Patent Lawyer Atlanta

(678) 383-4886 Patent, Trademark & IP Lawyer Services

Patent Attorneys Atlanta

Are you looking for Patent Attorneys in Atlanta?

 

  • Call now for a FREE Patent Attorney Consultation (678) 202-5990.

See our

Atlanta Patent Attorneys Offices:

Continue reading

How to Find a Great Patent Attorney in Atlanta

How to Find a Great Patent Attorney in Atlanta

Small law firms focusing exclusively on intellectual property often
provide the best attention and service for filing patent and trademark applications.

Look for a patent attorney trademark attorney who has his/her own inventions, issued patents, trademarks or who has participated in starting a new business.

Patent Lawyers are subject matter specific based on their technical degree(s) earned in college. Look for an Attorney with a technical degree that matches your idea invention, such as electrical engineering, computer science, software, physics, biology, biochemistry, chemistry, or mechanical engineering, etc.

Work experience creates subject matter expertise.  Look for a patent lawyer who has relevant work experience to your idea invention.

Call Mat Grell for a Free patent consultation 678-202-5990.

US Patent and Trademark logo

To search the US Patent & Trademark Office for a Patent Attorney near you click the link below or visit US Patent Office and search for “OED Patent Attorney/Agent Search.” Next enter your city/state or zip code into the USPTO search engine and the engine will generate a list of Attorney/Agents near you. Use the criteria above to find a Patent Lawyer right for you. Search to find a US Patent Lawyer Search

find patent attorney, find a patent attorney, trademark attorney, trademark lawyer

CLE – Functional Claiming for Software Patents: Leveraging Recent Court Treatment

This CLE webinar will provide guidance to IP counsel on functional claiming in software patent applications and in USPTO patent application prosecution. The panel will examine recent court treatment and how to navigate the issue of functionality given the uncertainties in the prosecution and litigation contexts.

Description

In Williamson v. Citrix Online, the Federal Circuit issued a decision relating to means-plus-function claims. This decision is having a dramatic impact on interpreting functional claim terms, regardless of whether claim language is being construed in prosecution, post-grant challenges in patent applications at the PTAB, or district court litigation.

Since Williamson, patentees must meet a heightened standard of review by sufficiently disclosing the functional basis for software. It is not enough to claim a general purpose computer as the structure performing the function. Rather, the patentee must disclose the technical algorithm that performs the stated function.

Listen as our authoritative panel of patent attorneys provides a quick review of the Williamson decision, discusses how the courts have applied the Williamson decision, and then examines functional claiming in the context of software patents. The panel will examine the benefits and risks involved with using functional claims and offer best practices for surviving §112(f) and leveraging functional claims to maximize patent protection.

Continue reading

CLE Trade Secrets and Patents

Trade Secrets and Patents: A Comprehensive Approach to Protecting Intellectual Property

Patents and trade secrets provide two ways of protecting inventions and technology other than a patent application. The AIA changed the playing field and disclosure requirements. Those who commercially use an invention one year before the patent was filed now have a defense to infringement claims.

Also, there is a federal cause of action for trade secret misappropriation under the Defend Trade Secrets Act (DTSA) that became effective on May 11, 2016.

Patent Attorney must understand the pros and cons of each mode of protection to guide their clients in choosing between protecting inventions as a trade secret, filing for a patent (patent application), or utilizing a strategy of both patent search, trade secret and patent application for an invention. Continue reading

CLE Demonstrating Patent Eligibility Post-Alice

Demonstrating Patent Eligibility Post-Alice

The Federal Circuit and other federal courts, as well as the PTAB, are issuing rulings regarding patent eligibility based on and after the Supreme Court’s decision in Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank (2014). These opinions provide guidance on the application of Alice Corp., in which the Court concluded the claims were not patent eligible because they were drawn to a patent-ineligible abstract idea.

The Federal Circuit recently gave additional guidance on the first prong of the two-part test established in Alice Corp. In McRo Inc. v. Bandai Namco Games America Inc. (Fed. Cir. Sept. 2016), the Federal Circuit provides some clarity on the issue of preemption and its importance in the §101 analysis. Continue reading

CLE Demonstrating Patent Eligibility Post-Alice

Navigating the Nuances and Leveraging Guidance From Federal Circuit and PTAB Opinion

This CLE webinar will examine recent decisions applying the Supreme Court’s decision in Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank on patent eligibility. The panel will discuss the guidance from these opinions and offer best practices for addressing patent eligibility issues.

Description

The Federal Circuit and other federal courts, as well as the PTAB, are issuing rulings regarding patent eligibility based on and after the Supreme Court’s decision in Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank (2014). These opinions provide guidance on the application of Alice Corp., in which the Court concluded the claims were not patent eligible because they were drawn to a patent-ineligible abstract idea.

The Federal Circuit recently gave additional guidance on the first prong of the two-part test established in Alice Corp. In McRo Inc. v. Bandai Namco Games America Inc. (Fed. Cir. Sept. 2016), the Federal Circuit provides some clarity on the issue of preemption and its importance in the §101 analysis.

Patent counsel should take note of these and other instructive opinions that provide insight into how §101 is being applied to determine patent eligibility.

