Podcasts about appeal board

Today, Jeff Harty and Drew Hirshfeld talk about the potential impact of the DOGE advisory board on the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office. Their conversation covers how the office is funded and how the USPTO maintains productivity and handles the large backlog of patent applications. They also discuss the impact of the return-to-office executive order and the importance of hiring the best talent as patent examiners, wherever they're based.In this episode, Jeff Harty and Drew Hirshfeld discuss: The impact of the DOGE advisory board on the USPTO.Advantages of having a clear prosecution record in patent cases.How the hiring freeze and the return-to-office executive order affect those at the USPTO.Extensive productivity reports for USPTO examiners.The crossroads facing the USPTO.Key Takeaways: Those with senior roles at the USPTO often have two main goals: to improve the quality of work and to improve pendency—getting results of patent decisions to the applicants faster.If an examiner is clear as to why they are making decisions and an applicant can see what the examiner is doing, it is easier to understand what is happening. When it is not clear, the examiner and applicant can talk past each other, and that is where discrepancies will happen. Allowing for telework and work from home allows the USPTO to recruit top talent from around the country, not just in the immediate area of the office. The USPTO is unique in that it is entirely funded by user fees, not federal tax dollars.“I think that the USPTO's best quality initiative is its telework program, its ability for people to work at home, because you're able to choose people from a pool that's across the country now, as opposed to just in the Alexandria, Virginia, area.” —Drew HirshfeldAbout Drew Hirshfeld: Hirshfeld was a long-tenured employee of the U. S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) and was named one of Managing IP's Top 50 Most Influential People in IP in 2021 (Managing IP is part of the Euromoney Institutional Investor PLC group). Hirshfeld began his career at the USPTO as a patent examiner in 1994 and has held a variety of senior management positions. He was named Commissioner for Patents in 2015 and performed the functions and duties of the Under Secretary of Commerce for Intellectual Property and Director of the USPTO from January 2021 to April 2022. Most recently,Hirshfeld served as Acting Deputy Under Secretary of Commerce for Intellectual Property and Acting Deputy Director.Hirshfeld now brings his wealth of patent prosecution and litigation experience to Schwegman Lundberg & Woessner. His achievements included leading the USPTO's response to the Supreme Court's 2021 Arthrex decision by implementing a new process for director review of final written decisions from the USPTO's Patent Trial and Appeal Board; serving on the USPTO's Precedential Opinion Panel to decide issues of exceptional importance to the Patent Trial and Appeal Board; and overseeing extensive patent prosecution training for patent examiners and members of the public.While performing the functions and duties of the Under Secretary of Commerce for Intellectual Property and Director of the USPTO, Hirshfeld was responsible for more than 13,000 employees and an annual budget of more than $4 billion. He was also responsible for all USPTO functions related to the examination and issuance of all patents. In addition, he championed the USPTO's mentoring program.Outside of work, Hirshfeld and his wife have three daughters. He enjoys woodworking to make things for his family, including an acoustic guitar, kitchen cabinets, and furniture.Connect with Drew Hirshfeld: Website: slwip.com Email: ahirshfeld@slwip.com LinkedIn: linkedin.com/in/drew-hirshfeld Connect with Jeff Harty: Website: nyemaster.com/attorney-directory/jeffrey-d-hartyEmail: jharty@nyemaster.comLinkedIn: linkedin.com/in/jeff-harty-5a9a1643

Welcome to Supreme Court Opinions. In this episode, you'll hear the Court's opinion in Vidal v Elster.      In this case, the court considered this issue: Does the refusal to register a trademark under 15 U.S.C. § 1052(c) when the mark contains criticism of a government official or public figure violate the Free Speech Clause of the First Amendment? The case was decided on June 13, 2024. Steve Elster sought to register the trademark "Trump too small" for use on shirts and hats, drawing from a 2016 Presidential primary debate exchange. The Patent and Trademark Office (PTO) refused registration based on the "names clause" of the Lanham Act, which prohibits the registration of a mark that identifies a particular living individual without their written consent. Elster argued that this clause violated his First Amendment right to free speech. The Trademark Trial and Appeal Board affirmed the PTO's decision, but the Federal Circuit reversed. The Supreme Court of the United States reversed the Federal Circuit's decision, holding that the Lanham Act's names clause does not violate the First Amendment. The Court found that while the names clause is content-based, it is not viewpoint-based, as it does not discriminate against any particular viewpoint. The Court also noted that the names clause is grounded in a historical tradition of restricting the trademarking of names, which has coexisted with the First Amendment. The Court concluded that this history and tradition are sufficient to demonstrate that the names clause does not violate the First Amendment. The Court emphasized that its decision is narrow and does not set forth a comprehensive framework for judging whether all content-based but viewpoint-neutral trademark restrictions are constitutional. The opinion is presented here in its entirety, but with citations omitted. If you appreciate this episode, please subscribe. Thank you. --- Support this podcast: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/scotus-opinions/support

Erik shares 25 key terms to know if you are involved in a Trademark Trial and Appeal Board matter in this episode. Listen to Podcast The post 25 TTAB Tips appeared first on Erik M Pelton & Associates, PLLC.

Lyndon, Paul and Andy discuss Nottingham Forest's controversially low points deduction and how it compares to Everton's treatment by the original independent commission and then the Appeal Board. They discuss the state of the Toffees on the pitch following the defeat to Manchester United and, over the course of an hour's chat, talk themselves around to some optimism around Everton's run-in. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Lyndon Lloyd is joined by Paul Traill and Adam McCulloch to discuss the Appeal Board's decision to reinstate four of Everton's 10 docked points and what it might mean for morale at the club and the second Independent Commission which will convene next month. They discuss what went wrong in those final stages at Brighton at the weekend and look ahead to the visit to Goodison Park of David Moyes's West Ham Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Everton have received 4 points back from the Appeal Board Get exclusive content on Patreon! Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Scott McKeown is a shareholder in Wolf Greenfield's Post-Grant Proceedings Practice. Based in the firm's Washington, DC office, Scott focuses his practice on high-stakes matters before the US Patent Trial & Appeal Board, Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, and related patent litigation matters. Recognized as one of the top PTAB trial attorneys in the US, Scott is also a frequent speaker and author on various intellectual property topics and his award-winning blog can be followed at PatentsPostGrant.com.In this edition of IP Talk with Wolf Greenfield, Scott offers his insight on some of the biggest PTAB developments over the past year and things to watch in 2024. Here are the highlights.01:07 - Scott gives an overview of 2023 PTAB changes and explains how they have changed the practice03:32 - PTAB developments that Scott is monitoring this year05:41 - Scott offers some helpful tips for in-house counsel in light of the Federal Circuit's In re Cellect ruling 07:31 - Exciting times ahead for Wolf Greenfield's Washington, DC office###

2024 is upon us and it's going to be another busy year for intellectual property law. In this episode of IP Talk with Wolf Greenfield, you'll hear Wolf Greenfield attorneys from a variety of practice areas offering their insights on what to expect in the months ahead. Here are some of the highlights.01:06 - Jeff Hsi commented on the impact the Amgen v. Sanofi decision may have on the biotech and pharmaceutical industries in 2024. 01:59 - Jonathan Roses with thoughts on the In re Cellect case. 03:11 - Following the Columbia Sportswear case, Jen Wang discusses the importance of choosing a good title in a design patent application.04:04 - John Harmon on artificial intelligence (AI) and the importance of filing patent applications in a timely manner.04:57 - In the wake of the Supreme Court's decision in the Jack Daniels case, John Strand's thoughts on the line between free expression under the First Amendment and trademark law.05:56 - John Welch previews the Vidal v. Elster trademark case to be decided by the Supreme Court in 2024.06:43 - Scott McKeown on the Patent Trial and Appeal Board's (PTAB) much anticipated updated rules package.07:32 - Zach Piccolomini expects a great deal of focus on the new Unified Patent Court (UPC) and European unitary patent. 08:27 - Ed Russavage offers some thoughts on how President Biden's Executive Order on Artificial Intelligence may impact IP, including some patent and copyright issues. 09:24 - With a number of cases challenging the drug pricing scheme in the Inflation Reduction Act, Dan Young comments on the possible implications for a company's patent strategy.10:11 - Rob Sahr on the Biden Administration's Executive Order stating that “when new technologies and products are developed with support from the US Government, they will be manufactured in the United States whenever feasible and consistent with applicable law.” 11:32 - Libbie DiMarco says 2024 may see a rise in Section 337 non-patent claims before the ITC.###

