2012 Annual Convention
|
|
- Stephen Perkins
- 5 years ago
- Views:
Transcription
1 2012 Annual Convention Your Guide to the America Invents Act: Trademark Enforcement for Small Businesses and Dynamics for Personal Motivation and Chemical Addiction Intellectual Property Section 1.5 General, 1.0 Professionalism, and.5 Substance Abuse CLE Hours May 2-4, 2012 Cincinnati
2 Dr. Helen M. Farrell Harvard Medical School Staff Psychiatrist at Beth Israel Deaconness Medical Center Boston, Massachusetts CONTRIBUTORS Timothy W. Hagan Dinsmore & Shohl LLP Dayton, Ohio Mr. Hagan received his BS from Cornell University and his JD from Georgetown University Law Center. He is a partner with his firm, where he represents clients in intellectual property matters (including patent application drafting and prosecution), provides opinions concerning patent infringement and validity matters, and provides counsel on licensing and patent enforcement. Mr. Hagan is a frequent lecturer on intellectual property law topics to local, regional, and national bar associations. For additional information, please visit Professor Sam S. Han University of Dayton School of Law Dayton, Ohio Dr. Han received his PhD from Worcester Polytechnic Institute and his JD from Georgia State University. He has been a professor at the University of Dayton School of Law since 2008, where he teaches in the areas of patent law and intellectual property law. Dr. Han is of-counsel at Thomas, Kayden, Horstemeyer & Risley LLP, where he works on a variety of patent-related matters. For additional information, please visit Lynda E. Roesch Dinsmore & Shohl LLP Cincinnati, Ohio Ms. Roesch received her BS from the University of Notre Dame, her MS from the University of Michigan, and her JD from The University of Toledo College of Law. Her professional memberships include the Cincinnati Bar Association, Ohio State Bar Association, American Bar Association, Federal Bar Association, and the International Trademark Association. Ms. Roesch counsels clients on trademark clearance and registrations and prosecutes trademark applications. Her practice focuses on litigation involving intellectual property at the trial court and appellate levels. Ms. Roesch represents clients in opposition and cancellation proceedings before the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board and tries trademark and copyright infringement and unfair competition actions all over the country. For additional information, please visit Barbara J. Varone Attorney at Law Munroe Falls, Ohio Ms. Varone received her BS from John Carroll University and her JD from Cleveland State University Cleveland-Marshall College of Law. Her areas of practice include patent preparation and prosecution, trademark law, copyright law, chemical arts, and organic chemistry.
3 Your Guide to the America Invents Act; Trademark Enforcement for Small Businesses; and Dynamics for Personal Motivation and Chemical Addiction Session # 607 Chapter 1 Trademark Enforcement for Small Business Lynda E. Roesch Trademarks Background Types of Trademarks Trademark Protection Responsibility of Trademark Owner When Infringement Occurs, What Action Can Trademark Owners Take to Protect Their Rights and the Value in the Mark How Do You, as an Owner, Decide What Action to Take? Cease and Desist Letters Can Be an Important Tool for Trademark Owners if Used Properly What to Consider When Deciding to Send Cease and Desist Letter Declaratory Judgment Actions The Bad News Consider the Type of Use/Context of the Use of the Mark Before Sending the Letter Informational Requests Can Be a Good Alternative to Cease and Desist Letters What Outcome Are You Looking for When You Send the Cease and Desist Letter? Additional Issues to Consider for the Target of the Letter Contents of a Cease and Desist Letter Responses Advantages of Cease and Desist Letters The Impact of the Internet on Cease and Desist Letters The Impact of the Internet on Cease and Desist Letters Is a Website Dedicated to Hosting Cease and Desist Letters Consider Defenses May Be Raised by the Infringer Attachment Report to Congress: Trademark Litigation Tactics and Federal Government Services to Protect Trademarks and Prevent Counterfeiting S. 2968, Trademark Technical and Conforming Amendment Act of 2010 Public Law Study and Report Table of Contents Letter to Congress Introduction Trademark Enforcement and Marketplace Impact Federal Government Resources to Protect Intellectual Property and Prevent Counterfeiting Recommendations Appendix A: USG Resource Contact Information Sheet Appendix B: Acronyms Chapter 2 Your Guide to the America Invents Act (AIA) Timothy W. Hagan Introduction The Biggest Changes Brought About by the AIA and What They Mean to You and Your Clients Implementation by the USPTO
4 Chapter 3 Dynamics for Personal Motivation and Chemical Addiction Dr. Helen M. Farrell and Professor Sam S. Han Dynamics for Personal Motivation and Chemical Addiction
5 Trademark Enforcement for Small Business 1 Lynda E. Roesch Dinsmore & Shohl LLP Cincinnati, Ohio
6 Trademark Enforcement for Small Business 1.1
7 1.2 Your Guide to the America Invents Act
8 Trademark Enforcement for Small Business 1.3
9 1.4 Your Guide to the America Invents Act
10 Trademark Enforcement for Small Business 1.5
11 1.6 Your Guide to the America Invents Act
12 Trademark Enforcement for Small Business 1.7
13 1.8 Your Guide to the America Invents Act
14 Attachment Trademark Enforcement for Small Business 1.9
15 1.10 Your Guide to the America Invents Act
16 Trademark Enforcement for Small Business 1.11
17 1.12 Your Guide to the America Invents Act
18 Trademark Enforcement for Small Business 1.13
19 1.14 Your Guide to the America Invents Act
20 Trademark Enforcement for Small Business 1.15
21 1.16 Your Guide to the America Invents Act
22 Trademark Enforcement for Small Business 1.17
23 1.18 Your Guide to the America Invents Act
24 Trademark Enforcement for Small Business 1.19
25 1.20 Your Guide to the America Invents Act
26 Trademark Enforcement for Small Business 1.21
27 1.22 Your Guide to the America Invents Act
28 Trademark Enforcement for Small Business 1.23
29 1.24 Your Guide to the America Invents Act
30 Trademark Enforcement for Small Business 1.25
31 1.26 Your Guide to the America Invents Act
32 Trademark Enforcement for Small Business 1.27
33 1.28 Your Guide to the America Invents Act
34 Trademark Enforcement for Small Business 1.29
35 1.30 Your Guide to the America Invents Act
36 Trademark Enforcement for Small Business 1.31
37 1.32 Your Guide to the America Invents Act
38 Trademark Enforcement for Small Business 1.33
39 1.34 Your Guide to the America Invents Act
40 Trademark Enforcement for Small Business 1.35
41 1.36 Your Guide to the America Invents Act
42 Trademark Enforcement for Small Business 1.37
43 1.38 Your Guide to the America Invents Act
44 Trademark Enforcement for Small Business 1.39
45 1.40 Your Guide to the America Invents Act
46 Trademark Enforcement for Small Business 1.41
47 1.42 Your Guide to the America Invents Act
48 Trademark Enforcement for Small Business 1.43
49 1.44 Your Guide to the America Invents Act
50 Your Guide to the America Invents Act (AIA) 2 Timothy W. Hagan Dinsmore & Shohl LLP Dayton, Ohio INTRODUCTION A. Most comprehensive change to U.S. patent law in 60 years; signed into law on September 16, B. Reasons for the new act: 1. To improve the U.S. patent system and bring it into the 21 st century. 2. Provides new procedures within the USPTO to strengthen good patents so that patent owners can enforce their rights. 3. Provides new procedures within the USPTO to make it easier for competitors to challenge weak patents. 4. Will simplify enforcement proceedings in U.S. courts. 5. Brings the U.S. patent system into greater harmony with the rest of the world. C. Transition to the new act. 1. Some changes were effective immediately last September. a. Expansion of prior commercial user defense to charges of patent infringement. b. Prioritized fast track patent examination. c. Penalties for false patent marking essentially eliminated. d. Best mode defense to patent invalidity eliminated. Your Guide to the America Invents Act (AIA) 2.1