Listen as our authoritative panel of patent attorneys discusses the cases handed down by the Federal Circuit, PTAB and various district courts since the Supreme Court’s decision in Alice Corp. and examines the guidance these cases provide for patent counsel regarding patent eligibility. The panel will offer best practices going forward for demonstrating patent eligibility.

Continue reading

CLE Leveraging USPTO Examiner Count System: Efficiently Prosecuting Patents, Lowering Prosecution Costs.

I am pleased to announce that I recently participated in a Strafford webinar, “Leveraging USPTO Examiner Count System: Efficiently Prosecuting Patents, Lowering Prosecution Costs.” Due to overwhelming popularity, we scheduled an encore presentation with live Q&A for Tuesday, November 15, 1:00pm-3:00pm EST.

The United States Patent & Trademark Office (USPTO) uses a production-based system made up of “counts” to manage the workload of patent examiners. Examiners accrue counts by completing different tasks in the examination process.

For example, the type of action and the timing of those actions are factors in determining an examiner’s “counts.” Since examiners are expected to meet their quotas for production, certain times of the year practitioners often see an increase in examiner activity, i.e., at the end of each quarter. Understanding the USPTO’s inner workings allow patent practitioners to efficiently prosecute patents.

Our panel will provide guidance on leveraging the USPTO Examiner Count System to prosecute patents more effectively. The panel will provide insight into the count system and offer strategies for interacting with patent examiners.

We will review these and other key issues:

  • What impact will the number of claims in the application have on the quality of examination in the first office action?
  • How can patent counsel use the incentives of the count system to the client’s advantage?
  • How and when should patent counsel interact with examiners for effective and efficient prosecution?

Who owns the invention Employer or Employee

Employer vs. Employee?

It’s not a simple answer and depends on a number of factors and state law not fully disclosed herein.  A) Was the employee “hired to invent” something or to solve a particular problem? Then the Company may likely own the invention. B) Did the employee use the resources of company to invent or invent during hours of employment?  Does the invention relate to the business of the company?  Then the Company may likely own the invention. Was there an express employment contract covering this issue?

With no express employment contract requiring the employee to assign , and A) or B)  above the Company may claim at least a “shop right” – a non-exclusive license to use the invention (related to company business) within the normal scope of company business.

If not A) or B) then employee may own the invention.

Provisional Patent Application: Preserving IP Rights in Atlanta GA

Provisional Patent Application: Preserving IP Rights in Atlanta GA

Provisional Patent Application Description

provisional patent applicationUnder the first-to-file patent system, a patent claimant should file a patent application as soon as possible. Provisional patent application will establish priority and meet the need to act quickly under the new system. A provisional application can also give an additional year of patent protection.

Patent counsel must understand and weigh the benefits and limitations of the provisional application before filing. The application lays the foundation for procuring a patent, avoids statutory bars, and preserves absolute novelty for foreign filings. However, it also may result in the loss of trade secrets and delay in patent issuance.

How far should patent counsel go to ensure that non-provisional applications obtain priority back to provisional applications? Non-provisional applications will not receive priority over inadequate provisional applications. However, once an inadequate provisional application has been filed, there is no way to restore priority back to the filing date of the inadequate provisional application.

Listen as our panel discusses the benefits and limitations of provisional patent applications as well as when and why to use provisional patent applications. The panel will examine the issue of priority and tying non-provisional applications to the provisional patent application and offer best practices for leveraging provisional applications.

Provisional Patent Application Outline

  1. Benefits and limitations of provisional applications
  2. When and why to use provisional patent applications
  3. Priority—non-provisional applications to provisional applications
  4. Best practices for leveraging provisional patent applications

Provisional Patent Applications Benefits

The panel will review these and other key issues:

  • Under what circumstances will a patent claimant get the most out of a provisional patent?
  • What are the benefits and limitations of using a provisional patent application?
  • What are the important considerations when determining whether and when to use a provisional application?

Thursday, October 29, 2015
1:00pm-2:30pm EDT, 10:00am-11:30am PDT

Means-Plus-Function Patent Claims

New CLE

Demonstrating Patent Eligibility Post-Alice Corp. Decision

Navigating the Nuances and Leveraging Guidance From Federal Circuit and PTAB Opinion

Description

The Federal Circuit and other federal courts, as well as the PTAB, have begun issuing rulings regarding patent eligibility based on and after the Supreme Court’s decision in Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank (June 19, 2014). These opinions provide guidance into the application of Alice Corp., in which the Court concluded the claims were not patent eligible because they were drawn to a patent-ineligible abstract idea.

In Judge Mayer’s concurring opinion in I/P Engine v. AOL (Fed. Cir. Aug. 15, 2014), he discussed what claim limitations could qualify to meet the “significantly more” standard expressed in Alice Corp. to ensure a claim is patent eligible. In Planet Bingo v. VKGS (Fed. Cir. Aug. 26, 2014), the Federal Circuit examines what courts may consider in a mental steps analysis for §101 inquiries. Moreover, the PTAB has issued §101 decisions post-Alice.