In this episode, Harper Batts, partner in Sheppard Mullin Silicon Valley's Intellectual Property Group and co-leader of its Semiconductor Industry Team, joins host Scott Maberry to discuss the different forums for patent lawsuits, the complex nature of resolving semiconductor patent disputes, the timing to resolve the lawsuits and more.   What We Discussed in This Episode: What are the different venues to resolve patent disputes? What sort of timing is associated with the different forums? Why has there been an uptick in filing lawsuits in international venues? Besides money, what sort of damages or relief can parties get? What is the benefit of showing competitive harm? How do you best litigate these complex matters in front of a jury?   About Harper Batts Harper Batts is a partner in the Intellectual Property Practice Group located in the firm's Silicon Valley office. He is also the leader of Sheppard Mullin's Post Grant Proceedings (PTAB) Group and Semiconductor Industry Team. Harper has almost two decades of experience as an intellectual property litigator and client counselor. Harper has obtained institution on more than 90% of the IPRs he has filed – a number unmatched across the country. Numerous Fortune 500 clients have relied upon his experience to represent them in highly contentious patent disputes in venues across the country. He has been selected multiple times as a Top IP Attorney in California by the Daily Journal (including this year), and IAM Patent 1000 noted that Harper “performs adroitly in post-grant proceedings on both the patent owner and petitioner sides.” In 2022 and 2023, he obtained institution of numerous petitions for inter partes review, obtained numerous final written decisions finding all claims unpatentable, and obtained an exceptional case finding and an award of attorney's fees in the Central District of California in 2020. He focuses on immediately determining the most relevant and effective pressure points against an adversary to quickly resolve a dispute with minimal disruption and cost to a client. Harper is one of the leading attorneys for handling complex PTAB challenges across a variety of technologies. Harper has represented patent challengers and patent owners in more than 80 CBM and IPR proceedings. He has extensive experience in cases before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board as well as related appeals. About Scott Maberry As an international trade partner in Governmental Practice, J. Scott Maberry counsels clients on global risk, international trade, and regulation. He is also a past co-chair of the Diversity and Inclusion Working Group for the Washington D.C. office, serves on the firm's pro bono committee, and is a founding member of the Sheppard Mullin Organizational Integrity Group. Scott's practice includes representing clients before the U.S. government agencies and international U.S. Department of Treasury's Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC), the Department of Commerce's Bureau of Industry & Security (BIS), the Department of Commerce Import Administration, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), the Department of State Directorate of Defense Trade Controls (DDTC), the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ), the International Trade Commission (ITC), and the Committee on Foreign Investment in the U.S. (CFIUS). He also represents clients in federal court and grand jury proceedings, as well as those pursuing negotiations and dispute resolution under the World Trade Organization (WTO), North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) and other multilateral and bilateral agreements. A member of the World Economic Forum Expert Network, Scott also advises the WEF community in the areas of global risk, international trade, artificial intelligence and values.   Contact Information Harper Batts Scott Maberry Thank you for listening! Don't forget to SUBSCRIBE to the show to receive two new episodes delivered straight to your podcast player every month. If you enjoyed this episode, please help us get the word out about this podcast. Rate and Review this show on Apple Podcasts, Amazon Music, Google Podcasts or Spotify. It helps other listeners find this show. This podcast is for informational and educational purposes only. It is not to be construed as legal advice specific to your circumstances. If you need help with any legal matter, be sure to consult with an attorney regarding your specific needs.

On this day in legal history, September 29, 1983, the War Powers Act was invoked for the first time – by President Ronald Reagan in order to keep a U.S. Marine presence in Lebanon.On September 29, 1983, the U.S. House of Representatives voted 270 to 161 to invoke the War Powers Act concerning the deployment of American Marines in Lebanon for an additional 18 months. The resolution had bipartisan support, including from President Reagan. This marked the first time the House invoked the War Powers Act, a law designed to limit the President's war-making powers, which was enacted a decade earlier. The Senate would go on to approve the resolution.President Reagan thanked the House for its bipartisan vote, emphasizing the importance of cooperation between the legislative and executive branches. However, the vote also revealed concerns among lawmakers about the U.S.'s role in the Middle East and the potential for the Marines to be drawn into a larger conflict. Some representatives warned that the resolution was tantamount to a declaration of war and could result in American casualties.The debate in the House was marked by a sense of urgency but also caution. Lawmakers were torn between the risks of pulling out and staying in Lebanon, with some describing it as a "very unhappy choice." Despite reservations, the prevailing sentiment was that Congress had to back the resolution to support the President during a crisis.The War Powers Act mandates that the President must notify Congress when American troops face combat and withdraw them within 60 to 90 days unless Congress authorizes their continued deployment. Interestingly, President Reagan had not made such a notification, but the compromise resolution asserted the Act's applicability, making Reagan the first President to acknowledge its validity. This failure to abide by the initial notification requirement, coupled with the later request for an extension, in full light of history, was a major step forward in placing the power to declare war in the office of the presidency.At the time, the Senate was also debating an amendment requiring more detailed reporting from the President on the Marines' mission in Lebanon. The House had rejected a similar amendment, which would have postponed a decision on the Marines' future for 60 more days. The debate touched on the balance of power between Congress and the President, the definition of success in Lebanon, and the long-term implications of U.S. involvement in the Middle East. In the ensuing 40 years, every president has either explicitly or tacitly leaned on the War Powers Act to substantiate action abroad. By way of brief background, the War Powers Resolution mandates that the U.S. President can only deploy armed forces abroad through a formal declaration of war by Congress, "statutory authorization," or in the event of a national emergency caused by an attack on the U.S. or its armed forces. The President must notify Congress within 48 hours of committing troops to military action and cannot keep them deployed for more than 60 days without an additional 30-day withdrawal period, unless Congress authorizes the use of military force or declares war. The resolution was enacted by a two-thirds majority in both the House and Senate, overriding President Richard Nixon's veto. Despite its provisions, allegations have been made that the resolution has been violated in the past, such as George W. Bush's invasion of Iraq in 2003 and Bill Clinton's involvement in the NATO bombing of Yugoslavia in 1999. While Congress has disapproved of these incidents, no successful legal actions have been taken against any President for such alleged violations.Suffolk University Law School in Boston has a significant impact on the Massachusetts legal landscape despite its lower ranking in national lists. As of 2021, the school is the leading source of judges in the state, contributing 118 out of 440 judges on the Massachusetts bench. Additionally, three of the seven justices on the state's highest court and Judge Gustavo Gelpí of the US Court of Appeals for the First Circuit are Suffolk alumni. High-profile roles in the state, such as the Secretary of State and Chief Public Defender, are also filled by Suffolk graduates.However, Suffolk Law ranks fifth in the Boston area and falls in the bottom third nationwide, according to U.S. News & World Report. Despite this, the school has a high retention rate for local graduates, which is crucial for Boston's legal market that faces competition from larger cities like New York and Washington, D.C. In 2022, 73% of Suffolk Law graduates took their first-year job in Massachusetts, a higher percentage than graduates from Boston University, Northeastern, and Boston College law schools.The school's strong presence in the state judiciary and public service sectors has created a cycle that attracts students interested in these fields. For example, state Sen. John Cronin chose Suffolk for its reputation in producing practice-oriented lawyers with distinguished careers in public service. The school's curriculum focuses on experiential programs, allowing students to gain real-world experience.Suffolk Law School also addresses a growing need in Boston's legal market by training scientists to become lawyers for biotech clients. The school offers a nighttime program in intellectual property law, attracting individuals with doctorates in science. Firms like Foley Hoag LLP and Foley & Lardner LLP have hired these specialists and sponsored their education at Suffolk's evening program.In summary, Suffolk University Law School plays a pivotal role in Massachusetts' legal ecosystem, particularly in the judiciary and public service sectors, despite its lower national ranking. Its strategic programs and high local graduate retention rate make it a cornerstone in the state's legal community. It stands as a clear example of the shortcomings and difficulties in trying to reduce a school's educational worth to a hierarchical ranking scale. Underdog Boston School Churns Out Judges, Big Law Partners (1)The IRS has released a plan outlining its operations in the event of a government shutdown, which appears increasingly likely if Congress fails to reach a funding agreement by October 1. The plan involves furloughing approximately 60,000 IRS employees, a change from last year's contingency plan. About one-third of the workforce will continue to work, funded by the Inflation Reduction Act, special compliance funding, and user fees. Essential functions like mail processing, criminal law enforcement, disaster relief transcript processing, and income verification for mortgage lenders will continue.However, the IRS will halt all audit functions, return examinations, non-automated collections, and will not answer taxpayer phone calls. Doreen Greenwald, President of the National Treasury Employees Union, expressed concern over the stress and financial insecurity that furloughed IRS workers would face. She also warned that a shutdown could exacerbate the agency's existing backlog by preventing new hires.Initial discussions had suggested that the IRS would remain fully operational by using funds from the Democrats' Inflation Reduction Act, which are not subject to annual appropriations and are available until September 2031. During the last government shutdown in 2018-2019, many IRS operations were halted, but tax refund checks would have been issued if the shutdown extended into tax-filing season. Eileen Sherr of the American Institute of CPAs advised taxpayers to use e-filing for error-free and direct-deposit refunds, as these will be the only ones processed during a shutdown.IRS to Partially Close, Furlough Staff in Federal Shutdown (2)A National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) judge has ruled that Starbucks violated federal labor law by increasing wages and benefits only for employees in non-unionized stores across the U.S. This marks the first nationwide ruling against Starbucks, which has been resisting a wave of unionization for the past two years. The judge, Mara-Louise Anzalone, stated that Starbucks engaged in a "corporate-wide effort to manipulate its employees' free choice" by tying their pay and benefits to their willingness to avoid organizing. The ruling orders Starbucks to compensate thousands of unionized workers who were unlawfully denied increased wages and benefits.This decision is significant as it is the first to find Starbucks in violation of labor laws on a nationwide scale, as opposed to previous rulings that were limited to individual stores. The unionization campaign against Starbucks has led to nearly 350 organized cafes in 37 states, and the NLRB has filed almost 100 complaints against the company. Of these, at least 75 are still pending.Starbucks has publicly denied any legal wrongdoing and argued that increasing pay for unionized workers would itself be illegal, as federal law prohibits unilateral changes to union workers' conditions. However, Judge Anzalone dismissed this argument, stating it wasn't made in good faith. She also ruled that Starbucks' actions illegally discouraged other workers from joining the union. While the judge did not order additional training for Starbucks managers on labor laws, she did mandate that the CEO read a notice of employee rights to U.S. workers and post it in every store.Starbucks Illegally Kept Wages, Benefits From Union Workers (1)The U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (PTO) has enough funds to continue operations for about three months in the event of a government shutdown. The agency plans to use its $1.04 billion operating reserves to cover patent and trademark expenses. The PTO is primarily self-funded through patent and trademark filing fees but still requires annual appropriations from Congress. In the past, the PTO has remained open during government shutdowns, including the 35-day shutdown from December 2018 to January 2019.However, some patent attorneys have expressed concerns about the PTO's long-term ability to function if appropriations are not made. The agency's financial stability during short-term shutdowns is a change from the past when Congress would divert part of the PTO's revenue to fund other government activities. Although a provision to prevent such diversion was removed from the America Invents Act of 2011, Congress has since committed not to divert PTO fees.Legal practitioners seem largely unconcerned about a potential shutdown affecting the PTO, as the agency has successfully weathered past shutdowns. The Patent Public Advisory Committee and PTO officials have planned for such contingencies by increasing the reserve fund. If a shutdown were to last beyond the reserve's capacity, most PTO employees would be furloughed, and the agency's regional offices would close.A prolonged shutdown could also affect the rulemaking process, including proposed changes to the Patent Trial and Appeal Board and requests for comment on artificial intelligence issues. Other agencies involved in the rulemaking process, like the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, could be impacted by furloughs. Finally, while the PTO would continue to collect fees, it would not be able to use those funds without congressional authority.Patent Office Has Funds to Stay Open Three Months Amid ShutdownThe U.S. Supreme Court is set to hear a case involving Zackey Rahimi, who argues that his Second Amendment rights were violated by a law preventing individuals under a domestic violence restraining order from owning firearms. This case could have broader implications for where guns can be carried, including in malls and parks. The court's decision will be its first opportunity to clarify its 2022 ruling in New York State Rifle & Pistol Ass'n v. Bruen, which has led to varying interpretations in lower courts.In Bruen, the Supreme Court established that the government must prove a law restricting gun access aligns with the nation's historical tradition of firearm regulation. However, this has led to inconsistent rulings, as judges lack clear guidance on how closely a modern law must resemble historical laws to pass constitutional muster. The ambiguity has particularly affected laws prohibiting gun possession in "sensitive places" like parks and libraries.Judges have been divided on what counts as a "sensitive place," leading to contrasting rulings. For example, a New Jersey judge ordered the state to stop enforcing provisions that prohibit gun possession in parks and libraries, while a similar challenge in New York received the opposite treatment. Legal experts anticipate that the Rahimi case could provide much-needed clarity on how to apply the Bruen test.If the court sides with Rahimi, it could have far-reaching implications for existing gun legislation, including laws about carrying firearms in "sensitive places." The case also raises questions about linking modern rights to historical contexts that did not contemplate contemporary issues, such as domestic violence, which was not prosecuted as a crime until the late 20th century.New Supreme Court Case a Test for Carrying Guns in Malls, Parks Get full access to Minimum Competence - Daily Legal News Podcast at www.minimumcomp.com/subscribe

