Benjamin M. Cutchshaw Joins Wilson Keadjian Browndorf, LLP’s Irvine Office

IRVINE, CA (AUGUST 8, 2018) – Wilson Keadjian Browndorf, LLP (“WKB”) is pleased to announce that Benjamin Cutchshaw has joined the firm as a partner in its Commercial Litigation Practice Group and will be resident in the firm’s Irvine office.

Mr. Cutchshaw brings substantial litigation experience at both the trial and appellate levels. His practice focuses on complex commercial disputes, intellectual property matters, and financial services litigation. He also regularly advises clients regarding risk management and litigation avoidance, corporate governance, employment law, lender liability, and creditors’ rights.

“We’re thrilled to have Mr. Cutchshaw on board. His in-house background and extensive trial experience makes him a valuable addition to the firm,” said Michael Keadjian, Managing Partner of WKB. “Expanding our commercial litigation practice group is a strategic focus of the firm, and Mr. Cutchshaw has ideal skill sets that further deepen our bench strength.”

Prior to joining Wilson Keadjian Browndorf, Mr. Cutchshaw was with Paul Hastings LLP and a boutique litigation firm. He is a graduate of the University of Michigan Law School and Pepperdine’s Graziadio Business School.

About WKB

WKB is a full-service law firm, offering its clients the energy, efficiency, and creativity of a smaller more flexible firm, with the skills and experience of a larger firm. Our attorneys’ experience is as diverse as our client base and includes significant experience in traditional industries such as finance, project development, construction, intellectual property, media and real estate, as well as emerging areas such as automation, e-mobility, and life sciences. Our model allows us to provide the same type of professional results as the larger firms but at far more competitive rates.

Media Contact

Danny Kim
Chief Marketing Officer



As far back as the 1970s, the Supreme Court has wrestled with the issue of whether patents should be granted for computer software and mathematical algorithms.  The Supreme Court tailored the definition of patentable subject matter through three landmark decisions, which have colloquially become known as the “patent eligibility trilogy.”  While the Court’s intention may have been to add clarity to a broad statute, the patent eligibility trilogy has long been the source of confusion and frustration among practitioners. It has become common when discussing these decisions for authors to take a cursory look at the underlying technical aspects of the cases and advance straight into the legal aspects. Conversely, this article will give a brief history of the well-documented legal progression in order to go in-depth exploring the technology behind the two contrasting holdings in Flookand Diehr in the aims of furthering the discussion and understanding of the Court’s precedent.

For the full article, see:

Tyler Train, Was Diehr A Flook in the System? A Systems Analysis for Two Landmark Patent Eligibility Supreme Court Decisions, 44 Rutgers Computer & Tech. L.J. 192 (2018)


© 2018 Tyler Train