Joseph M. Hallman

Joe joined McKee, Voorhees & Sease, PLC in 2020 after graduating from the University of Minnesota Law School. Prior to law school Joe earned a Bachelor of Science in Electrical Engineering from the University of Iowa. Joe is a native of the Des Moines area.

During and immediately following his undergraduate studies, Joe worked as a software developer in the Des Moines area where he honed his technical skills while working on complex software applications. Following his time working as a software developer, Joe attended law school where he focused his studies on intellectual property law. While attending law school, Joe served as a staffer and managing editor of the Minnesota Journal of Law, Science & Technology.

In his free time Joe enjoys playing tennis, watching movies, and spending time with friends.

  • Design Patents
  • Electrical Patents
  • International
  • Mechanical Patents
  • Software & Business Methods Patents
  • Trademarks
  • Advanced Manufacturing
  • Agritech
  • Consumer Products and Technology
  • Lighting
  • Medical Devices

Professional Associations

Iowa State Bar Association


University of Minnesota Law School, J.D., May 2020

University of Iowa, B.S., Electrical Engineering with an emphasis on Software Engineering, Minors in Computer Science, Mathematics, and Spanish, December 2016

Bar & Court Admissions

Iowa State Bar, 2020

U.S. Patent & Trademark Office, 2021

Awards & Recognition

University of Iowa, Old Gold Scholarship recipient 2012-2016

University of Minnesota, Dean’s List 2018-2019

Minnesota Journal of Law, Science & Technology – Managing Editor

Federal Circuit reiterates the principle that when a § 103 rejection is based on a single prior art reference, the reference must be self-enabling in order to render the claimed invention obvious

On April 16, 2021, in Raytheon Technologies Corp. v. General Electric Co., the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (“Federal Circuit”) reversed a decision by the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“PTAB”) regarding unpatentability due to obviousness under 35 U.S.C. § 103. In its decision, the Federal Circuit made clear that when […]

Read Post →

Federal Circuit provides additional insight into § 101 eligibility

On February 8, 2021, in cxLoyalty, Inc. v. Maritz Holdings Inc., the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (“Federal Circuit”) dismissed-in-part, affirmed-in-part, and reversed-in-part a decision by the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“PTAB”) dealing with covered business method (“CBM”) review and subject matter eligibility under 35 U.S.C. § 101. This is […]

Read Post →

Federal Circuit Affirms Intrinsic Evidence Trumps Extrinsic Evidence During Claim Construction

On October 13, 2020, in Immunex Corp. v. Sanofi-Aventis U.S. LLC, Genzyme Corp., and Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Inc., the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (“Federal Circuit”) affirmed-in-part and dismissed-in-part an appeal from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“PTAB”) holding that when it comes to claim construction, intrinsic evidence trumps extrinsic evidence. […]

Read Post →

Stay in Touch

Receive the latest news and updates from us and our attorneys.

Sign Up