Nayyer J. Siddiqi
Quinn IP Law shareholder and patent attorney Nayyer J. Siddiqi has the uncanny ability to take an innovation apart and put it back together—metaphorically and strategically. Her extensive background and accessible approach help clients protect sophisticated technologies by quickly identifying the core innovation behind complex ideas and translating them into practical, strategically focused patent protection. Clients value her ability to understand difficult concepts efficiently, anticipate examination challenges early, and develop patent strategies that support both long-term protection and broader business objectives.
Drawing on her background in physics, Nayyer approaches inventions analytically, breaking complex technologies into their fundamental components to determine what is truly novel and how best to position it before the USPTO. This ability allows her to work effectively across a wide range of technical disciplines while helping inventors communicate highly advanced concepts in a clear, defensible, and commercially meaningful way.
Nayyer has the uncanny ability to take an invention apart and put it back together to help clients communicate even the most highly advanced concepts.
Nayyer works closely with inventors, engineers, and in-house legal teams throughout the patent process. Her approach begins with detailed inventor discussions and targeted follow-up questions designed to fully understand both the technology and the business goals behind it. By developing a deep understanding of each invention early in the process, she is able to craft claims with the appropriate scope and complexity while helping clients avoid unnecessary rounds of prosecution whenever possible.
Over the course of her career, Nayyer has handled increasingly sophisticated patent matters involving automotive systems, software, artificial intelligence, medical and optical devices, consumer products, and mechanical and electrical technologies. She has extensive experience prosecuting complex applications for global innovators, including emerging technologies.
In one recent matter involving quantum entanglement technology, Nayyer worked directly with a patent examiner to clarify highly technical aspects of an invention after an initial indefiniteness rejection. Following a detailed examiner interview, the application proceeded to allowance, reflecting her ability to effectively communicate and advocate for complex technologies during prosecution.
As artificial intelligence continues to reshape innovation and patent practice, Nayyer also advises clients on developing issues involving AI-assisted inventions, inventorship considerations, and the responsible use of AI tools while maintaining confidentiality and privacy obligations.
Nayyer’s path to intellectual property law began in science. After earning advanced degrees in physics, she taught clinical radiation physics before pursuing a legal career. During her legal studies, she recognized patent law as a natural extension of her scientific training and problem-solving mindset. She joined Quinn IP Law directly out of law school and has spent more than two decades helping clients secure and strengthen intellectual property protection in evolving and highly technical industries.
Prior to joining Quinn IP Law, Nayyer served as an adjunct faculty member in the Wayne State University Medical Physics department. She also served as a law clerk in a Detroit-based practice and interned for the Honorable Victoria A. Roberts of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan.
Articles
- Correcting Patent Claim Errors: Federal Circuit Guidance on the Limited but Important Role of Courts.
- Insufficient Functional Disclosure Sinks Brita’s Water Filtration Patent at the Federal Circuit
- Federal Circuit Ruling in Allergan USA v. MSN Labs Clarifies Interplay Between Patent Term Adjustment and Obviousness-Type Double Patenting | Quinn IP Law
- It’s Over, Durling: Federal Circuit Rejects Rosen-Durling Test for Assessing Obviousness In Design Patents
- Double Trouble? Federal Circuit Ruling Creates Tension Between Patent Term Adjustment and Obviousness-Type Double Patenting
- How “The Enablement Requirement” Limits Some Inventors but Empowers Others
- Protecting Inventions by Design
- Printed Publications: A Discussion of What Qualifies as Prior Art
- Objective Indicia In Obviousness: Part of Entirety of Evidence or Rebuttal for Prima Facie Obviousness?
- Federal Circuit: PTAB Must Adequately Support Obviousness Determinations
- Subject-Matter Eligibility for Business Methods