Patent counsel should take note of these and other instructive opinions that provide insight into how §101 will be applied to determine patent eligibility.

Listen as our authoritative panel of patent attorneys discusses the cases handed down by the Federal Circuit, PTAB and various district courts since the Supreme Court’s decision in Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank and examines the guidance these cases provide for patent counsel regarding patent eligibility. The panel will offer best practices going forward for demonstrating patent eligibility.

Outline

  1. Review of Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank
  2. Guidance from recent opinions
    1. District court decisions
    2. PTAB decisions
  3. Best practices for patent eligibility post-Alice Corp.

Benefits

The panel will review these and other key issues:

  • How are the courts applying the framework for patent eligibility created in Alice Corp.?
  • How can patent litigation defendants take advantage of the guidance for Section 101 challenges?
  • What are best practices for patent counsel to demonstrate patent eligibility?

 

USPTO Satellite Offices

USPTO Satellite Offices – Coming Soon To a Time Zone Near You

 

December 2014

Patent Case Summaries

Patent, Trademark and Copyright Cases To Watch In 2015

Patent, Trademark and Copyright Cases To Watch In 2015

Patent Cases To Watch In 2015

The U.S. Supreme Court will decide three patent cases involving claim construction, induced infringement and patent royalties in 2015, while the Federal Circuit grapples with the fallout from the high court’s recent patent-eligibility rulings and the standards for America Invents Act reviews.

Patent Legislation To Watch In 2015

After a bill aimed at cracking down on so-called patent trolls stalled in Congress last year, attorneys expect lawmakers to make a major push to enact legislation on the issue in the coming months, and also possibly weigh measures to clarify patent eligibility and extend the life of some drug patents.

Copyright And Trademark Cases To Watch In 2015

The worlds of copyright and trademark law are going to be anything but soft in 2015, with two trademark cases pending before the U.S. Supreme Court, a showdown between Google and Oracle over software copyrights looming, and more.

Fed. Circ. To Weigh Patent Impact Of ‘Raging Bull’

The Federal Circuit will consider whether the U.S. Supreme Court’s “Raging Bull” decision limiting laches as a defense in copyright cases applies equally to patent law, agreeing to conduct an en banc rehearing of its decision that an adult diaper patent suit was barred by laches because the patent owner waited too long to file suit.

Motorola Urges 9th Circ. To Overturn Landmark RAND Ruling

Motorola Inc. has hit back at Microsoft Corp.’s attempts to kill Motorola’s Ninth Circuit appeal of a decision that Motorola had breached an obligation to license its standard-essential patents to Microsoft on fair terms, saying that Microsoft is trying to evade infringement liability by hiding behind a breach-of-contract suit.

PATENTS

PTAB Says Filing Misstep Dooms Movie Studios’ AIA Bids

The Patent Trial and Appeal Board has rejected petitions by Paramount Pictures Corp. and other Hollywood studios seeking inter partes review of two DVD patents owned by Nissim Corp., ruling that the petitions failed to list all of the interested parties in the dispute.

DC Circ. Voids $200M Judgment In Cuba Torture Row

The D.C. Circuit has refused to let a man who was allegedly tortured while incarcerated in Cuba in the early 1970s execute a $200 million default judgment upon patents and trademark registrations issued to nearly two dozen Cuban research institutes and enterprises, voiding the judgment.

Nexium Buyers Seek New Trial In Pay-For-Delay Case

A group of Nexium buyers has asked a Massachusetts federal court for a new trial over antitrust claims that AstraZeneca PLC and Ranbaxy Inc. used a patent settlement to delay the launch of a cheaper generic version of the heartburn treatment.

NY AG Says Actavis Can’t Suspend Antitrust Injunction

The New York attorney general has urged the Second Circuit to deny Actavis PLC’s bid to hit the brakes on an injunction that prevents it from halting sales of immediate-release dementia drug Namenda while the drugmaker pursues an appeal in the antitrust case, saying patients would be irreparably harmed.

COPYRIGHTS & TRADEMARKS

Turtles Say It’s Game Over For Sirius’ ‘Fictional Analysis’

Three weeks after a New York federal refused to reverse her ruling that Sirius XM needs to pay to play pre-1972 records, the band that’s suing the satcaster is urging her to grant it full victory in the case.

9th Circ. Overturns ‘Pom’ Trademark Ruling

The Ninth Circuit this week vacated a lower court’s decision to deny Pom Wonderful LLC a preliminary injunction blocking the sale of a “pur pom” energy drink, saying the trial judge botched the likelihood of confusion analysis.

Google Pushes High Court To Take Up Java Copyright Row

Google Inc. recently told the U.S. Supreme Court that it isn’t trying to undermine copyright protection for all computer code in its battle with Oracle Corp. over the use of its Java programming language, saying only certain parts of the language aren’t copyright-eligible.

Shopping App Maker InMarket Ducks Injunction Bid In TM Suit

A New York federal judge has denied a request by Berkley Networks Corp. to bar rival InMarket Media LLC from using the “inMarket” trademark for its shopping discount app for smartphones, ruling that Berkley Networks can’t get swift court action after years of “lassitude.”

« Older posts