In this podcast episode, host Gary introduces Jamie Sternberg, a high-profile trademark attorney in Connecticut who is active on LinkedIn. They discuss Jamie's career path and her work in trademark law, including her decision to pursue law school after Metallica sued Napster for copyright infringement. Jamie shares her experience working in various law firms and emphasizes the importance of mentorship and building a professional network outside of the firm. One of the key topics Jamie and I discussed was the importance of mentorship and building a network for young attorneys. Jamie suggests finding a mentor within the same firm or a colleague who is a few years older to provide guidance and support. The value of having someone to talk to outside of the firm is immeasurable, providing a safe space to discuss challenges and seek advice. Jamie also emphasized the importance of building a network outside of the firm. This can lead to business opportunities and make job transitions easier. She shared her journey of building her network through her trade assoociation and attending conferences. She also highlighted the significance of having a personal brand as a lawyer. Clients often choose an attorney based on their personal relationship and reputation. Jamie advises younger attorneys to start building their brand early by being active on platforms like LinkedIn and getting involved in industry associations. Jamie provided valuable advice for lawyers looking to progress in their careers. She emphasized the importance of analyzing goals, taking action, and not procrastinating on steps that can lead to desired goals. Jamie Sternberg is based in Simsbury, Connecticut and is a Partner with the law firm Saunders & Silverstein LLP. She has passionately practiced in the field of trademark and copyright law for 18 years. Jamie has significant experience with strategic trademark and copyright protection, enforcement, defense, transactions, and litigation for businesses all over the United States and the world. On a daily basis you will find Jamie managing worldwide trademark, copyright, and domain name portfolios, providing strategic intellectual property (IP) advice, enforcing and defending client's IP rights, settling infringement disputes, negotiating IP agreements, or litigating before the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board and in court. Over the course of her career, Jamie has registered hundreds of trademarks with the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, taken down thousands of infringing domain names, websites, and mobile apps, and resolved a high percentage of infringement disputes in her client's favor without resorting to litigation.   Clients regularly praise Jamie's accessibility and her ability to creatively solve problems. Jamie has been recognized as a top trademark attorney by World Trademark Review WTR 1000 (2022, 2023) and by the Super Lawyers organization for her IP practice in Connecticut (2022). Jamie has been an International Trademark Association (INTA) committee member since 2014 and currently serves on the Internet Committee. She is a co-author of the 2022 book Women in Law: Discovering the True Meaning of Success, and regularly speaks and writes on trademark and copyright issues.   You can connect with Jamie at jsternberg@sandsip.com, www.sandsip.com, and https://www.linkedin.com/in/jamieplatkinsternberg/.

On this day in history, September 1, 1807, Aaron Burr, former Vice President and notable shooter of Alexander Hamilton, was acquitted of treason. Aaron Burr's 1807 treason trial was a landmark case and one of the earliest tests of the U.S. Constitution's Treason Clause, outlined in Article III, Section 3. The clause was carefully crafted to limit the charge of treason to the most serious of crimes, requiring "the testimony of two witnesses to the same overt act" for a conviction. The trial featured key figures from the Constitutional Convention, including Edmund Randolph and Luther Martin, who were part of Burr's defense team. President Thomas Jefferson, who was convinced of Burr's guilt, directed the prosecution.Burr was arrested in Alabama after being rejected by both major political parties: the Democratic-Republicans for opposing Jefferson in the 1800 presidential election, and the Federalists for killing Alexander Hamilton in a duel. He had moved west to seek better fortunes and was involved in a plot to seize lands in Louisiana and Mexico. His plot was exposed when General James Wilkinson, a longtime friend, turned against him and informed federal authorities.Chief Justice John Marshall, a political adversary of Jefferson, presided over the trial. In an unprecedented move, Marshall issued a subpoena to President Jefferson to provide documents for Burr's defense, which Jefferson partially ignored. The trial hinged on whether Burr had committed an "overt act" of treason. Testimony revealed that Burr was 100 miles away from Blennerhassett's Island on the Ohio River, where the government claimed he was planning an act of treason. Marshall instructed the jury to focus solely on whether an act of war had been conducted on the island, citing an earlier related case, Ex parte Bollman.The jury quickly acquitted Burr, stating he was "not proved to be guilty under this indictment by any evidence submitted to us." Jefferson was so infuriated by the acquittal that he reportedly wanted to bring impeachment charges against Marshall, echoing a failed attempt in 1805 to impeach Supreme Court Justice Samuel Chase. Interestingly, Aaron Burr had presided over Chase's acquittal as Vice President. The trial revealed the complexities and limitations of the Treason Clause, and it also exposed the personal and political animosities between key figures of the era.U.S. Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas disclosed that Republican megadonor Harlan Crow funded his travel expenses for three trips last year. This is the first time in two decades that Thomas has reported travel funded by Crow, a Dallas real estate developer. The justice also revealed that he sold three properties to Crow in 2014, a transaction he had previously failed to disclose. These disclosures come after a series of ProPublica reports earlier this year that scrutinized Thomas's financial ties to Crow, including luxury vacations and real estate transactions.In a statement, Thomas's attorney Elliot Berke refuted the allegations, calling them a "partisan feeding frenzy" and stating that the attacks were motivated by disagreement with Thomas's judicial philosophy. Thomas also noted that he did not report earlier vacations with Crow due to new rules adopted by the federal judiciary this year. He added that he had arranged for private transportation to an event in May following an "increased security risk" related to a leaked draft opinion on Roe v. Wade.Thomas also corrected previous omissions in his financial disclosures, including bank accounts and a life insurance policy for his wife, Virginia "Ginni" Thomas. He stated that Crow had paid $133,000 for the three properties in Savannah, Georgia, in 2014, resulting in a capital loss for him and his wife.The disclosure has heightened scrutiny around the ethics and transparency of the Supreme Court, especially as public confidence in the court has declined amid various controversies. Congressional Democrats and advocacy groups have filed ethics complaints against Thomas, but no action or updates have been announced by the Committee on Financial Disclosure, which oversees the reporting process for justices and lower court judges.Justice Clarence Thomas Reports Trips Paid for by GOP Donor (2)US Supreme Court's Thomas flew on GOP donor's jet, cites security risks | ReutersA federal judge has sentenced former Proud Boys leaders Joseph Biggs and Zachary Rehl to 17 and 15 years in prison, respectively, for their roles in the January 6, 2021, attack on the U.S. Capitol. They were convicted of seditious conspiracy in an attempt to overturn Donald Trump's 2020 election loss. U.S. District Judge Timothy Kelly's sentences were lower than the 33-year and 30-year terms that federal prosecutors had sought. Kelly stated that while he did not want to minimize the violence of the event, it was not equivalent to a mass casualty incident.Before their sentencing, both Biggs and Rehl expressed regret for their actions. Biggs choked up as he spoke about his daughter, who he said needs him, while Rehl broke down, stating that he had let politics consume his life. Prosecutors had partly based their sentencing recommendation for Rehl on evidence that he committed perjury during the trial.Judge Kelly agreed that the conduct of Biggs and Rehl amounted to an act of terrorism but did not apply a terrorism enhancement to the sentences, stating it "overstates the conduct" at issue. The sentences are among the most stringent handed down in relation to the Capitol attack. To date, more than 1,100 people have been arrested, over 630 have pleaded guilty, and at least 110 have been convicted at trial for charges related to the Capitol assault. The attack resulted in five deaths, including a police officer, and injuries to more than 140 police officers.Judge sentences ex-Proud Boys leaders to 17 and 15-year terms for US Capitol attack | ReutersApple and the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) have settled a lawsuit over the rejection of Apple's application for a federal trademark for the term "Smart Keyboard." The dispute was resolved in principle, according to a joint filing, although details of the settlement were not immediately available. Apple's Smart Keyboard serves as an iPad cover, keyboard, and stand. The USPTO initially rejected Apple's trademark application for the term in 2018, and its Trademark Trial and Appeal Board upheld the decision in 2021. The board found that "Smart Keyboard" was a generic term for "technologically advanced keyboards."Apple appealed the decision to a Virginia federal court last year, arguing that "Smart Keyboard" was a distinctive trade name for its accessory. The company also pointed out that the USPTO had approved hundreds of other "Smart" trademarks, including Apple's own "Smart Cover," "Smart Case," and "Smart Connector" marks for iPad accessories. In response, the USPTO reiterated its stance that "Smart Keyboard" is a generic term and therefore ineligible for a federal trademark.The case had been filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia. Representatives for both Apple and the USPTO did not immediately respond to requests for comment on the settlement. The resolution puts an end to a legal battle that had implications for trademark law and the tech industry.Apple, USPTO settle lawsuit over rejected 'Smart Keyboard' trademark | Reuters Get full access to Minimum Competence - Daily Legal News Podcast at www.minimumcomp.com/subscribe