51 2. Some changes effective September 16, a. Inter partes review of patent validity. b. Post grant review of patent validity. c. Supplemental examination. d. Third-party citation of prior art in pending applications. e. Assignee filing of patent applications. 3. Final round of changes effective March 16, a. First inventor to file (replaces first to invent). b. Prior art redefined. c. Derivation proceedings replace interferences. THE BIGGEST CHANGES BROUGHT ABOUT BY THE AIA AND WHAT THEY MEAN TO YOU AND YOUR CLIENTS A. Ending the plague of false marking suits brought by marking trolls (eff ). For many years, there was a false marking provision (35 U.S.C. 292) in the statute that provided for a fine of $500 for marking an unpatented product with a patent number or marking a product with an expired patent number for every such offense. Suit for recovery of the fine could be by any person via a qui tam action or suit brought by the government. After the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit interpreted the provision to permit up to a $500 recovery for each falsely marked product rather than for each occurrence (Forest Group v. Bon Ton Tool, 590 F.3d 1295 (Fed. Cir. 2009), hundreds of law such qui tam suits were filed asking for many millions of dollars in fines. The AIA amends 292 such that: (1) only the United States may bring suit to recover the fine; and (2) only competitors who have suffered competitive injury as a result of the false marking may bring suit to recover damages adequate to compensate for the injury. The amendment to 292 took effect immediately, and resulted in the dismissal of essentially all of the pending suits brought by marking trolls. The AIA (35 U.S.C. 287(a)) adds a new provision permitting patent owners to virtually mark their products by simply marking the product with the word patent (or pat. ) together with an Internet address that associates specific products with a specific patent number(s). 2.2 Your Guide to the America Invents Act
52 B. Expansion of the prior commercial use defense (eff ). The previous statute (35 U.S.C. 273) provided for this defense only in the case of business method patents. For patents issuing after September 16, 2011, new 273 provides that the defense is available against all types of patents and classes of patent claims. The prior commercial use must take place between the earlier of one year before the effective filing date of the patent application or public disclosure by the patentee. Assuming that it can meet that temporal standard, the defendant must also show that the invention or process was, in good faith, commercially used in the U.S. in an internal commercial use, in an actual arm's length sale, or other transfer that resulted in a commercial use. The defense must be established by a clear and convincing evidence standard. Of course, it is important to remember this is simply a defense, not a right. In other words, it is a safe harbor that protects the inventor or company that wishes to use the invention or process in private. It is not, however, a means for invalidating or affirmatively challenging a patent. And, there are several exceptions to the defense including restriction to the site or sites where the use occurred, the subject matter of the use must not have been derived from the patentee, and the use may not have been abandoned. C. First inventor to file, rather than first to invent; prior art re-defined (eff ). The United States has had a first-to-invent system in place for over 200 years. And, the United States has basically stood alone in the world over the past several decades as essentially every other major country has adopted a first-to-file system. The AIA will change all of that effective for patent applications filed on or after March 16, At that time, new 102 will re-define what constitutes prior art, simplifying and broadening the types of publically available information that will defeat patentability. Current ( old ) 102 contains seven separate conditions for patentability. Several involved information that is not publicly available to inventors at the time of patent application filing (prior filing of U.S. patent applications and prior secret invention by another). Indeed, several years and large amounts of money may be expended through commercialization efforts before such information surfaces. These conditions have largely been eliminated under the AIA in favor of a simplified structure. Under the new Act, two types of information constitute prior art capable of defeating patentability: (1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or was in public use, on sale, or was otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the patent application; and (2) the claimed Your Guide to the America Invents Act (AIA) 2.3
53 invention was described in a patent or a published patent application naming a different inventor, such patent or published application having an effective filing date before the filing date of the patent application. The AIA does provide exceptions. One provides a grace period for an inventor s own public disclosures. That is, if an inventor makes a public disclosure of his or her invention less than one year prior to the date of patent application, such disclosure is not patent defeating. Additionally, if either of the two types of prior art discussed above by others were made public less than a year before an inventor s patent application filing, they can be removed as prior art if such information was obtained from the inventor or someone who obtained it from the inventor. Thus, the AIA is not a strict first-to-file system, but rather is a first inventor to file system. No longer will inventors be able to move back their date of invention to the time an invention was conceived. Now, all prior art events are measured from the filing date of the patent application. The new system incentivizes the early filing of patent applications. From March 16, 2013, the first inventor to file gets the patent. D. New and enhanced pre- and post-grant review. 1. For pending patent applications. 2.4 Your Guide to the America Invents Act a. Derivation proceedings (eff ). Under the old statute and the first to invent system, the PTO conducted interference proceedings whenever two different inventors were claiming the same invention. Such proceedings are complex, involving questions of conception, diligence, and reduction to practice, and can drag on for many years (some for more than a decade). The new derivation proceeding will simply ask the question, did the first person to file obtain information from the (second to file) inventor and file his/her own patent application without authorization from that inventor? b. Third-party citation of prior art in pending patent applications (eff ). U.S. patent applications are published 18 months from first date of filing. Under the AIA, anyone can read and review published patent applications and bring relevant prior art to the attention of the PTO within (1) six months of publication, or (2) before a first action rejection,
