Valley Forge, PA | October 2013 – RatnerPrestia was recently honored in the 2014 IAM Patent 1000. Published by Intellectual Asset Management (IAM), the Patent 1000 is heralded as the definitive guide to patent lawyers, attorneys and firms in over 40 jurisdictions. RatnerPrestia was recognized for its practice in Pennsylvania: “Dynamic IP specialist RatnerPrestia partners closely with patrons to deliver solutions that are tailor-made to fit with – and further – their business objectives. Flexibility on fee arrangements is another reason for its increasing popularity in this competitive market. Though it offers a full suite of protection, commercialization and enforcement services, the Pennsylvania contingent is especially rated for its portfolio management and development expertise. A resident of the Valley Forge office, Kenneth Nigon is a key contact on the preparation and prosecution side.”

Read more »

     

The innovation economy has never been so vibrant and essential, and at the same time, at such risk. Intellectual property rights are the foundation of new markets, and the cornerstone of commerce. In the absence of sound, predictable, and enforceable IP rights, new business ventures cannot gain a foothold, and society is deprived of the fruits of their intellectual achievements. Yet IP rights are under attack, and vested interests are eager to deny innovators this valuable property right.

Read more »

     
Written By: Sunjeev S. Sikand
This article appeared in theSeptember 25, 2014 Edition of IP Law 360
At the heart of nearly every patent litigation is a dispute over the meaning of claim terms. Such disputes often arise in the form of a claim definiteness challenge by the accused infringer. Recently, in Nautilus v. Biosig1, the Supreme Court relaxed the requirements for proving a claim indefinite, but offered very little guidance as to how claim drafters might comply with its ruling.

Read more »

     
Valley Forge, PA | September 2014 – RatnerPrestia is pleased to announce that Jacob Blumert and Alyssa Miller have joined its Valley Forge office as Scientific Advisors. Jacob and Alyssa worked at the firm as Summer Associates in 2013. Read more »
     
Valley Forge, PA | September 2014 – RatnerPrestia Shareholder Jacques L. Etkowicz will continue his role as Chair of the Professional Programs Committee for the 2014-2015 association year. The committee assists The Board of Directors (or the responsible corporation officer) in the preparation of approved educational programs throughout the year. They also identify and recommend curricula and obtain speakers for the presentation of approved educational programs during the year. Jacques has been an active member of AIPLA committees since 1999 having held positions on the Electronics and Computer Law Committees. This is his second year as Chair of the Professional Programs Committee. Read more »
     
Shareholder Brian P. O’Shaughnessy will again serve as a faculty member for the LES USA & Canada’s Certified Licensing Professional (CLP) Exam Review Course on September 3, 2014 in Washington, D.C. This one-day exam review course is designed to prepare licensing professionals for the successful completion of the CLP certification exam. The CLP certification is administered by CLP, Inc., an independent 501(c)(3) organization. Read more »
     
Written By: Sunjeev S. Sikand
This article appeared in the July 22, 2014 Edition of IP Law 360
In proceedings before the Patent Trial & Appeal Board, whether a reference is publicly accessible and therefore qualifies as a prior art printed publication depends on the "facts and circumstances surrounding the reference’s disclosure to members of the public.”[1] When a patent challenger in a PTAB case lacks evidence showing the specific date that a document became publicly accessible, a common approach for qualifying that document as a printed publication is to submit evidence of a routine business practice. But in cases before the PTAB, the evidentiary standard for establishing routine business practice appears far from settled.

Read more »

     
     
In RPX Corp. v. VirnetX Inc., the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“Board”) for the first time, defined a “real party-in-interest” within the meaning of 35 U.S.C. § 315(b). IPR2014-00171 (June 5, 2014). Specifically, the Board found that Apple Inc. was a “real party-in-interest” with respect to RPX’s seven petitions for the VirnetX Patents, because (among other factors) Apple (1) suggested that RPX challenge four of VirnetX’s patents (“the VirnetX Patents”), and (2) compensated RPX to (among other tasks) file inter partes reviews (“IPR”). The Board denied RPX’s petitions as time barred under 35 U.S.C. § 315(b), because Apple, a real party-in-interest, had been served with a complaint more than 1 year before RPX filed the petitions. Read more »
     
Written By: Brian S. Seal
The United States International Trade Commission (“ITC”) has received significant attention recently for its role in patent protection, due in part to the high-profile battle between Apple and Samsung. But while it is an effective venue for patent disputes, it may also be used to protect other forms of intellectual property, including trademarks, copyrights, and trade secrets.
Created in 1916, the ITC is an arm of the Executive branch – tasked with ensuring fair competition between domestic and foreign entities. Part of its mission is to protect domestic industry from imported goods that misappropriate intellectual property, including patents, trademarks, copyrights, and trade secrets. Read more »
     
 
Search
 
 
Subscribe