FOLLOW THE PLUS IP BLOG

Categories

Update on the Aftermath of In re Bose and Fraud on the Trademark Office

Written by Mark Terry  What has happened in the courts and the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board (TTAB) since In re Bose? Surprisingly, not much. As a trademark attorney in Miami with a large trademark docket, fraud on the trademark office is a topical issue I continually follow. You are well aware that last year’s Bose decision – In re Bose Corp., 580 F.3d 1240 (Fed. Cir. 2009) – has completely changed the criteria for finding fraud on the Trademark Office. The Bose fraud criteria can be summed up as follows: “in order to prove fraud, [the charging party] must show that [1] a statement was false, [2]

Read More »

Kodak and Samsung Settle Patent Infringement Dispute – Florida Patent Lawyer Blog

Written by Mark Terry  On Monday, Kodak and Samsung settled a long-running patent infringement dispute spanning several years and multiple continents. The settlement includes a patent license agreement wherein each side gains a patent license for the other’s patents. The license agreement, which provides appreciable benefits to both parties, is royalty bearing to Kodak. Additional financial details were not disclosed. As a Florida patent lawyer that frequently deals with patent infringement disputes, this case illustrates various important aspects surrounding patent litigation. This case illustrates how a legal dispute can easily escalate into a world-wide battle requiring enormous resources. This disagreement

Read More »

How NOT to Write a 1.132 Affidavit – Florida Patent Lawyer Blog

Written by Mark Terry  Last week’s Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences (BPAI) decision in Ex Parte Byers discredited a flawed 1.132 Affidavit presented by the Applicant and affirmed a Patent Examiner’s 35 U.S.C. 103 obviousness rejection. As a Miami Patent Lawyer, I found the Ex parte Byers decision interesting because it showed a common pitfall when using 1.132 Affidavits. The case of Ex parte Byers involved an online marketplace for selling healthcare products. The Applicant submitted a 1.132 Affidavit in support of its arguments and the Board found it insuficient to rebt the Examiner’s prima facie case of obviousness. Specifically, the Board stated: “the conclusory statements in the

Read More »

How to Respond to a Merely Descriptive Trademark Rejection

Written by Mark Terry  When marketing a product or service, brand recognition is a key component to success.  The goal is to keep consumers coming back for your company’s brand name because they recognize it as identifying the goods or services your company provides.  Companies often opt for a trademark that tends to be descriptive of the product provided so that consumers will quickly and easily identify the trademark with the product.  This article discusses the test for merely descriptive rejections from the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“PTO”), options for responding to an Office Action from PTO that asserts a

Read More »

Patent Infringement Update: Federal Circuit Bans Sale of Microsoft Word – Florida Patent Lawyer Blog

Written by Mark Terry  What options are available to a patent holder seeking to enforce his patent? When suing a company that infringes your patent, what can you hope to achieve? Can you really stop an infringer from infringing your patent? As a Florida patent attorney, I get these questions a lot. And just recently, the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit weighed in on these issues. Last week, the Federal Circuit affirmed a lower court decision to permanently enjoin Microsoft from selling its flagship Microsoft Word product. The permanent injunction, effective January 11, 2010, prohibits Microsoft from selling,

Read More »

PTAB Reverses a 35 U.S.C. §102 Rejection Today: This is Why They Did It

Written by Mark Terry  This is a great Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) decision that highlights in one, short decision the main arguments every patent practitioner should make when responding to a 35 U.S.C. §102 anticipation rejection. In today’s Ex Parte Farkas decision, the PTAB reversed an Examiner’s anticipation rejection based on the following main reasons: Concepts do not anticipate Missing element by element analysis Elements not arranged in the same way      We explain each one below.     It is often the case that when issuing a 35 U.S.C. §102 anticipation rejection, the Examiner cannot find one or more of the claim elements

Read More »

The Standing Requirement in Cancellation Proceedings before the U.S. Trademark Office – Florida Patent Lawyer Blog

Written by Mark Terry  Can anyone commence a trademark cancellation proceeding before the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office? Must you have a tie or other relation to the mark being canceled? As a Trademark Lawyer practicing in Miami, Florida, I’ve been asked this question more than once by a client who desires to cancel a U.S. trademark registration. On the issue of standing to institute a cancellation proceeding, 15 U.S.C. § 1064 [Section 14 of the Trademark Act] states that a petition to cancel a registration of a mark, stating the grounds relied upon, may, upon payment of the prescribed fee, be

Read More »

Presenting at the 11th International Litigation and Arbitration Conference – Florida Patent Lawyer Blog

Written by Mark Terry  I was honored to present today at the 11th International Litigation and Arbitration Conference at the beautiful Biltmore Hotel in Miami, Florida. We discussed various aspects of international law, with my focus being on trademark issues relating to import/export of goods. A common phone call I receive from clients relates to the halting of goods at a port by Customs and Border Protection due to trademark issues. It usually sounds like this: “Mark, my goods were stopped at the port due to a trademark issue. Help!” Often, the problem relates to missing paperwork regarding permission or authorization to use a registered

Read More »

Board of Patent Appeals Decision on Optimization of Ranges – Florida Patent Lawyer Blog

Written by Mark Terry  Happy New Year to all! But not so happy for Applied Materials, Inc., a semiconductor manufacturer in California. Yesterday, the Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office issued a decision largely affirming a Patent Examiner’s rejection of an Applied Materials patent application covering a key semiconductor manufacturing process. Yesterday’s decision revolves mainly around the issue of “optimization of ranges.” To illustrate this issue, assume that the prior art for car-wash technology discloses the placement of water-dispensing nozzles in certain locations inside the car-wash. Let’s say that a client invents a

Read More »

THE PLUS IP FIRM

We are board-certified intellectual property attorneys, inventors, and engineers that help small-size inventors, entrepreneurs, and businesses register and protect patents, copyrights, and trademarks so you can profit from them faster.

Call Now: 786.443.7720