54 whichever comes first. In the past, third party submitters were limited in the window of opportunity to cite prior art (2 months form publication), the number of documents permitted to be submitted (10), and were also prohibited from commenting on the relevance of what was being cited. The new statute places no limits on the number of documents that can be cited and requires a description of the relevance of each cited document. Requesters can remain anonymous, there is no threshold of relevance to be met, and there is no estoppel to the submitter to prevent reliance on the same prior art during a later patent challenge. 2. For issued patents. a. Supplemental examination (eff ). A common, and until the Federal Circuit s recent en banc opinion in Therasense Inc. v. Becton, Dickinson & Co., 649 F.3d 1276 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (en banc), some would say pervasive defense raised by accused patent infringers has been that the patentee engaged in inequitable conduct during prosecution such that the issued patent is unenforceable. The new supplemental examination procedure offers patentees the opportunity to return to the PTO and have the agency consider the relevance and/or materiality of allegedly withheld or misrepresented information. The AIA explicitly states that a patent shall not be held to be unenforceable based on information not considered or inadequately considered during examination if that information is considered, reconsidered, or corrected during a supplemental examination. b. Post grant review (PGR) (eff ). Similar to opposition proceedings in Europe, the AIA will now permit administrative challenges in the PTO to a patent if made within nine months of patent issuance. Previously, once a U.S. patent issued, the only way an accused infringer could invalidate it was by a suit in federal district court. The new proceedings will be handled by the newly-named Patent Trial and Appeal Board (formerly Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences). Your Guide to the America Invents Act (AIA) 2.5
55 2.6 Your Guide to the America Invents Act Post grant review challenges can be based on almost any ground for the invalidity of a patent permitted by statute including, prior art (claims anticipated or obvious), lack of utility, non-statutory subject matter, lack of written descriptive support, lack of enablement, and indefiniteness of claim language. Only failure to describe a best mode and incorrect inventorship are not permitted. Because the proceeding takes place at the PTO, patent claims are given their broadest reasonable interpretation and the challenger need only establish invalidity by a preponderance of the evidence. This is in contrast to district court proceedings in which claim scope is more limited and the evidence to invalidate must be clear and convincing. However, the challenger must meet the threshold requirement of showing that at least one challenged claim of the patent is more likely than not invalid, or that a substantial novel question of law is involved. There will be a substantial transition period to implement the new proceedings. Under the AIA, only patent applications filed after March 16, 2013 (and containing claims that have effective filing dates on or after that date) are eligible. Thus, given the 2-3 year time frame for prosecution, we may not see any patents issuing which are subject to the new act until There is a special provision in the AIA for business method patents. For an eight year period beginning on September 16, 2012, anyone accused of infringing a business method patent (i.e., claim directed to process or apparatus for performing data processing or relating to financial product or service) can institute a post grant review proceeding in the PTO. The nine month window does not apply. The PTO must decide within three months whether or not to proceed with post grant review, and must render a decision with one year of deciding to proceed. This time frame, breathtakingly short given the glacial pace of the application process in the PTO, will place a significant burden on the PTO to commit sufficient resources to meet the statutory requirements. It remains to be seen whether the PTO will be up to the task.
56 c. Inter partes review (IPR)(eff ). IMPLEMENTATION BY THE USPTO An inter partes review request can be filed at any time during the life of a patent, after the nine month window for post grant review has closed, or after a post grant review proceeding has been terminated, or within one year after an accused infringer has been sued. IT is expected that inter partes review will eventually replace the current reexamination proceedings at the PTO. The new inter partes review is applicable to all issued patents, whether before or after the AIA. The procedure is limited to the defense of patent invalidity and to the use of prior patents and publications as prior art. Again, a threshold showing by the requester that evidences that it is more likely than not that at least one claim is invalid is required. Like the new post grant review proceeding, the inter partes review is subject to the same tight time frames three months to decide whether to proceed, and a decision within a year. A. Proposed rule changes have been rapidly issuing from the USPTO; using the new fee setting and cost recovery authority provided to it by the AIA, the USPTO has proposed some eye-popping fees for some of the new proceedings. The PTO has taken the position that the fees still present lower cost alternatives than district court proceedings. B. Group 1 rules implemented in Fast track examination of patent applications. Prioritized examination in PTO parlance. For a fee of $4800, a patent applicant can request that his/her application be given priority examination. The PTO s goal is to provide a final disposition within twelve months, on average, of prioritized status being granted (compared to from months for normal processing). A maximum of 10,000 requests will be granted per fiscal year. Prioritized examination is available at the time of filing an original utility or plant application, or in a request for continued examination (RCE) in a plant or utility application. 2. A 15 percent surcharge for most fees. 3. Additional fees for not filing electronically. 4. Change in the threshold for the grant of an ex parte reexamination request from substantial new question of patentability to more likely than not at least one claim is invalid. Your Guide to the America Invents Act (AIA) 2.7
57 C. Group 2 rules to become effective September 16, Third-party submission of prior art in a patent application. Third-party submissions may be in the form of patents, published patent applications, or other printed publications. Submissions must be made before the earlier of: (1) mailing of a notice of allowance, or (2) the later of: (a) 6 months from the date of publication of the application, or (b) the mailing of a first rejection of the application. A concise statement of the relevance of each document must be included with the submission, as well as a fee ($180 for each 10 documents or fraction thereof). The third party is not required to serve the submission on the applicant (thereby not creating a requirement that the applicant duplicate the submission to the PTO), nor will the PTO notify the applicant of the submission. It will be available in the electronic file of the application in PAIR. The listing of submitted documents would also be sent to the applicant with the next office action with an indication of whether they were considered by the examiner. Third parties are reminded to submit relevant prior art early in the prosecution and not to dump large numbers of documents on the examiner. In such cases, the relevant documents may be obfuscated by the volume submitted. The fee for submitting documents will be $180 for each 10 documents or fraction thereof submitted. 2. New post grant review (PGR) and inter partes review (IPR) proceedings (as well as business method patent review). PGR and IPR are trials, which are defined as contested cases instituted by the Board. The Proposed Rule provides that in both PGR and IPR, a claim in a patent is given its broadest reasonable construction in light of the specification in which it appears. This standard, which is different that than the standard in a civil action, is consistent with the standard of claim construction presently before the Patent Office. A petition for PGR and IPR must be filed within nine months from the grant date of the patent or issuance of reissue patent. The proposed rule would provide a one-year time frame for administering the proceeding after institution, with up to a sixmonth extension for good cause. Both of these provisions are consistent with the AIA statute. 2.8 Your Guide to the America Invents Act