Scott McKeown recently joined Wolf Greenfield's Washington, DC office as a shareholder in the Post-Grant Proceedings Practice.  Scott focuses his practice on high-stakes matters before the US Patent Trial & Appeal Board, Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, and related patent litigation matters. He is recognized as one of the top PTAB trial attorneys in the US, having handled more than 400 PTAB matters since 2012, including those in which more than $500 million was at stake. In addition to his client work, Scott is a prolific blogger and publishes the award-winning PatentsPostGrant.com, where he shares his insight on PTAB matters, patent litigation, patent reissues, patent reexamination, proposed litigation, patent policy issues, and patent prosecution tidbits. He also teaches the course on post-grant patent practice at George Washington Law School in Washington, DC.Scott is also a frequent speaker and author on various intellectual property topics and has been recognized by leading legal publications, including Chambers USA, The Legal 500, Best Lawyers, IAM, and Managing IP.In this edition of IP Talk with Wolf Greenfield, Scott shares his path from wanting to be a VCR repairman to becoming an attorney, details his practice, and explains what attracted him to Wolf Greenfield.01:09 - What led Scott to focus on post-grant patent issues03:48 - Details on Scott's practice and what led to his success06:14 - Scott's non-linear path to the law08:27 - The decision to join Wolf Greenfield10:47 - What Scott's looking forward to in his role12:22 - What readers can expect from Scott's blog13:52 - Hot topics and news items Scott is following

This episode was mind boggling to yours truly! Just when you think you understand a Medicare process you realize you really need brilliant health care attorneys like Ashley Morgan and Robert Liles to help you make sense of things! Don't miss this one

Episode description: Taco Bell is fighting to “liberate” Taco Tuesday. The company announced today it has filed legal petitions to cancel the federal trademark registrations for “Taco Tuesday” via the USPTO Trademark Trial and Appeal Board. The company says it believes “Taco Tuesday” should belong to “all who make, sell, eat and celebrate tacos.” The company is not seeking damages or trademark rights, but rather the ability for usage of a common term via the cancelation of trademark registrations; meaning no one restaurant will be able to claim exclusive rights to Taco Tuesday. Taco Bell said it wants “Taco Tuesday” to be free for all restaurants and vendors to use the term without fear of a cease-and-desist letter or lawsuit.

Terminology. Terms such as "mark", "brand" and "logo" are sometimes used interchangeably with "trademark". "Trademark", however, also includes any device, brand, label, name, signature, word, letter, numerical, shape of goods, packaging, color or combination of colors, smell, sound, movement or any combination thereof which is capable of distinguishing goods and services of one business from those of others. It must be capable of graphical representation and must be applied to goods or services for which it is registered. Specialized types of trademark include certification marks, collective trademarks and defensive trademarks. A trademark that is popularly used to describe a product or service (rather than to distinguish the product or services from those of third parties) is sometimes known as a genericized trademark. If such a mark becomes synonymous with that product or service to the extent that the trademark owner can no longer enforce its proprietary rights, the mark becomes generic. A "trademark look" is an informal term for a characteristic look for a performer or character of some sort. It is usually not legally trademark protected and the term is not used in the trademark law. Registration. Some law considers a trademark to be a form of property. Proprietary rights about a trademark may be established through actual use of that trademark in the marketplace or through registration of the mark with the relevant trademarks office (or "trademarks registry") of a particular jurisdiction. In some jurisdictions, trademark rights can be established through either or both means. Certain jurisdictions generally do not recognize trademarks rights arising merely through use. If trademark owners do not hold registrations for their marks in such jurisdictions, the extent to which they will be able to enforce their rights through trademark infringement proceedings may be limited. In cases of dispute, this disparity of rights is often referred to as "first to file" (for example, register) as opposed to "first to use." Some countries, such as Germany, offer a limited number of common law rights for unregistered marks, where to gain protection the goods or services must first occupy a highly significant position in the marketplace — where this could be 40% or more market share for sales in the particular class of goods or services. In the United States, the registration process includes several steps. First, the trademark owner applies with the United States Patent and TradeMark Office to register the trademark. About three months after it is filed, the application is reviewed by an examining attorney at the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office. The examining attorney checks for compliance with the rules of the Trademark Manual of Examination Procedure. This review includes procedural matters such as making sure the applicant's goods or services are identified properly. It also includes more substantive matters such as making sure the applicant's mark is not merely descriptive or likely to be confused with a pre-existing applied-for or registered mark. If the application runs afoul of any requirement, the examining attorney will issue an office action requiring the applicant to address certain issues or refusals before registration of the mark. If the examining attorney approves the application, it will be "published for opposition." During this 30-day period, third parties who may be affected by the registration of the trademark may step forward to file an opposition proceeding to stop the registration of the mark. If an opposition proceeding is filed it institutes a case before the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board to determine both the validity of the grounds for the opposition as well as the ability of the applicant to register the mark at issue. --- Send in a voice message: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/law-school/message Support this podcast: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/law-school/support

In this episode of The Small Business Show,  Swire invites Nick Guinn to discuss the importance of protecting intellectual property in your business. Guinn, a seasoned intellectual property attorney, offers expert advice and practical tips for small business owners looking to safeguard their valuable assets. From trademarks and patents to trade secrets and copyrights, Guinn breaks down the different types of intellectual property and explains how to protect them from infringement. Tune in to this informative episode to learn how to secure your business's intellectual property and stay ahead of the competition.Bio and Information:Nick Guinn assists clients in all aspects of intellectual property, with an emphasis on trademarks and litigation, primarily infringement actions. Mr. Guinn also prosecutes patent and trademark applications and handles various trademark proceedings before the U.S. Trademark Trial and Appeal Board of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office.Prior to Gunn, Lee & Cave, P.C., Nick served as a law clerk to Chief United States District Judge Fred Biery of the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas. Through this experience, he developed tremendous insight into the procedures and considerations of the Court.He is a practicing professor of intellectual property law and advanced legal writing, and he frequently speaks on intellectual property and litigation issues.In addition to his practice, Nick immerses himself in the community. He enjoys volunteering with KLRN and Christian Assistance Ministries. He is an active member of his church—teaching Sunday school, coaching high school basketball, and corresponding with missionaries across the world.Contact for Nick Guinnhttps://www.nickguinn.com/https://www.gunn-lee.com/Attorneys/NickGuinn/https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCIV3U-pYiZDf9NqCvgG1zqAhttps://www.facebook.com/NickGuinnIPAttorney/https://www.instagram.com/nickguinnipattorney/The Small Business Show is the official podcast for Garuda Promo and Branding Solutions. For more information visit Website: http://www.garudapromo.com​​Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/garudapromo/​​Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/garudapromoTwitter: http://www.twitter.com/Garuda_Swire​Linkedin: https://www.linkedin.com/in/swire-ho-thepromoguy-6b9Pinterest: https://www.pinterest.com/garudapromo/YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/c/Garudapromo88/videos #thesmallbusinessshow​​​ ​​​ #gaurdapromobranding​​ #smallbusinessmatters #smallbusinessstrong

