REACH US AT 617.500.2500


O&R Patent Law

50 Congress St., Suite 1000

Boston, MA 02109

Telephone: (617) 500-2500


Frank R. Occhiuti

J. Robin Rohlicek, Ph.D.

Ido Rabinovitch

Attorneys, Agents & Technology Specialists

Faustino A. Lichauco

Zachary Rimkunas

Gregory Rohlicek

Faustino A. Lichauco

Of Counsel

Areas of Practice

Tino has practiced intellectual property law for 21 years. His practice includes appellate work before the Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences. He also has considerable experience in the preparation and prosecution of patent applications in a variety of areas, including medical devices and imaging systems, optical systems, signal processing systems, antennas and communication systems, electromagnetic devices, and software systems. Tino’s practice also includes preparation and prosecution of design patents, and trademark prosecution.

Professional Experience

Prior to joining Occhiuti & Rohlicek LLP, Tino was a principal at Fish & Richardson P.C. Before becoming a lawyer, Tino worked on help systems and documentation for a small software company. He was also a member of the technical staff at MIT Lincoln Laboratory.


J.D., Suffolk University Law School S.M., Electrical Engineering and Computer Science, M.I.T. S.B., Electrical Engineering, M.I.T.

Bar Admissions

Tino is registered to practice before the United States Patent and Trademark Office, Massachusetts state courts, the Federal District Court for the District of Massachusetts, and the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit.

Selected Publications

Be Careful What You Search For: Trawling the Patent Office’s Web Site Doesn’t Always Get Desired Results,” Mass High Tech, April 5-11, 2004.

“Patenting inventions: To be on the safe side, keep it simple,” Boston Business Journal, November 14, 2003.

“Pitfalls of Reissue Applications,” Technology Law Alert, col. 28, no. 1, September 2001.

Chapter titled ‘Mathcad PLUS’ of Section IV “Mathematical and Statistical Software” in The Handbook of Software for Engineers and Scientists, Paul Ross, (1995).

Litigation examples

Xcelera Inc. v. Speedera Networks, Inc. – (D. Del.), content delivery networks, settled on favorable terms; SeaChange International, Inc. v. nCUBE Corp. – (D. Del.), video servers, validity of client’s patent upheld in jury trial.; Telular Corp. v. Vox2, Inc. – (N.D. Ill.), cellular telephones, summary judgment for client on non-infringement.


Fluent in Tagalog