58 While the AIA permits the PTO to limit the number of PGR and IPR petitions it accepts, the proposed rule commented that it does not expect to limit the number of petitions at this time and further estimated that in fiscal year 2013, it is not expected that any PGR or IPR petitions will be received, other than those filed under the transitional program for covered business method patents. PGR fees are based on the number of challenged claims. Challenging 1-20 claims is currently set at $35,800 and goes upward to $89,500 for challenging 51 to 60 claims. For IPR, the fees are $27,200 for up to 20 claims and $68,000 for claims. The Petition is limited to 70 pages and must contain: (1) a showing that the petitioner has standing; (2) identification of the precise relief requested; the petition must identify each claim being challenged, the specific grounds on which each claim is challenged, how the claims are to be construed, how the claims as construed are unpatentable, why the claims as construed are unpatentable under the identified grounds, and the exhibit numbers of the evidence relied upon with a citation to the portion of the evidence that is relied upon to support the challenge. The proposed rule further provides that a statement of material facts, setting forth as separately numbered sentences materials facts with specific citations to evidence, must be filed. The patent owner can file a preliminary response no later than two months from the date of the notice that the request to institute a post-grant review has been granted a filing date and prior to the board making a decision on whether to grant the proceeding. The proposed rule comments that no adverse inference will be drawn where a patent owner elects not to file a response or elects to waive the response. However, the real world effect would be that the petition is unrebutted and the Board may more easily conclude that at least one claim is more likely than not unpatentable and decide to institute the PGR or IPR proceedings. The Board can authorize the review to proceed on all or some of the challenged claims and on all or some of the grounds of unpatentability asserted for each claim; and may deny some or all grounds for unpatentability on some or all of the challenged claims. The Board would identify which of the grounds the review will proceed upon on a claim-by-claim basis. Any claim or issue not included in the authorization for review would not be part of the PGR or IPR. Your Guide to the America Invents Act (AIA) 2.9
59 The patent owner will file a response that addresses any ground for unpatentability due two months from the date the post-grant review is instituted unless another time is provided in the Board Order. A motion to amend the patent may be filed. Any additional motions to amend would require prior Board authorization and require a demonstration of good cause by the patent owner. The proposed rule provides for limited discovery including routine discovery of exhibits cited in a paper or testimony and provide for cross examination of affidavit testimony within a prescribed time period. Additional discovery may be granted where evidence is directly related to factual assertions advanced by a party to the proceeding and that the standard for additional discovery is good cause. After an oral hearing, the Board will issue its decision not more than 12 months after the initial PGR or IPR request has been granted. 3. Changes to inventor oath/declaration. The proposed rule makes some changes to the wording required (no longer need to identify citizenship; no longer need to allege that you are the first inventor). However, disappointingly to corporations who were hoping to be able to have assignee filings without inventor signature, the proposed rule states that the PTO expects that inventor will sign declarations in most instances and that the signed declarations must be in the application file prior to substantive examination of the application. D. Group 3 rules to become effective March 13, Not yet announced, but will relate to the new prior art definitions in the AIA Your Guide to the America Invents Act
60 Dynamics for Personal Motivation and Chemical Addiction 3 Dr. Helen M. Farrell Harvard Medical School Staff Psychiatrist at Beth Israel Deaconness Medical Center Boston, Massachusetts Professor Sam S. Han University of Dayton School of Law Dayton, Ohio Substance abuse can diminish an attorney s ability to practice effectively, and can cause a variety of professional problems including: missed filing deadlines; failure to properly advise clients; missed court appearances; unauthorized use of client funds; inattention to the work; and poor judgment. In addition to disciplinary action, implications for the offending attorney include: mental sequelae, such as depression, anxiety, failed interpersonal relationships, professional demoralization, and general health problems. Research has shown that lawyers abuse alcohol and drugs at higher rates than the general population. The psychological, and possibly biological, imprinting of individuals driven to pursue careers in law correspond to the dynamics that predispose individuals to addiction and substance abuse. Compounding to this vulnerability is the actual work environment, where success hinges on risk taking behaviors and high levels of motivation that ultimately produce reward. Biochemical and psychological mechanisms of reinforcement will be presented to attorneys, with a focus on how the same traits that foster success in their careers correlate to the development of substance abuse problems. The purpose of this presentation is to educate attorneys about the human decision-making process, and how it may contribute to substance abuse. One unanswered question is whether individuals that are pre-disposed to substance abuse are attracted to the professional legal environment, or whether the professional legal environment increases the susceptibility of individuals to substance abuse. In other words, one question that this presentation explores, but does not answer, is the chicken-and-the-egg question of whether the profession creates addicts, or whether addicts enter the profession. Dynamics for Personal Motivation 3.1
61 The presentation will touch on the following topics as they relate to substance abuse and addiction: The human decision-making process Traditional theory The dopamine system The dopamine system and addiction Genetic predispositions and environmental factors The characteristic traits of the legal professional The environment of the legal profession 3.2 Your Guide to the America Invents Act
THE AMERICA INVENTS ACT NEW POST-ISSUANCE PATENT OFFICE PROCEEDINGS
THE AMERICA INVENTS ACT NEW POST-ISSUANCE PATENT OFFICE PROCEEDINGS By Sharon Israel and Kyle Friesen I. Introduction The recently enacted Leahy-Smith America Invents Act ( AIA ) 1 marks the most sweeping
More informationEffective Utilization of Patent Searches in the Wake of the AIA Patent Reform Law. April 30, 2012
Effective Utilization of Patent Searches in the Wake of the AIA Patent Reform Law April 30, 2012 Panel Members Moderator: Robb Evans, Business Process Management & Strategy, Global Patent Solutions LLC
More informationAlgae Biomass Summit 2014: Patent Strategies for Algae Companies in an Era of Patent Reform Peter A. Jackman, Esq. October 2, 2014
Algae Biomass Summit 2014: Patent Strategies for Algae Companies in an Era of Patent Reform Peter A. Jackman, Esq. October 2, 2014 2013 Sterne, Kessler, Goldstein, & Fox P.L.L.C. All Rights Reserved. Why
More informationPatents. What is a patent? What is the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO)? What types of patents are available in the United States?