This is the Weight and Healthcare newsletter! If you like what you are reading, please consider subscribing and/or sharing!If you have read this newsletter for any period of time, you've read my accounts of how pharmaceutical company Novo Nordisk has been using extremely shady marketing practices (many taken from the playbook that Purdue Pharma used to push oxycontin) to promote their drugs for weight loss. Things likePutting doctors on their payroll to promote their drugs to the media without disclosing their ties to the NovoCreating astroturf organizations that claim to be advocacy groups for higher-weight people but are, in fact, funded by Novo and other pharma and weight loss surgery groups.Marketing their drug through Grand Rounds presentationsCreating PSAs and Sponsored Content using people who (you can't make this stuff up) play doctors on TVCo-opting the concept and language of anti-weight-stigma activists in order to sell their weight loss drugsAnd I'm far from the only person talking about this.Mikey Mercedes has publicly called this out. Louise Adams from Untrapped has been all over it  (I had the chance to join Louise Adams and Fiona Willer on Louise's Podcast All Fired Up to talk about this)Asher Larmie, The Fat Doctor, has also been talking about thisAnd there are plenty of others.Part of the issue is that in the United States pharma companies are allowed to market direct-to-consumers , and the rules and regulations that exist are often loosely enforced. That's why I was thrilled to learn that The Association of the British Pharmaceutical Industry (ABPI,) a trade association that works in England, Scotland, Wales, and Northern Ireland in partnership with the government and the NHS on behalf of their members, had suspended Novo Nordisk for being in breach of the ABPI code of practice.Interestingly, just a month ago, the president of ABPI was Novo Nordisk UK General Manager and Corporate Vice-President Pinder Sahota. Sahota stepped down from the board in February “to avoid an ongoing process around a Novo Nordisk ABPI Code of Practice breach becoming a distraction from the vital work of the ABPI.”The complaint was made to The Prescription Medicines Code of Practice Authority (PMCPA) which is “the self-regulatory body which administers the Association of the British Pharmaceutical Industry (ABPI) Code of Practice for the Pharmaceutical Industry, independently of the ABPI. It was established by the ABPI on 1 January 1993.”The complaint centers around a LinkedIn post offering practitioners a free “weight management” course. The only “weight management” treatment covered in the course was GLP1-RA drugs. Novo Nordisk was, at the time, the only company selling these drugs. The course was “sponsored” (paid for) by Novo Nordisk, but that was not clear in the LinkedIn Ad.Not only did this “course” offer information, but they also offered a free Patient Group Direction (PGD). Per the NHS a PGD is  “a written instruction for the sale, supply and/or administration of medicines to groups of patients who may or may not be individually identified before presentation for treatment. May or may not be identified means an individual can either be known to the service/have an appointment (e.g. a baby immunisation clinic) or not be known in advance of presenting at a service (e.g. a walk in centre).PGDs are not a form of prescribing. PGDs allow health care professionals specified within the legislation to supply and/or administer a medicine directly to a patient with an identified clinical condition without the need for a prescription or an instruction from a prescriber. The health care professional working within the PGD is responsible for assessing that the patient fits the criteria set out in the PGD.”The complainant pointed out that the PGD was part of what was being offered to individual health professionals by Novo Nordisk, that it had a value, and that it was being given to individuals for their own personal benefit to run private clinics. The complainant suggested that this amounted to bribing health professionals with “an inducement to prescribe.”The complainant noted that on the website the course had been run several times, so it was likely that a large number of health professionals had received this offer.The ABPI review panel found that the training was provided by a third party, but attendees and PGDs were sponsored by Novo Nordisk. The training mentioned three drugs, the first two (orlistat and naltrexone/bupropion) were presented as having significant side effects and contraindications, while the third drug, Novo's Saxenda, did not include side effect information (though they are significant) and the training noted that Saxenda could be provided by an appropriate health professional with a valid PGD (which was provided by the course.)The training included 21 slides about Saxenda, but no such detail on the other two drugs.Sponsorship of third party trainings by drug companies are permissible by APBI “only if there had been a strictly arm's length arrangement with no input by the company and no use by the company.” In this case, the agreement between the training provider and Novo stated that “Novo Nordisk will be in attendance at training meetings and will be given delegates to follow up” and the panel found that “Novo Nordisk had reviewed the training materials used on the course for medical and factual accuracy.”The panel concluded that “the course (webinar and e-learning) was, in effect, promotional material for Saxenda for which Novo Nordisk was responsible”The Panel found that “the webinar, in effect, promoted Saxenda which Novo Nordisk was responsible for, and considered that Novo Nordisk's involvement in relation to such promotion, including that its medicine would be discussed in detail, was not made sufficiently clear at the outset. Therefore, a breach of the Code was ruled. Novo Nordisk's appeal on this point was unsuccessful.”The contract between Novo and the third party was signed in February 2020, with the intention that 13,000 professionals be trained over 2 years, each of whom were to be provided a PGD making Novo Nordisk's maximum contract £357,500 (about $455,578 USD). As of July 1, 2021, 4,399 health professionals had completed the training and 599 PGDs had been activated.The Panel found that “the provision of funding by Novo Nordisk for the PGD was clearly linked to the promotion of Saxenda; the Panel did not consider there could be any intention other than to directly increase the use of Saxenda. Furthermore, the Panel noted that the cost of the provision of the PGD to prescribe Saxenda was given to individual health professionals. Such funding to individual health professionals did not meet the requirements of the Code and was an inducement to prescribe, supply, administer and/or recommend Saxenda and the Panel therefore ruled a breach of the Code. Novo Nordisk's appeal on this point was unsuccessful.”“The Panel considered that the arrangements between Novo Nordisk and the training provider, particularly in relation to the PGD, brought discredit upon, and reduced confidence in, the pharmaceutical industry. A breach of Clause 2 was ruled. Novo Nordisk's appeal on this point was unsuccessful.”Novo Nordisk's decided to appeal on the basis that they didn't know it was a breach. This backfired spectacularly.The Appeal Board was “very concerned that Novo Nordisk did not recognise that this was a large-scale Saxenda promotional campaign which Novo Nordisk knowingly paid for and which was disguised. In the Appeal Board's view the gravity of the breaches was compounded by Novo Nordisk's failures to recognise that its own behaviour was not compliant with the Code…The Appeal Board was concerned about the potential impact on patient safety of providing unbalanced information to a wide audience, particularly given that the arena of weight loss was a highly emotional arena, and particularly given the lack of balance of Saxenda's safety profile and side effects when comparing it with its competitors.”The Appeal Board decided to publicly reprimand Novo Nordisk for “its failings and the potential impact on patient safety.” They also ordered an audit and decided that “the circumstances were so egregious that a report to the ABPI Board was the only appropriate course of action.”The ABPI Board unanimously decided that further action must be taken, and while they chose not to expel Novo outright, they noted that this option could be exercised at a later date. While a majority wanted to immediately suspend Novo Nordisk's membership, they didn't reach a 75% threshold and so decided to conduct an audit.Subsequent to that audit they determined that Novo Nordisk's actions were ““likely to bring discredit on, or reduce confidence in, the pharmaceutical industry” and suspended them for two years, with reinstatement pending a future audit.In Part 2 we'll talk about some investigative journalism that caught Novo Nordisk in more shady marketing practices. Did you find this post helpful? You can subscribe for free to get future posts delivered direct to your inbox, or choose a paid subscription to support the newsletter and get special benefits! Click the Subscribe button below for details:Liked this piece? Share this piece:More research and resources:https://haeshealthsheets.com/resources/*Note on language: I use “fat” as a neutral descriptor as used by the fat activist community, I use “ob*se” and “overw*ight” to acknowledge that these are terms that were created to medicalize and pathologize fat bodies, with roots in racism and specifically anti-Blackness. Please read Sabrina Strings Fearing the Black Body – the Racial Origins of Fat Phobia and Da'Shaun Harrison Belly of the Beast: The Politics of Anti-Fatness as Anti-Blackness for more on this. Get full access to Weight and Healthcare at weightandhealthcare.substack.com/subscribe

Rajesh has over 15 years of intellectual property law experience. He has subject matter expertise in developing and managing domestic and international patent portfolios for Fortune 500 companies and start-up ventures. His current legal practice touches on all areas of intellectual property law. He assists clients develop their trademark filing strategy, settle trademark disputes and enter into coexistence agreements. He also handles proceedings at the Trademark Trial & Appeal Board, the Copyright Office Review Board and represents parties in web domain disputes under the U.D.R.P. He also advises clients with regard to I.P. rights in literary works, film and music production. Linkedin: https://www.linkedin.com/in/rfotedar Cognition IP: https://cognitionip.com/ Learn more about EmotionTrac and our AI-driven Emotional Intelligence Platform: https://emotiontrac.com/calendly/

Rajesh has over 15 years of intellectual property law experience. He has subject matter expertise in developing and managing domestic and international patent portfolios for Fortune 500 companies and start-up ventures. His current legal practice touches on all areas of intellectual property law. He assists clients develop their trademark filing strategy, settle trademark disputes and enter into coexistence agreements. He also handles proceedings at the Trademark Trial & Appeal Board, the Copyright Office Review Board and represents parties in web domain disputes under the U.D.R.P. He also advises clients with regard to I.P. rights in literary works, film and music production. Linkedin: https://www.linkedin.com/in/rfotedar Cognition IP: https://cognitionip.com/ Learn more about EmotionTrac and our AI-driven Emotional Intelligence Platform: https://emotiontrac.com/calendly/

For trademark owners, increasing brand recognition can sometimes be a mixed blessing. Well-known marks can start to be more than just strong source identifiers. They can be the targets of parody, criticism, social commentary, and other uses that go beyond the consumer goodwill attached to a mark. Concerns about free expression and free speech start to enter the equation. Featured guest Janet Marvel helps unpack the interplay between recognizing trademark rights while protecting expression that falls within the purview of the First Amendment. She's a talented and experienced trademark practitioner, instructor, and author. We are fortunate to have her share her knowledge and insights on this area of trademark law.In this episode, Jeff Harty and Janet Marvel discuss: Brand essence and the power of brands. Developing a good brand strategy.Counterfeiting and e-commerce. The balance between free speech and trademark protection. Key Takeaways: Trademarks provide valuable functions for both consumers and sellers of goods and services. You have to think about a global stage for your major business operations and trademark strategy, not just your local country. The U.S. Ninth Circuit Court has gone from artistic work to expressive work in its interpretation of the Rogers case. It is possible that they have expanded their view of First Amendment protection too far. We look forward to the Supreme Court soon providing guidance in the Jack Daniels case. “Protecting your trademarks, in that respect of thinking about stopping counterfeiters, is important. You can't stop a counterfeiter under the federal statute without a registration. So you want to have a registration, and you want to think about where you're manufacturing.” —Janet Marvel   About Janet Marvel: Pattishall partner Janet Marvel protects brands, copyrighted works, and domain names throughout the world. She has been charged with protecting the trademarks of world-famous brands, such as Ford, Pepsi, Harlequin (romance novels), and Mattel. She even protects the famous Cheesehead hat on view during the NFL season when the Green Bay Packers play.As part of her practice, Janet represents plaintiffs and defendants in a wide variety of disputes involving trademark, copyright, rights of publicity, breach of contract, unfair competition, and false advertising. She has successfully tried cases and litigated around the country in state and federal courts and before the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office. In a notable case, she successfully defended a small company's ownership of the Brawny mark for plastic bags against an all-out attack in two federal courts and the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board. She also developed expert testimony for the Internal Revenue Service in a $262 million case involving evaluation of assets of the Carnation Company. She handled the acquisition of the famous CURAD mark.When she is not working, you will probably find Janet hiking—often north of the Arctic Circle. Janet's travel has included backpacking trips to Canada's Ellesmere Island (at 80 degrees north latitude, accessible just three weeks a year), Gates of the Arctic National Park, and the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge.Connect with Janet Marvel: Website: https://www.pattishall.com/ Email: jmarvel@pattishall.com Connect with Jeff Harty: Website: https://nyemaster.com/attorney-directory/jeffrey-d-harty/Email: jharty@nyemaster.comLinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/jeff-harty-5a9a1643/

