Suite 210, #1088
Alexandria, VA 22314, United States

+15712080186

English


Practice area:

Intellectual property


Wayne Helge is a Registered Patent Attorney and represents clients in all aspects of patent and intellectual property law, including litigation, post-grant patent challenges, patent and trademark prosecution, licensing, and technology-related commercial disputes.

Wayne has extensive experience and a superb track record representing clients before the U.S. Patent & Trademark Office. He has prosecuted hundreds of patent applications, including ex parte reexaminations, and been counsel in more than 200 inter partes review proceedings, nearly always serving as lead counsel.

Wayne has represented both plaintiffs and defendants in federal courts across the country, including in the active patent litigation venues in Texas, California, and Delaware, and appeals to the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. Most of these cases have been patent infringement cases, but Wayne also represents clients in technology-related litigation such as software license disputes, breach of non-disclosure agreements and trade secret misappropriation. litigation, and has prepared legal opinions and recommendations to avoid infringement liability. Wayne has negotiated and drafted many U.S. and international patent licenses over his career.

Wayne is experienced in matters involving a wide variety of technologies, including computer-based threat modeling, power distribution systems, medical devices, online gaming and virtual reality software, imaging software solutions, fiber-optic communications and modulation, semiconductors and semiconductor manufacturing, video encoding, flat panel displays (LCDs, plasma display panels, OLEDs) and driving circuitry, telecommunications devices and standards, and computer memory. He also is a Registered Professional Engineer and holds a Master of Science degree in civil engineering from the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, which he earned while serving as an officer in the U.S. Coast Guard.

  • Microsoft, Inc. v. Dialect LLC: IPR2025-00655, IPR2025-00656, IPR2025-00657; IPR2025-00658; IPR2025-00659: As lead counsel, Wayne successfully defended the validity of five Dialect LLC patents at the PTAB. The patents claim improvements to voice recognition and speech processing. Microsoft filed five inter partes review petitions against Dialect on patents Dialect had asserted against Bank of American in patent infringement litigation. Wayne successfully persuaded the Director of the US Patent and Trademark Office to deny all five IPRs based on a novel argument. Bunsow De Mory argued that because a Microsoft subsidiary had once owned the five patents and retained a license to them, Microsoft should not be permitted to challenge the validity of the patents. The Director agreed and ruled, “Absent exceptional circumstances, it is not an appropriate use of Office resources where a party’s wholly owned subsidiary owned, maintained, sold, and retained a license for a patent, but as is the case here, the party now advocates for its unpatentability.” Microsoft did not seek reconsideration of the Director’s decision.

  • Digital Global Systems, Inc. v. DeepSig, Inc., IPR2024-00194, IPR2024-01358, IPR2025-00049: DeepSig owns patents claiming improvements to pre-distortion systems for radio signal transmissions. Digital Global System claims to be a competitor to DeepSig and with no litigation pending between the parties, filed three inter partes review petitions against DeepSig patents. As lead counsel, Wayne successfully persuaded the PTAB to deny one IPR on the merits based on DGS’s failure to properly understand the asserted prior art. Prior to Board consideration of the second IPR, Wayne canceled a select number of broader claims, so only the most-focused and strongest claims remained in the patent. The Board then denied institution of that IPR on the merits as well. On the third IPR, the PTAB granted institution and will hold a trial on the challenged patent claims in December. A final written decision is expected by March 2026.

  • Verizon Wireless et al. v. Pegasus Wireless Innovation LLC: IPR2025-00317; IPR2025-00137; IPR2025-00138; IPR2025-00084; IPR2025-00083; IPR2025-00293; IPR2025-00292; IPR2025-00291; IPR2025-00290; IPR2025-00037; IPR2025-00036: Pegasus Wireless Innovation owns patents claiming improvements to mobile communications technology. Pegasus Wireless sued the major mobile communications carriers claiming they infringed 11 Pegasus Wireless patents. The patent infringement defendants filed 11 petitions for inter partes review, challenging the validity of all patents at issue in the federal court litigation. Defying the odds, Wayne persuaded the Director of the U.S. Patent & Trademark Office to deny institution in 10 of the 11 IPRs—including in three IPRs involving patents that Pegasus Wireless had dropped from the federal court litigation. The mobile communications carriers sought reconsideration of these 10 institution denials. The Director rejected the reconsideration requests in all ten IPRs. The PTAB granted institution in only one of the 11 IPRs. Wayne’s extraordinary success at the PTAB encouraged the parties to engage in serious settlement discussions. The federal trial, which was scheduled for September 8, was stayed pending final settlement agreements with the mobile communications carriers.

  • Intellectual property

  • Technology and telecommunications

  • B.S. Civil Engineering - U.S. Coast Guard Academy - 1997
  • M.S. Civil Engineering - University of Illinois at Champaign-Urbana - 2000
  • J.D. - Roger Williams University School of Law - 2005

  • Virginia - 2005
  • U.S. Patent & Trademark Office - 2005
  • District of Columbia - 2023