What is a patent? A patent is a government-granted right to exclude others from making, using, selling, or offering for sale the invention claimed in the patent. In return for that right, the patent must
More informationMPEP Breakdown Course
MPEP Breakdown Course MPEP Chapter Worksheet The MPEP Breakdown training course will provide you with a clear vision of what the Patent Bar is all about along with many tips for passing it. It also covers
More informationPatent Armoring Via Reissue Proceedings
Portfolio Media. Inc. 860 Broadway, 6th Floor New York, NY 10003 www.law360.com Phone: +1 646 783 7100 Fax: +1 646 783 7161 customerservice@law360.com Patent Armoring Via Reissue Proceedings Law360, New
More informationIdentifying and Managing Joint Inventions
Page 1, is a licensing manager at the Wisconsin Alumni Research Foundation in Madison, Wisconsin. Introduction Joint inventorship is defined by patent law and occurs when the outcome of a collaborative
More informationWAKE FOREST JOURNAL OF BUSINESS
WAKE FOREST JOURNAL OF BUSINESS AND INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY LAW! VOLUME!13! SUMMER!2013! NUMBER!3! IMPACT OF THE AMERICA INVENTS ACT Justin Nifong I. SCOPE OF PRACTIONER S NOTE... 340! II. AMERICA INVENTS
More informationLitigators for Innovators
Litigators for Innovators Concord, MA: 530 Virginia Rd., Concord, MA 01742 Boston, MA: 155 Seaport Blvd., Boston, MA 02210 T: 978-341-0036 T: 617-607-5900 www.hbsr.com www.litigatorsforinnovators.com 9/13
More informationAmerica Invents Act (AIA) Chart For University Personnel
The following chart reflects a stratified list of recommendations that university personnel should consider in view of the new U.S. patent system, i.e., the America Invents Act (AIA), which is intended
More informationLoyola University Maryland Provisional Policies and Procedures for Intellectual Property, Copyrights, and Patents
Loyola University Maryland Provisional Policies and Procedures for Intellectual Property, Copyrights, and Patents Approved by Loyola Conference on May 2, 2006 Introduction In the course of fulfilling the
More informationResearch Collection. Comment on Henkel, J. and F. Jell "Alternative motives to file for patents: profiting from pendency and publication.
Research Collection Report Comment on Henkel, J. and F. Jell "Alternative motives to file for patents: profiting from pendency and publication Author(s): Mayr, Stefan Publication Date: 2009 Permanent Link:
More informationAN OVERVIEW OF THE UNITED STATES PATENT SYSTEM
AN OVERVIEW OF THE UNITED STATES PATENT SYSTEM Significant changes in the United States patent law were brought about by legislation signed into law on September 16, 2011. The major change under the Leahy-Smith
More informationAN OVERVIEW OF THE UNITED STATES PATENT SYSTEM
AN OVERVIEW OF THE UNITED STATES PATENT SYSTEM (Note: Significant changes in United States patent law were brought about by legislation signed into law by the President on December 8, 1994. The purpose
More informationHow to Support Relative Claim Terms. Presented at NAPP Annual Meeting & Conference USPTO July 30, 2016
How to Support Relative Claim Terms Presented at NAPP Annual Meeting & Conference USPTO July 30, 2016 National Association of Patent Practitioners ( NAPP ) is a nonprofit professional association of approximately
More informationChapter 5 The Fundamentals of the Patent System
Chapter 5 The Fundamentals of the Patent System Chapter 5 The Fundamentals of the Patent System INTRODUCTION This chapter provides background information on the patent system that will facilitate understanding
More informationGEORGETOWN LAW. Georgetown University Law Center. CIS-No.: 2007-S521-52
Georgetown University Law Center Scholarship @ GEORGETOWN LAW 2006 Perspectives on Patents: Post-Grant Review Procedures and Other Litigation Reforms: Hearing Before the Subcomm. on Intellectual Property
More informationIntroduction to Intellectual Property
Introduction to Intellectual Property October 20, 2015 Matthew DeSanto Assistant to Mindy Bickel, NYC Engagement Manager United States Patent and Trademark Office Outline Types of Intellectual Property
More informationPatent Basics for Inventors, Entrepreneurs, and Start-ups
Patent Basics for Inventors, Entrepreneurs, and Start-ups Daniel Kolker, Ph.D. Supervisory Patent Examiner United States Patent and Trademark Office Daniel.Kolker@USPTO.gov Outline Why Patents? Types of
More informationPost-Grant Review in Japan
Post-Grant Review in Japan Houston, January 30, 2018 Toshifumi Onuki International Activities Center Japan Patent Attorneys Association Peter Schechter Partner Osha Liang LLP Post-Grant Review in Japan
More informationOther than the "trade secret," the
Why Most Patents Are Invalid THOMAS W. COLE 1 Other than the "trade secret," the patent is the only way for a corporation or independent inventor to protect his invention from being stolen by others. Yet,
More informationIntellectual Property Law Alert
Intellectual Property Law Alert A Corporate Department Publication February 2013 This Intellectual Property Law Alert is intended to provide general information for clients or interested individuals and
More informationPatents An Introduction for Owners
Patents An Introduction for Owners Outline Review of Patents What is a Patent? Claims: The Most Important Part of a Patent! Getting a Patent Preparing Invention Disclosures Getting Inventorship Right Consolidating
More informationPRACTICE TIPS FOR TRADEMARK PROSECUTION BEFORE THE USPTO
PRACTICE TIPS FOR TRADEMARK PROSECUTION BEFORE THE USPTO HERSHKOVITZ IP GROUP INTA 2012 WASHINGTON, D.C. Presented by Brian Edward Banner www.hershkovitzipgroup.com Who am I? I am an Adjunct Professor
More informationAs a Patent and Trademark Resource Center (PTRC), the Pennsylvania State University Libraries has a mission to support both our students and the
This presentation is intended to help you understand the different types of intellectual property: Copyright, Patents, Trademarks, and Trade Secrets. Then the process and benefits of obtaining a patent
More informationPatent Law: What Anesthesiologists Should Know
Patent Law: What Anesthesiologists Should Know Kirk Hogan MD, JD ISAP 23 rd Annual Meeting October 10, 2014 khogan@wisc.edu, kjhogan@casimirjones.com How Nobody Invented Anesthesia (J. M. Fenster, American
More informationPublic Hearings Concerning the Evolving Intellectual Property Marketplace
[Billing Code: 6750-01-S] FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION Public Hearings Concerning the Evolving Intellectual Property Marketplace AGENCY: Federal Trade Commission. ACTION: Notice of Public Hearings SUMMARY:
More informationApril 1, Patent Application Pitfall: Federal Circuit Affirms Invalidity of Software Patent for Inadequate Disclosure
April 1, 2008 Client Alert Patent Application Pitfall: Federal Circuit Affirms Invalidity of Software Patent for Inadequate Disclosure by James G. Gatto On March 28, 2008, the Federal Circuit affirmed
More informationWhat s in the Spec.?