To keep patent disputes out of the courts, Congress formed the Patent Trial and Appeal Board a few years back in the America Invents Act. A survey of patent judges conducted by the Government Accountability Office came up with a disturbing finding. Three quarters of the judges said U.S. Patent and Trademark Office management pressured them to change their decisions. To get more on this story, Federal Drive host Tom Temin spoke with Candice Wright, GAO's Director for Science, Technology Assessment, and Analytics. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

To keep patent disputes out of the courts, Congress formed the Patent Trial and Appeal Board a few years back in the America Invents Act. A survey of patent judges conducted by the Government Accountability Office came up with a disturbing finding. Three quarters of the judges said U.S. Patent and Trademark Office management pressured them to change their decisions. To get more on this story, Federal Drive host Tom Temin spoke with Candice Wright, GAO's Director for Science, Technology Assessment, and Analytics. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoicesSee Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

Kalamazoo public meetings brought to you by Michigan Radio.See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

We're pleased to announce that the firm's podcast, In the Public Interest, will return for a third season! Tune in to hear a preview of what to expect this season from our hosts, WilmerHale Partners John Walsh and Felicia Ellsworth. Season Three will kick off with an episode featuring Elizabeth Chan, a full-time Christmas songwriter who recently prevailed in a trademark battle over Mariah Carey. Partner Louis Tompros will join Chan to speak with Ellsworth about the case and Tompros's experience representing Chan before the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board. Later this season, join Walsh and Ellsworth as they catch up with several high-profile WilmerHale alumni. They'll also hear from other notable figures involved in some of the most important issues of the day, from the state of reproductive rights following the US Supreme Court's ruling in Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization to the regulatory landscape of cannabis legalization.

Mariah Carey is synonymous with Christmas, however, the US Trademark Trial and Appeal Board ruled against the pop diva's legal attempt to trademark the name “Queen of Christmas.”The decision means that the regal holiday monikers can be used by another singer, Elizabeth Chan, who says she's “the world's only full-time pop Christmas recording artist.”Tune in as Tom gets into the Christmas Spirit by discussing the decision, the trademark process and what it means for monopolizing Christmas monikers.

Gloria Tsui-Yip's practice involves obtaining, protecting, and enforcing intellectual property rights for her clients. Gloria prosecutes applications, provides opinions and litigates intellectual property matters, including utility and design patents, trademarks, copyrights, trade secrets and/or unfair competition. Gloria is experienced in transferring intellectual property rights through the licensing and the sale of a business, including associated due diligence and opinion work. She has been involved in numerous litigations before the federal courts and proceedings before the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office. In addition, Gloria counsels clients on worldwide protection and enforcement (both online and off-line) of intellectual property rights. Gloria is experienced in electronics, electrical, mechanical, internet-related, software, and wireless subject matters. She represents individuals and businesses, including non-profit organizations, in the fashion, beauty, food, alcoholic beverage, toy, jewelry, pet, stationery, polymer, fastener, medical, dental, publishing, automotive, certification industries and with various consumer and industrial goods. Linkedin: https://www.linkedin.com/in/gloria-tsui-yip-9688591b8/ Gottlieb, Rackman & Reisman, P.C.: https://grr.com/ Learn more about EmotionTrac and our AI-driven Emotional Intelligence Platform: https://emotiontrac.com/calendly/ https://legal.emotiontrac.com/

Gloria Tsui-Yip's practice involves obtaining, protecting, and enforcing intellectual property rights for her clients. Gloria prosecutes applications, provides opinions and litigates intellectual property matters, including utility and design patents, trademarks, copyrights, trade secrets and/or unfair competition. Gloria is experienced in transferring intellectual property rights through the licensing and the sale of a business, including associated due diligence and opinion work. She has been involved in numerous litigations before the federal courts and proceedings before the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office. In addition, Gloria counsels clients on worldwide protection and enforcement (both online and off-line) of intellectual property rights. Gloria is experienced in electronics, electrical, mechanical, internet-related, software, and wireless subject matters. She represents individuals and businesses, including non-profit organizations, in the fashion, beauty, food, alcoholic beverage, toy, jewelry, pet, stationery, polymer, fastener, medical, dental, publishing, automotive, certification industries and with various consumer and industrial goods. Linkedin: https://www.linkedin.com/in/gloria-tsui-yip-9688591b8/ Gottlieb, Rackman & Reisman, P.C.: https://grr.com/ Learn more about EmotionTrac and our AI-driven Emotional Intelligence Platform: https://emotiontrac.com/calendly/ https://legal.emotiontrac.com/

The Department of Defense (DoD) Discharge Appeal Review Board (DARB) DARB affords Service members the opportunity to request an upgrade to the characterization of a discharge or dismissal that was not granted by their Service Discharge Review Board (DRB) and the Board of Corrections of Military/Naval Records (BCM/NR). ** Note that the DARB only applies to discharges or dismissals with a date on or after December 20, 2019. For a discharge or dismissal dated on or after December 20, 2019, through December 31, 2020, a request for relief must be submitted on or before January 1, 2022, or within 365 calendar days of receipt of the BCM/NR decision, whichever is later. A request filed later than this date is untimely and may be denied by the DARB on that basis. For a discharge or dismissal date on or after January 1, 2021, a request for relief must be submitted within 365 calendar days of the date of receipt of the BCM/NR decision. A request filed more than 365 calendar days after the date of the respective BCM/NR decision is untimely and may be denied by the DARB on that basis. Department of Defense (DoD) Discharge Appeal Review Board (DARB) https://afrba-portal.cce.af.mil/#resources Department of Defense (DoD) Discharge Appeal Review Board (DARB) Application Instructions https://afrba-portal.cce.af.mil/#application-submission-darb The current governing instruction for the DARB process is in the Deputy Secretary of Defense “ Memorandum, dated 29 January 2021 ” https://afrba-portal.cce.af.mil/app/assets/DOD_SECTION_523.pdf --- Send in a voice message: https://anchor.fm/ferah-ozbek/message

From self-driving cars to voice automation in homes, inventors are developing ambitious AI technologies that will continue to impact the ways in which we learn, work, communicate, and travel. According to the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO), the number of AI-related patents increased at an astonishing number, from 4,598 in 2008 to 20,639 in 2018. In this episode of Mind the Gap, Rama Elluru, a former Administrative Patent Judge on the Patent Trial and Appeal Board at the USPTO, and Christian Hannon, a patent attorney in the USPTO's Office of Policy and International Affairs, share their perspectives on how AI is impacting patent law and the inventor community.

It is rare to find someone in the field of intellectual property, in particular patent law, who is a scholar and a practitioner. Today, we have with us Jay Kesan who is both. Listen in for a great episode full of information about the PTAB (Patent Trial and Appeal Board) and the impact it has had on the patent system after 10 years. In this episode, Jeff Harty and Jay Kesan discuss: Jay's professional career as both a law professor and a practicing patent attorney/litigator. The impact of IPRs and PGRs on the patent system. Challenging the validity of a patent in an IPR proceeding versus district court litigation. Key Takeaways: The PTAB was created as an alternative forum for challenging issued patents. It was hoped that the PTAB would provide a lower-cost means of challenging already-issued patents.In the past few years, the number of patent validity challenges has leveled out to about 1,500 IPRs per year.The vast majority of IPRs involve parallel district court infringement actions.The USPTO, under its new director, has issued new guidelines for discretionary denials of PTAB proceedings. A fair comment, at this stage, would be that these discretionary denials are only going to continue to decrease even when there is parallel district court litigation. “If you're a patent owner and you believe that your patents are being infringed and you're contemplating an infringement action, you have to take into account the new world that you have to deal with.” — Jay Kesan   About Jay Kesan: Jay P. Kesan, Ph.D., J.D., is a well-recognized and accomplished patent attorney with more than 25 years' experience. His work encompasses all aspects of patent enforcement, patent strategy, and licensing. He has been lead counsel or co-counsel in numerous patent lawsuits in various federal district courts around the country. He has argued numerous appeals before the Court of Appeals in the Federal Circuit. He has also served as lead counsel in more than 30 IPRs and argued several times before the PTAB. He has been actively involved in every aspect of patent litigation as counsel, Special Master, appellate counsel, technical expert, legal expert, and mediator. Jay has a Ph.D. in electrical and computer engineering from the University of Texas at Austin and worked for several years as a research scientist at the IBM Thomas J. Watson Research Center. As a result, he works with clients on IP disputes that involve a wide variety of technologies and innovations. Jay is also an active empirical scholar, and his recent works have focused on cyber risk and patent policy. He has published numerous articles and six books on patent law and policy and cybersecurity and privacy with an emphasis on empirical research methodologies. He is a professor and H. Ross and Helen Workman Research Scholar at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign. He is an active and widely cited scholar. Connect with Jay Kesan: Website: https://jaykesan.com/ Email: jay@jaykesan.com Books: https://jaykesan.com/books/ Twitter: https://twitter.com/JayKesanP LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/jaykesan/ YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCENwROk5ywajSVoJWUX9SBA/featured Connect with Jeff Harty: Website: https://nyemaster.com/attorney-directory/jeffrey-d-harty/Email: jharty@nyemaster.comLinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/jeff-harty-5a9a1643/

The USPTO's Trademark Trial and Appeal Board issued a decision recently in a case involving a trademark application for the word mark "Purple Rain" in connection with an energy drink, filed by a company unrelated to the late performer, Prince. Prince's estate filed an opposition to the trademark based on the proposed trademark creating a false suggestion of a connection to Prince. In a fascinating decision, the TTAB agreed with Prince's estate and so the opposition to the proposed trademark registration was successful. Today's episode of Business is More Exciting than any Game discusses what business entrepreneurs can learn from this decision.

