Patent Lawyer Atlanta Trademark Search Inventor - (678) 383-4886

(678) 383-4886 - Call for a Free Consultation. Experienced & Affordable

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

Trademark Specimen for Clothing

Commonly, unrepresented applicants registering marks for apparel in International Class 25 will submit pictures of their mark across the front of a shirt as a Trademark Specimen for Clothing. This could be a word, phrase, slogan, or design they wish to popularize and market for apparel. However, even though these could be eligible for trademark protection in this class, the specimen submitted to the USPTO must feature the mark in a manner that is source indicative. Large screen printed or embroidered text or designs on the front of garments rarely meet this exacting standard. The USPTO may refuse a specimen for being “merely ornamental” or a “decorative feature.”


Trademark Specimen for Clothing

In order to register any mark with the USPTO, you must submit a trademark specimen  for clothing of how you actually use the mark in commerce. More often than not, this means a picture of the goods as they are sold or the services as they appear to the customer.

Ornamental Refusal – A common mistake when submitting specimen for apparel or clothing trademarks.

Here are some tips to ensure your trademark specimen  for clothing will be accepted by the US Patent & Trademark Office:

  • If placing the mark on the outside of the garment, it should go where would expect to see other brand’s marks, like the pocket, breast area, or sleeve and keep it small and neat. Most athletic polo and golf shirts offer great examples.
  • Many places inside the garment will be adequate. Silk tags and “tagless” under-collar screen-printing are usually acceptable locations.
  • Anything detachable from the garment, like plastic or cellophane wrapping, boxes, or hang-tags usually qualify.
  • Though not ideal, sometimes featuring the mark along with the goods in an online store can function as a source indicator.

If you’ve already received an ornamental refusal for your apparel trademark application, it’s not too late to fix your mistake. Since you’ll need to prepare important documents and critical dates and evidence are crucial to proving your case, it may be time to hire a trademark attorney. If you’d like our help or have any questions before filing, please call

By Richard Piercy Patent & Trademark Attorney.

(404) 596-7333
Email

Call for a Free Consultation.  Experienced & Affordable.

Grell & Watson, Patent Attorney, Trademark Copyright IP Lawyer

Can You Trademark a Hashtag?

Conclusion: Trademark rules apply. If a mark consists of the hash symbol or the term HASHTAG combined with wording that is merely descriptive or generic for the goods or services, the entire mark must be refused as merely descriptive or generic. Also trademark must functions as an identifier of the source of the applicant’s goods or services, if not then not trademarkable.

Is a Hashtag something you can Trademark?

Background: Originally developed on Twitter, a hashtag is a word or a phrase following the pound sign “#phrase” used to categorize messages on social media relating to a specific topic the phrase. Hashtags have become an important aspect of social media.  Their presence can be seen on social media platforms such as Facebook, Instagram, YouTube, Pinterest and more.

Hashtag

Hashtags function like a search key word and when searched will produce all messages and photos tagged with the #hashtag.  Hashtags are used by individuals, celebrities, politicians, companies, television shows, radio shows, podcasts, YouTube channels and more to gather messages together under a specific topic the phrase. Consumers can use them to rate products or services and even to promote a product, service, or business.

Law: According to the Trademark Manual of Examining Procedure, a “hashtag” is a form of metadata consisting of a word or phrase prefixed with the symbol “#” (e.g., #chicago, #sewing, and #supremecourtdecisions). Hashtags are often used on social-networking sites to identify or facilitate a search for a keyword or topic of interest. See Dictionary.com, search of “hashtag,” http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/hashtag (June 19, 2013) (citing Random House Dictionary). A mark consisting of or containing the hash symbol (#) or the term HASHTAG is registrable as a trademark or service mark only if it functions as an identifier of the source of the applicant’s goods or services. Generally, the hash symbol and the wording HASHTAG do not provide any source-indicating function because they merely facilitate categorization and searching within online social media (i.e., social-media participants are directed to search a particular subject. 

A place to search other Hashtags to see if anyone is using your proposed Hashtag is http://twubs.com/

 Please contact a US trademark attorney at Grell & Watson 678-383-4886

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?

 

« Older posts