What s in the Spec.? Global Perspective Dr. Shoichi Okuyama Okuyama & Sasajima Tokyo Japan February 13, 2017 Kuala Lumpur Today Drafting a global patent application Standard format Drafting in anticipation
More informationREPORT FROM THE FRONT LINES: PATENT OFFICE PROCEEDINGS
Design At Work USPTO Design Day 2018 REPORT FROM THE FRONT LINES: PATENT OFFICE PROCEEDINGS George Raynal Saidman DesignLaw Group INTER PARTES REVIEW POST GRANT REVIEW SUPPLEMENTAL EXAMINATION REEXAMINATION
More informationUCF Patents, Trademarks and Trade Secrets. (1) General. (a) This regulation is applicable to all University Personnel (as defined in section
UCF-2.029 Patents, Trademarks and Trade Secrets. (1) General. (a) This regulation is applicable to all University Personnel (as defined in section (2)(a) ). Nothing herein shall be deemed to limit or restrict
More informationRecent Changes to the Patent Litigation Landscape and Predictions for the Future. June 12, 2018
Recent Changes to the Patent Litigation Landscape and Predictions for the Future June 12, 2018 Rob Reckers Fiona Bell 2 Trends in Patent Litigation: Cases Filed 7,000 6,000 5,000 4,000 3,000 2,000 1,000
More informationComments on Public Consultation on Proposed Changes to Singapore's Registered Designs Regime
Mr. Simon Seow Director, IP Policy Division Ministry of Law 100 High Street, #08-02, The Treasury Singapore 179434 via email: Simon_Seow@mlaw.gov.sg Re: Comments on Public Consultation on Proposed Changes
More informationCase 6:15-cv RWS-CMC Document 78 Filed 02/26/16 Page 1 of 6 PageID #: 4503
Case 6:15-cv-00584-RWS-CMC Document 78 Filed 02/26/16 Page 1 of 6 PageID #: 4503 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT OF THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS TYLER DIVISION BLUE SPIKE, LLC, Plaintiff, v. Case
More informationPatent Basics for Inventors, Entrepreneurs, and Start-ups. Ned Landrum Patent Training Advisor STEPP Program Manager
Patent Basics for Inventors, Entrepreneurs, and Start-ups Ned Landrum Patent Training Advisor STEPP Program Manager innovationdevelopment@uspto.gov Outline Why Patents? Types of Patents Patent Examiner
More informationINTELLECTUAL PROPERTY LITIGATION
In a business climate driven by constant innovation and commodified information, protecting intellectual property is critical to success. Clients ranging from emerging visionaries to market-leading corporations
More informationOutline 3/16/2018. Patent Basics for Inventors, Entrepreneurs, and Start-ups.
Patent Basics for Inventors, Entrepreneurs, and Start-ups innovationdevelopment@uspto.gov Outline Why Patents? Types of Patents Patent Examiner Duty Understanding Obviousness Patent Examination Process
More informationPaper No Entered: November 6, 2015 UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
Trials@uspto.gov Paper No. 44 571.272.7822 Entered: November 6, 2015 UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD KINGSTON TECHNOLOGY COMPANY, INC., Petitioner, v.
More informationTHE LEGAL MARKETPLACE IN AN EVOLVING PATENT LANDSCAPE
THE LEGAL MARKETPLACE IN AN EVOLVING PATENT LANDSCAPE A partnership between Thomson Reuters Legal Executive Institute and Sterne, Kessler, Goldstein & Fox P.L.L.C. * Intellectual Property continues to
More informationCS 4984 Software Patents
CS 4984 Software Patents Ross Dannenberg Rdannenberg@bannerwitcoff.com (202) 824-3153 Patents I 1 How do you protect software? Copyrights Patents Trademarks Trade Secrets Contract Technology (encryption)
More informationR. Cameron Garrison. Managing Partner
R. Cameron Garrison Managing Partner cgarrison@lathropgage.com KANSAS CITY 2345 Grand Blvd. Suite 2200 Kansas City, MO 64108 T: 816.460.5566 F: 816.292.2001 Assistant Debbie Adams 816.460.5346 PRACTICE
More informationINTELLECTUAL PROPERTY LAW
INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY LAW ME 481 Presentation Michigan State University Oct. 4, 2010 Jason Heist Steven Wangerow WHO WE ARE Jason Heist: BSChem 99, JD 06 Steven Wangerow: BS Mech. Eng. 03, JD 09 Harness
More informationIntellectual Property
Tennessee Technological University Policy No. 732 Intellectual Property Effective Date: July 1January 1, 20198 Formatted: Highlight Formatted: Highlight Formatted: Highlight Policy No.: 732 Policy Name:
More informationIntellectual Property Overview
Intellectual Property Overview Sanjiv Chokshi, Esq. Assistant General Counsel For Patents and Intellectual Property Office of General Counsel Fenster Hall- Suite 480 (973) 642-4285 Chokshi@njit.edu Intellectual
More informationCapstone Design Class: Patenting an Invention
Capstone Design Class: Patenting an Invention Tom Turner Patent and Trademark Resource Center Program Georgia Institute of Technology Library October 25, 2016 2 What Type of Intellectual Property Protection
More informationBas de Blank. Representative Engagements. Partner Silicon Valley T E
Practice Areas Intellectual Property U.S. International Trade Commission Patents IP Counseling & Due Diligence Trade Secrets Litigation Honors Top Verdict of the Year awarded by The Daily Journal and The
More informationUNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
l!aiu.~~~ SEP 28 2016 UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE OFFICE OF PETITIONS Commissioner for Patents United States Patent and Trademark Office P.O. Box 1450 Alexandria, VA 22313-1450 www.uspto.gov
More informationStanding Committee on the Law of Patents
E ORIGINAL: ENGLISH DATE: DECEMBER 5, 2011 Standing Committee on the Law of Patents Seventeenth Session Geneva, December 5 to 9, 2011 PROPOSAL BY THE DELEGATION OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA Document
More informationI. The First-to-File Patent System
America Invents Act: The Switch to a First-to-F BY WENDELL RAY GUFFEY AND KIMBERLY SCHREIBER 1 Wendell Ray Guffey Kimberly Schreiber The America Invents Act ( act ) was signed into law on September 16,
More informationChina: Managing the IP Lifecycle 2018/2019
China: Managing the IP Lifecycle 2018/2019 Patenting strategies for R&D companies Vivien Chan & Co Anna Mae Koo and Flora Ho Patenting strategies for R&D companies By Anna Mae Koo and Flora Ho, Vivien
More informationProtect Your Innovation and Maximize Your Investment Return in Automotive Electronics
Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner, LLP Protect Your Innovation and Maximize Your Investment Return in Automotive Electronics Presented by Shaobin Zhu SEMICON (Shanghai) March 20, 2013 SEMICON
More informationThe Uneasy Future of Software and Business-Method Patents
The Uneasy Future of Software and Business-Method Patents SD Times March 24, 2010 Yoches, E. Robert, Arner, Erika Harmon, Dubal, Uttam G. Protecting and enforcing IP rights in a high-speed world The world
More informationPolicy on Patents (CA)
RESEARCH Effective Date: Date Revised: N/A Supersedes: N/A Related Policies: Policy on Copyright (CA) Responsible Office/Department: Center for Research Innovation (CRI) Keywords: Patent, Intellectual