Join us on July 27 to hear three experts give a response to our April 26th event on The America Invents Act and the role of Patent Trial and Appeal Board in resolving patent disputes. Featuring:-- Prof. Thomas D. Grant, Senior Research Fellow (Wolfson College); Fellow (Lauterpacht Centre for International Law), Faculty of Law, University of Cambridge-- Prof. F. Scott Kieff, Fred C. Stevenson Research Professor of Law and Director, Planning and Publications, Center for Law, Economics, & Finance, George Washington University Law School-- Moderator: Hon. Paul Michel, U.S. Court of Appeals, Federal Circuit (ret.)

Pink Sheet reporter and editors discuss another project to improve clinical trial diversity in the US, the Patent Trial and Appeal Board director review process, and the FDA promoting its head of controlled substance policy to deputy CDER director.

In this episode, Jordana Goodman, Visiting Clinical Assistant Professor at the Boston University School of Law, discusses her new article Ms. Attribution: How Authorship Credit Contributes to the Gender Gap. She argues that misattribution in the authorship of legal work disparately impacts underrepresented members of the legal profession, with a focus on women in patent law. In her article, Professor Goodman reports empirical findings from a large novel dataset of agency actions and responses during the patent examination process in the United States Patent and Trademark Office. She also addresses the larger professional and cultural implications of these findings and proposes reforms. Professor Goodman's article is forthcoming in the Yale Journal of Law & Technology and is available on SSRN. She is on Twitter at @Jordi_Goodman.This episode was hosted by Saurabh Vishnubhakat, Professor in the School of Law and Professor in the Dwight Look College of Engineering at Texas A&M University. Professor Vishnubhakat is on Twitter at @emptydoors.Disclosure: Professors Goodman and Vishnubhakat are now collaborating on a follow-up paper that explores the gender gap among attorneys in administrative patent litigation before the USPTO Patent Trial and Appeal Board. See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information.

Qualcomm is responsible for the smartphone revolution.  It started working on the technology back when many thought it was impossible.  Besides everyday users, one of the biggest beneficiaries of Qualcomm' technology was Apple.  Apple relied on the technology to make iPhones that grew its market cap to a record of $3 Trillion. However, eventually, Apple decided it was paying Qualcomm too much for the technology. And, instead of agreeing to one fair arbitration process to settle the dispute, Apple decided to rely on scorched-earth litigation. The dispute between Apple and Qualcomm quickly blossomed into more than 100 cases around the world.   But it wasn't long before Qualcomm was racking up wins in China, Germany, and the US. Apple finally agreed to settle on the eve of another trial in the US in 2019. Bob Giles was one of the people responsible for that Qualcomm victory.  Two years after that, he was named Chief IP Counsel at Qualcomm.  He now shepherds a team that is responsible for managing and growing 140,000 IP assets and handling some of the most high-profile patent disputes in the world. On this episode, Eli talks to Bob about his new role and the ongoing disagreements between innovators like Qualcomm and implementers like Apple.  Episode Highlights  [02:07] What's Qualcomm all about?: Giles discusses how Qualcomm began, the early challenges it faced, and its business mission. [05:37] Keeping the lights on: Giles tells the story of how Qualcomm entered a licensing agreement with Motorola in its early days. [07:23] Qualcomm's business model: Giles explains why Qualcomm's model works and how it encourages innovation. [10:01] Does the current system for standards and SEPs work?: Giles discusses the policy debates regarding these topics. [19:55] Getting the dream job: Giles talks about what it was like to transition from patent litigation to Chief IP Counsel at Qualcomm, and what the Chief IP Counsel job entails.  [28:42] What makes a great portfolio?: Qualcomm isn't like other companies when it comes to patents. As chief IP counsel, Giles discusses what needs to be part of the company's portfolio.  [35:37] The million-dollar question: The law, and our interpretation of it, is changing all the time. How does a company like Qualcomm, with over 140,000 IP assets and offices all over the world, navigate those developments?     [39:57] Apple v. Qualcomm: Giles discusses how he helped Qualcomm beat Apple [43:13] Lessons learned: Giles discusses his major takeaways from litigating a large-scale, multinational case.  [47:06] Why Qualcomm thrives: Giles shares the underappreciated aspects of Qualcomm and his take on why it has been so successful.  [50:37] The innovation climate: Qualcomm was able to get an injunction for its patents in China and Germany, but not in the U.S. When impact does this have on American companies trying to innovate and protect their IP?  [52:18] The ‘death squad of patents'?: The 2011 creation of a Patent Trial and Appeal Board, has been controversial, but has it damaged the U.S. IP system? What went wrong? Giles shares his thoughts. [57:17] Know your field: Giles offers his advice for being successful in the IP field.  

On September 16, 2011, President Obama signed the American Invents Act (AIA) into law. The first major overhaul of the U.S. patent system since the 1952 Patents Act, the AIA received overwhelming bipartisan support in both chambers when enacted. But, with the recent ten-year anniversary of the AIA, a new director poised to take the […]

On September 16, 2011, President Obama signed the American Invents Act (AIA) into law. The first major overhaul of the U.S. patent system since the 1952 Patents Act, the AIA received overwhelming bipartisan support in both chambers when enacted. But, with the recent ten-year anniversary of the AIA, a new director poised to take the helm at the USPTO, and Congress ramping up debate on reforms to the AIA, is now the time for a reexamination? Our speakers will consider the role of the PTAB in resolving patent disputes and the legality of the exercise of significant discretionary authority by the USPTO Director to implement policy outside the authority granted the director under the AIA.Featuring:-- Joseph Matal, partner in the Intellectual Property Practice Group in the Washington, D.C. office of Haynes and Boone, LLP-- Paul Brian Taylor, who served over 20 years as Counsel and Chief Counsel for the House Judiciary Committee's Subcommittee on the Constitution and Civil Justice. He also served as Senior Counsel at the House Committee on Oversight.-- Moderator: Hon. Bob Goodlatte, Former Congressman, United States House of Representatives

Today we explore brand protection, specifically the world of trademarking, with Amanda Roach and Angela Kalsi, Partners of the Amin Talati Wasserman law firm. In this lighthearted episode, we dive into the basics of trademarking, the value it brings to companies and, interestingly, why it should be regarded as a capital expenditure rather than an operating cost. Learn more on how trademarks work in relation to patents and how to create the strongest types of trademarks (in forms that you'd never expect!). Plus, discover the niche of Trademark Squatting and find out what's happening in the world of CBD product trademarking. _____ About Amanda Roach Amanda's practice focuses on the trade111ark lifecycle. Since 2006, Amanda has counseled clients on brand selection. portfolio strategy, trademark application prosecution, brand enforcement and defense, due diligence, anti-counterfeiting measures. and trademark maintenance stretching from the United States to more than 140 countries around the world. Her extensive knowledge of trade111ark law is much appreciated by her clients as she often secures rights that would be otherwise unattainable using creative. outside-the-box approaches. Amanda is proud to have represented businesses of all sizes from Fortune 100 companies to promising start-ups to not-for­profits allowing her to tailor trademark strategies that respect each client's unique needs and botto111 line. Her clients operate in a wide array of industries including food, dietary supplements. cosmetics, pharmaceuticals. medical equipment, water reclamation, oil and gas. household goods and fixtures. employment, and entertainment. When not hard at work with her amazing trademark team. Amanda enjoys playing with her kids. exploring new cities with her husband. and revising her novel. About Angela Kalsi A seasoned trademark attorney, Angela kalsi understands that a company's most valuable asset is its brand. Angela works with companies large and small to develop robust brand protection strategies. Having managed trademark portfolios for Fortune 500 companies, start-ups. and everything in between, Angela is adept at tailoring her advice to fit a particular client's needs. Angela has worked with companies in a diverse array of industries and brings this broad-based experience to every problem she solves. Angela specializes in US and international trademark prosecution, guiding her clients in trademark selection, registration, and maintenance. Her practice spans over fifty countries. Angela has a proven track record of resolving her clients' trademark disputes, including in cases before the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board. Angela's experience also includes registering works at the Copyright Office and authoring a variety of intellectual property agreements. An art lover, Angela worked at the Lyric Opera of Chicago and the Chicago International Film Festival prior to practicing law. She brings this love of creativity to her work and never tires of seeing what her clients create. Whether it is an imaginative tagline or an eye-catching logo, Angela feels passionate about her role in protecting her clients' brands and creations. When she is not hard at work for her clients. Angela delights in reading great novels. trying new restaurants. and perfecting her karaoke repertoire.

Kalamazoo public meetings brought to you by Michigan Radio. See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

In this episode, Sarah Burstein, Professor of Law at the University of Oklahoma College of Law, and Saraubh Vishnubhakat, Professor of Law at Texas A&M University School of Law, discuss their article "The Truth About Design Patents," which will be published in the American University Law Review. Here is the abstract:Design patents are hot. Scholars and policymakers are increasingly focusing on this once-niche area of law. However, many of the empirical studies in this area—including old ones that still get cited—rely on statistics and empirical conclusions that were methodologically questionable from the start, or have become outdated, or both. In this paper, we make two sets of contributions to that important and underdeveloped literature. First, we review the empirical studies of design patents thus far, including those that pre- and post-date the creation of the Federal Circuit, and we update the findings of those studies. Second, we consider a set of institutional questions that, to our knowledge, the prior literature has not even broached. Beyond the federal courts, we explore design patent enforcement at the ITC and the use of administrative process to challenge design patents in the Patent Trial and Appeal Board. These contributions put the design patent system into much-needed context with broader debates about U.S. intellectual property policy.This episode was hosted by Brian L. Frye, Spears-Gilbert Professor of Law at the University of Kentucky College of Law. Frye is on Twitter at @brianlfrye. See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information.

Prof. Dan Brown and his son, Dan Brown Jr., are straight out of central casting. Prof. Brown, the father, grew up in a working-class Irish family on Chicago's South Side before eventually becoming a professor of engineering at Northwestern University. Dan Jr. is a moppy-haired marketing genius who is now President of LoggerHead Tools. As a result of a father-son argument, Prof. Brown invented an award-winning tool called the Bionic Wrench and pursued the audacious idea of manufacturing it in entirely in America. Sears positioned itself to become their exclusive retailer when the initial order of 300,000 units sold out between Black Friday and Christmas. Unfortunately, not long after, Sears started pressuring them to manufacture it in China to lower the price of the bionic wrench. “It was pure greed. And we said no,” Prof. Brown said. When Prof. Brown refused, Sears got another company, Apex, to make a knockoff of the bionic wrench in China. So, LoggerHead Tools, represented by Skiermont Derby, took them to court. They were on their way to being vindicated when the death of the original federal judge, assigned to the case, put that into doubt. Today, they continue to tell the story of their “David and Goliath” battle in hopes that the patent law can be improved to support America's innovators. “This is not the type of due process you think someone should have to go through,” Dan Jr. says. “Where is the reward?" Join us on this episode of Clause 8 as we talk to Prof. Brown and Dan Jr. about the twists and turns of their story, why they continue to have faith in America's patent system, and what it's like to work with your dad. Episode Highlights  [03:35] A patent partnership: By the time they obtained the patent for the Bionic Wrench, Prof. Brown had already secured patents for many other products. His son, Dan Jr., learned the ins and outs of patenting by shadowing his father. [06:15] The Bionic Wrench is born: The lightbulb went on when Dan Jr. tried to use robo-grip adjustable pliers to change the blade on a lawnmower. [11:44] Keeping it in the U.S.: Prof. Brown talks about how his insistence on manufacturing the Bionic Wrench in America was due to how he was raised and what he saw when he brought products to China as a consultant. [17:25] Sears pitches a deal: Sears placed a major order for LoggerHead's Bionic Wrench and it turns into an incredibly successful item for Sears. However, Sears is not happy when the Browns refuse to lower the price by outsourcing manufacturing to China. [22:53] The smoking gun emails: Sears tried to make a similar product to avoid patent issues but couldn't get the tool to work [26:51] National coverage: The media is not always friendly to patent owners but Prof. Brown and Dan Jr.'s story got the attention of the New York Times and ABC News. [35:31] A new judge turns the tables: After the original judge on the trial died and the jury ruled in favor of LoggerHead Tools, a new judge upended the verdict in a way that surprised all sides . [38:46] Rule 36: A 15 minute hearing and a two-line decision from the Federal Circuit ended their battle. [45:57] It's about more than a patent: How LoggerHead Tools managed to survive after the battle with Sears. [49:37] The bright side: Dan Jr. created the InstaShield product that they come up with during the pandemic. [55:29]: Made in China: Prof. Brown and Dan Jr. discuss the America's reliance on other countries for essential products and the challenge it presents for American manufacturers. [58:56] A broken system: Prof. Brown presents some potential solutions to the broken patent system, starting with making willful infringement a crime, reassessing the Patent Trial and Appeal Board, and working toward a more inclusive, equitable industry. [1:06:43] The family business: “You have to learn how to do a lot of deep breathing and meditation,” Dan Jr.  

The Federal Circuit gave us important guidance with its recent Intel v. Qualcomm decision. What can we anticipate for Article III jurisdiction going forward? And is the Court quietly reviving the "gist" doctrine of old for claim construction? Featuring Wayne Stacy (BCLT) and Seth Lloyd (MoFo). SPEAKERS Seth Lloyd, Wayne Stacy Wayne Stacy 00:00 Welcome, everyone to the Berkeley Center for Law and Technology's Expert Series Podcast. I'm Wayne Stacy, the Executive Director for BCLT and your host today. Today we have Seth Lloyd from Morrison Forrester to walk us through a recent interesting ruling from the Federal Circuit. We have two heavyweights, Intel and Qualcomm fighting it out. And as often happens, when you have two heavyweights fighting it out, a lot of issues get brought to the surface, the Federal Circuit had to clean them up. So in light of what you saw with Intel, and Qualcomm, Seth, where do you want to kick off maybe Article Three, which is everyone's favorite New Year topic? Seth Lloyd 00:45 Yeah, that seems like a good place to start and is where the Court starts to. So just to kind of set the stage a little bit here, as you said, we have two kind of heavyweights fighting it out in the the the forum that they were fighting it out in at least before the appeal was the the PTABs of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board. So Qualcomm owns a patent to kind of these multi multi processor systems. It had asserted that patent not against Intel, but against one of Intel's customers and Intel in in response to that and kind of related litigation, then went to the Patent Trial and Appeal Board and filed a petition for inter parties review on the patent. The process, the PTAB went forward, ultimately the the PTAB cancelled some of the claims that Intel had challenged, but not others. And Intel appealed the claims that were upheld. And that the Article Three issue came in at the appeal stage, which is sort of the kind of an interesting wrinkle that happens when you take this route from the PTAB to the Federal Circuit. And the reason, you know so in district court if there's an article three injury or issue that's generally going to be litigated in the District Court itself, and then you know, if the district court gets it right or wrong, people will fight about that on appeal, that the difference in the PTAB context is anybody right can go to the patent office and file a petition. I think the statutory language is basically anybody but the patent owner can file a petition for inter parties review. So there's no check out the PTAB. But once you try to invoke the the authority of an Article Three court by safe at filing your appeal, now your article three requirements are going to kick in. Wayne Stacy 02:37 Well, we saw some of this with some hedge funds filing early on. But are we really seeing this as an issue popping up? When you have two actual manufacturing corporations like Intel and Qualcomm? Do you see this

Kalamazoo public meetings brought to you by Michigan Radio. See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Erik J. Olson chatted with Andy Corea, the Managing Partner at Murtha Cullina. He started practicing trademark law in 1999, receiving his initial training at the USPTO as a trademark examining attorney before moving into private practice. He appears regularly before the United States Trademark Trial and Appeal Board and has represented clients in federal court cases throughout the country. He assists clients in obtaining trademark rights through clearance, counseling, and prosecution of trademarks and provides intellectual property due diligence to support mergers and acquisitions. —- Array Digital provides bold marketing that helps managing partners grow their law firms. arraylaw.com Follow us on Instagram: @array.digital Follow us on Twitter: @thisisarray Call us for a FREE digital marketing review: 757-333-3021 SUBSCRIBE to The Managing Partners Podcast for conversations with the nation's top attorneys.

Kalamazoo public meetings brought to you by Michigan Radio. See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Kalamazoo public meetings brought to you by Michigan Radio. See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Cary Mosier is the owner of Cafe Gratitude and Gracias Madre, a group of leading family-owned organic plant-based restaurants based in California. Cary has been running operations for 17 years, growing to eight locations.

In this episode for the protectors of cool stuff, we are talking about blockchain technologies. Tom Marlow and Michael Henson discuss applications and intellectual property surrounding the blockchain space. Michael Henson, a Partner at Perkins Coie, provides seasoned intellectual property counsel to businesses of varying sizes that trust him to employ his wide-ranging intellectual property prosecution and litigation experience to achieve positive results. Combining extensive patent and trademark prosecution experience with a litigation background, Michael offers his clients a unique approach to their sophisticated intellectual property needs. Michael is a registered patent attorney whose practice emphases patent prosecution, patent litigation, and strategic patent portfolio management and analysis. Businesses spanning a diverse array of technologies regularly engage Michael to help develop, protect and monetize intellectual property. Michael is adept at handling intellectual property procurement, transactional, and enforcement matters in the United States and abroad, and in particular, regularly assists clients with infringement, freedom-to-operate and validity opinions, patent prosecution, trademark, and related licensing matters. Michael is also experienced in virtually all phases of patent, trademark and other types of intellectual property law, including appeals before the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, the Patent Trial and Appeal Board, and the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board. Michael has extensive experience in a wide variety of technological disciplines and has prepared and prosecuted hundreds of patents (or had related litigation experience) in the fields of computer science, electrical engineering and mechanical engineering, specifically including technology related to digital and analog circuits, power distribution devices, semiconductors, encryption, authentication, e-commerce, real time (streaming) communications, signal processing, data storage, graphical user interfaces, disposable medical devices, ultrasonic signal detection, vehicle systems, spinal cord stimulation, medical (oncology) revenue regeneration software, medical billing practice management systems, prosthetics, aircraft superchargers, shipping products and systems, baby goods, locking devices, hitch devices, cartridge filling apparatuses, dental devices, sporting goods, expandable/collapsible canopies and various other electrical and mechanical products, Prior to launching his legal career, Michael worked as a co-op engineer in the steel industry. He also worked for the Central Intelligence Agency, with top secret clearances, while obtaining his degree in electrical engineering. Email address: MHenson@perkinscoie.com Phone Number: (303)291-2337 Tom Marlow is the Chief Technology Officer for Black Hills IP and is the President of Black Hills IP Renewals, our patent annuities management company. Tom is a registered patent attorney and electrical engineer with a passion for IP systems. Previously, Tom ran the IP department for a multi-billion dollar semiconductor manufacturing company where he oversaw worldwide IP strategy, enforcement, and procurement. Tom taps his in-house and prior private practice experience to develop and deliver products and services that address known pain-points in the patent process. Tom has spoken before diverse audiences from patent attorneys, to C-suite executives to engineers to startup founders on patent management, analysis, and strategy over the years. Tom also has experience prosecuting and managing patent prosecution on a global scale and is the co-author of the Lexis published “US Patent Prosecutor's Desk Reference”. Tom was previously co-chair of the patent analytics and portfolio management department at the Minneapolis patent firm Schwegman, Lundberg & Woessner, P.A. He received his law degree from Franklin Pierce Law Center, and Bachelor's of Science from the University of Notre Dame.

Question: Can the Board defer action on a petition for a derivation proceeding? Answer: The Patent Trial and Appeal Board may defer action on a petition for a derivation proceeding until the expiration of the 3-month period beginning on the date on which the Director issues a patent that includes the claimed invention that is […] The post MPEP Q & A 85: Board on Deferring Action on a Petition for a Derivation Proceeding appeared first on Patent Education Series.