More informationUW REGULATION Patents and Copyrights
UW REGULATION 3-641 Patents and Copyrights I. GENERAL INFORMATION The Vice President for Research and Economic Development is the University of Wyoming officer responsible for articulating policy and procedures
More informationCOLORADO RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE
COLORADO RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE APPENDIX TO CHAPTERS 18 TO 20 COLORADO RULES OF PROFESSIONAL CONDUCT Rule 6.1. Voluntary Pro Bono Public Service This Comment Recommended Model Pro Bono Policy for Colorado
More informationTechnology Transfer and Intellectual Property Best Practices
Technology Transfer and Intellectual Property Best Practices William W. Aylor M.S., J.D. Director, Technology Transfer Office Registered Patent Attorney Presentation Outline I. The Technology Transfer
More informationRocco E. Testani, Partner
, Partner 999 Peachtree Street, NE Suite 2300 Atlanta, GA 30309-3996 Office: 404.853.8390 rocco.testani@sutherland.com Rocco Testani represents clients in litigation ranging from complex business disputes
More informationMORGAN STATE UNIVERSITY PROCEDURES ON PATENTS AND TECHNOLOGY TRANSFER APPROVED BY THE PRESIDENT NOVEMBER 2, 2015
MORGAN STATE UNIVERSITY PROCEDURES ON PATENTS AND TECHNOLOGY TRANSFER APPROVED BY THE PRESIDENT NOVEMBER 2, 2015 I. Introduction The Morgan State University (hereinafter MSU or University) follows the
More informationThe America Invents Act: Policy Rationales. Arti K. Rai Duke Patent Law Institute May 13, 2013
The America Invents Act: Policy Rationales Arti K. Rai Duke Patent Law Institute May 13, 2013 Background Work began in 2005 15 hearings before House Judiciary Committee, or Subcommittee on Courts, the
More informationLarry R. Laycock. Education. Practice Focus. Attorney at Law Shareholder
Larry R. Laycock Attorney at Law Shareholder Larry has extensive experience as lead trial counsel in complex and intellectual property litigation. His practice includes patent, trademark, trade secret,
More informationEmpirical Research on Invalidation Request of Invention Patent Infringement Cases in Shanghai
2nd International Conference on Management Science and Innovative Education (MSIE 2016) Empirical Research on Invalidation Request of Invention Patent Infringement Cases in Shanghai Xiaojie Jing1, a, Xianwei
More informationCase 1:14-cv AJS Document 1 Filed 08/21/14 Page 1 of 12 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
Case 1:14-cv-00220-AJS Document 1 Filed 08/21/14 Page 1 of 12 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA INTELLECTUAL VENTURES I LLC and INTELLECTUAL VENTURES II LLC v.
More informationAdvocates of Innovation
Who We Are Osha Liang is a full-service, international intellectual property (IP) law firm dedicated to providing the highest quality IP services. With fullyintegrated offices in Houston, Austin, Alexandria,
More informationyou are capable, competent, creative, careful. prove it.
2.009 Product Engineering Processes you are capable, competent, creative, careful. prove it. fortune cookie 2.009 staff meeting 1 2.009 Product Engineering Processes Key product development message creativity
More informationCalifornia State University, Northridge Policy Statement on Inventions and Patents
Approved by Research and Grants Committee April 20, 2001 Recommended for Adoption by Faculty Senate Executive Committee May 17, 2001 Revised to incorporate friendly amendments from Faculty Senate, September
More informationP&G invests over $2.2 billion dollars per year in Research & Development. We employ over 8900 scientists in 29 research centers in 13 countries.
Statement of Steven W. Miller Vice President and General Counsel for Intellectual Property for The Procter & Gamble Company Before the Subcommittee on Intellectual Property, Competition, and the Internet
More informationMarch 16, 2013: Are You Ready for the New Patent Regime?
PRESENTATION TITLE March 16, 2013: Are You Ready for the New Patent Regime? Chris Durkee Kilpatrick Townsend & Stockton LLP What Happens on March 16, 2013? U.S. changes from a first-to-invent to a firstinventor-to-file
More informationUnited States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential. United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit 2006-3321 JUELITHIA G. ZELLARS, v. Petitioner, DEPARTMENT OF THE AIR FORCE, DECIDED: December 6, 2006 Respondent.
More information5/30/2018. Prof. Steven S. Saliterman Department of Biomedical Engineering, University of Minnesota
Department of Biomedical Engineering, University of Minnesota http://saliterman.umn.edu/ Protect technology/brand/investment. Obtain financing. Provide an asset to increase the value of a company. Establish
More informationHOW TO READ A PATENT. To Understand a Patent, It is Essential to be able to Read a Patent. ATIP Law 2014, All Rights Reserved.
To Understand a Patent, It is Essential to be able to Read a Patent ATIP Law 2014, All Rights Reserved. Entrepreneurs, executives, engineers, venture capital investors and others are often faced with important
More informationInvention SUBMISSION BROCHURE PLEASE READ THE FOLLOWING BEFORE SUBMITTING YOUR INVENTION
Invention SUBMISSION BROCHURE PLEASE READ THE FOLLOWING BEFORE SUBMITTING YOUR INVENTION The patentability of any invention is subject to legal requirements. Among these legal requirements is the timely
More informationIntellectual Property
Intellectual Property Technology Transfer and Intellectual Property Principles in the Conduct of Biomedical Research Frank Grassler, J.D. VP For Technology Development Office for Technology Development
More informationWelcome. Recent Developments in Intellectual Property Law. December 13, 2012
Welcome Recent Developments in Intellectual Property Law December 13, 2012 Husch Blackwell LLP Leading Intellectual Property Cases of 2012 and Effects on Litigation Strategy By: Nathan Oleen Husch Blackwell
More informationW.L. Gore & Associates, Inc. et al v. Medtronic, Inc. et al Doc. 123
W.L. Gore & Associates, Inc. et al v. Medtronic, Inc. et al Doc. 123 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA Norfolk Division W.L. GORE & ASSOCIATES, INC., and GORE ENTERPRISE HOLDINGS,
More informationPractical Strategies for Biotechnology and Medical Device Companies to Manage Intellectual Property Rights
Practical Strategies for Biotechnology and Medical Device Companies to Manage Intellectual Property Rights Matt Jonsen Dorsey & Whitney LLP Angie Morrison Dorsey & Whitney LLP Intellectual Property Patents
More informationValerie S. Gaydos Angel Investor President, Capital Growth, Inc. How Proposed Patent Reform Increases Risk for Start-Up Investors
Valerie S. Gaydos Angel Investor President, Capital Growth, Inc. How Proposed Patent Reform Increases Risk for Start-Up Investors August 30, 2011 Valerie S. Gaydos Serial Entrepreneur Angel Investor: Angel
More informationCounsel. Ph Fax
Sedina L. Banks Counsel SBanks@ggfirm.com Ph. 310-201-7436 Fax 310-201-4456 Sedina Banks is a Counsel in Greenberg Glusker s Environmental Group. She has specialized in environmental compliance and litigation
More informationIssues and Possible Reforms in the U.S. Patent System
Issues and Possible Reforms in the U.S. Patent System Bronwyn H. Hall Professor in the Graduate School University of California at Berkeley Overview Economics of patents and innovations Changes to US patent
More informationDEFENSIVE PUBLICATION IN FRANCE
DEFENSIVE PUBLICATION IN FRANCE A SURVEY ON THE USAGE OF THE IP STRATEGY DEFENSIVE PUBLICATION AUGUST 2012 Eva Gimello Spécialisée en droit de la Propriété Industrielle Université Paris XI Felix Coxwell
More informationPolicy Contents. Policy Information. Purpose and Summary. Scope. Published on Policies and Procedures (http://policy.arizona.edu)
Published on Policies and Procedures (http://policy.arizona.edu) Home > Intellectual Property Policy Policy Contents Purpose and Summary Scope Definitions Policy Related Information* Revision History*
More informationInternational Intellectual Property Practices
International Intellectual Property Practices FOR: Hussein Akhavannik حسين اخوان نيك Managing Partner International IP Group, LLC Web: www.intlip.com Email: akhavannik@intlip.com Mobile: 0912-817-2669
More informationProtecting Your Innovations and IP. Dr. Matthias Nobbe German and European Patent Attorney European Trademark and Design Attorney
Protecting Your Innovations and IP Dr. Matthias Nobbe German and European Patent Attorney European Trademark and Design Attorney Protecting your innovations Introduction What can be protected? Where can
More informationFrom the Experts: Ten Tips to Save Costs in Patent Litigation
The Business Implications of High Stakes Litigation: Process, Players, and Consequences From the Experts: Ten Tips to Save Costs in Patent Litigation By Joseph Drayton Reprinted with Permission About the
More informationJudicial System in Japan (IP-related case)
Session1: Basics of IP rights International Workshop on Intellectual Property, Commercial and Emerging Laws 24 Feb. 2017 Judicial System in Japan (IP-related case) Akira KATASE Judge, IP High Court of
More informationi.e. v. e.g. Rule 1 during arguments: If you re losing, start correcting their grammar. - Author Unknown
BIOTECH BUZZ Biotech Patent Education Subcommittee April 2015 Contributor: Jennifer A. Fleischer i.e. v. e.g. Rule 1 during arguments: If you re losing, start correcting their grammar. - Author Unknown
More informationJay A. Yurkiw. Partner
Jay A. Yurkiw Jay litigates business disputes involving technology, intellectual property, financial services, and contract rights. He regularly advises clients on and litigates, copyright, covenant not
More informationTiffany D. Gehrke. Associate. Tel
Tiffany D. Gehrke Associate Tel 312.474.6656 tgehrke@marshallip.com Tiffany D. Gehrke secures and protects intellectual property rights for a broad range of clients. In this role, her prior experience
More informationTrademarks. Fortune 500 companies and organizations of all sizes trust Lathrop Gage to help establish, guard, maintain and enforce trademarks.
Trademarks What's in a name? As much as 85 percent of the market capitalization of today's Fortune 500 now lies in intellectual property rather than tangible assets, and Forbes reports that trademarks
More informationKey Strategies for Your IP Portfolio
Key Strategies for Your IP Portfolio Jeremiah B. Frueauf, Partner Where s the value?! Human capital! Physical assets! Contracts, Licenses, Relationships! Intellectual Property Patents o Utility, Design
More informationVistas International Internship Program
Vistas International Internship Program Find Yourself in a Place Where challenges aren t simply accepted, but sought. This is the new age of IP. This is Knobbe Martens. Who We Are Founded in 1962, Knobbe
More informationElena R. Baca. Los Angeles. Orange County. Practice Areas. Admissions. Languages. Education
Elena R. Baca Partner, Employment Law Department elenabaca@paulhastings.com Elena Baca is chair of Paul Hastings Los Angeles office and co-vice chair of the Employment Law practice. Ms. Baca is recognized
More information11th Annual Patent Law Institute
INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY Course Handbook Series Number G-1316 11th Annual Patent Law Institute Co-Chairs Scott M. Alter Douglas R. Nemec John M. White To order this book, call (800) 260-4PLI or fax us at
More informationTrade Secret Protection of Inventions
Trade Secret Protection of Inventions Phil Marcoux & Kevin Roe Inventions - Trade Secret or Patent? Theft by employees, executives, partners Theft by contract Note - this class does not create an attorney-client
More informationUnited States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
Page 1 of 8 NOTE: Pursuant to Fed. Cir. R. 47.6, this disposition is not citable as precedent. It is a public record. The disposition will appear in tables published periodically. United States Court of
More information(1) Patents/Patentable means:
3344-17-02 Patents policy. (A) (B) (C) Research is recognized as an integral part of the educational process to generate new knowledge; to encourage the spirit of inquiry; and to develop scientists, engineers,
More informationAaron T. Olejniczak is a registered patent attorney and partner at Andrus Intellectual Property Law.
Milwaukee Office p 414.271.7590 e aarono@andruslaw.com Aaron T. Olejniczak is a registered patent attorney and partner at Andrus Intellectual Property Law. Aaron handles a wide variety of intellectual
More informationConducting and Analyzing Patent Searches
Presenting a live 90-minute webinar with interactive Q&A Conducting and Analyzing Patent Searches Strategies for Validity, Patentability, Infringement, FTO and State-of-the-Art Searches THURSDAY, MARCH
More informationStatement of. Hon. General J. Mossinghoff Senior Counsel Oblon, Spivak, McClelland, Maier & Neustadt, P.C. before the
Statement of Hon. General J. Mossinghoff Senior Counsel Oblon, Spivak, McClelland, Maier & Neustadt, P.C. before the Subcommittee on Intellectual Property Committee on the Judiciary United States Senate
More informationProf. Steven S. Saliterman. Department of Biomedical Engineering, University of Minnesota
Department of Biomedical Engineering, University of Minnesota http://saliterman.umn.edu/ Protect technology/brand/investment. Obtain financing. Provide an asset to increase the value of a company. Establish
More informationUnited States Postal Service Law Department OPINION OF THE BOARD. The Postal Service awarded MBD Maintenance, LLC, a contract for construction
BOARD OF CONTRACT APPEALS 2101 WILSON BOULEVARD, SUITE 600 ARLINGTON VA 22201-3078 703-812-1900 FAX: 703-812-1901 ) MBD MAINTENANCE, LLC, ) March 3, 2017 Appellant, ) ) v. ) ) UNITED STATES POSTAL SERVICE,
More information