Philadelphia, PA | September 2016 – Jonathan H. Spadt, RatnerPrestia President and CEO, will be speaking at The Federal Circuit Bar Association’s Global Series Meeting in Paris on October 14, 2016. Mr. SPadt is a member of the Global Series Committee and will be presenting with a group of high level speakers during the Session: Special Issues Concerning International Licensing of Intellectual Property, including Antitrust, Standard Essential Patents and International Exhaustion.
Posted: September 12th, 2016 under Press Release.
Philadelphia, PA | August 2016 – We are pleased to announce that we have moved our Pennsylvania office to 2200 Renaissance Boulevard, Suite 350, King of Prussia, PA 19406. It has been a busy year for RatnerPrestia on the real estate front. This new PA location is one of the three moves by RP within the last twelve months; we also moved our Washington, D.C. office to a larger location and opened a new office in Munich, Germany. We are now positioned to accommodate future growth and continue to provide excellent client service within our state of the art facilities.
For more information about the move or for questions regarding administrative logistics, please contact Barbara Foley at 610-407-0700.
RatnerPrestia is a law firm expert in all things IP. The Firm handles procurement, enforcement, licensing, commercialization, global strategic IP planning, and all related business aspects of IP. The Firm has attorneys experienced and successful in all relevant U.S. and German agencies and tribunals, including the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, The German Patent Office, The European Patent Office, The U.S. International Trade Commission, and Federal Courts, both trial and appellate, in both the U.S. and Germany. With clients based around the world, RP understands that IP is global. For additional information, visit www.RatnerPrestia.com.
Posted: August 25th, 2016 under Press Release.
In a combined opinion for two cases, Halo Electronics, Inc. v. Pulse Electronics, Inc. (No. 14–1513) and Stryker Corp. v. Zimmer, Inc.(No. 14–1520), a unanimous Supreme Court rejected the two-part test for awarding enhanced damages under 35 U.S.C. § 284. The Federal Circuit had pronounced this test nearly a decade ago in In re Seagate Technology, LLC, 497 F. 3d 1360 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (en banc). Finding the Seagate test inconsistent with the statute, the Supreme Court broadly endorsed the free exercise of discretion by district courts in deciding whether an enhanced damages award is appropriate.
Posted: June 21st, 2016 under Case Law Update.
Supreme Court: 1) Upholds Use of Broadest Reasonable Interpretation during Inter Partes Review; and 2) Affirms that Inter Partes Review Institution Decisions are Not Appealable
Written by: Christopher H. Blaszkowski
On June 20, 2016, the Supreme Court issued a long awaited opinion in Cuozzo Speed Technologies, LLC v. Lee, 579 U. S. ____ (2016). In its opinion, the Supreme Court squarely sided with the United States Patent and Trademark Office, approving of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board’s (“PTAB”) use of the broadest reasonable interpretation to interpret patent claims during inter partes reviews (“IPR”) The Supreme Court also affirmed that the PTAB’s decision to institute an IPR is not appealable, even where the PTAB considers prior art or arguments outside of the original IPR petition in deciding to institute an IPR. The Supreme Court unanimously decided the broadest reasonable interpretation issue, while a 6-2 vote supported the appealability issue.
Posted: June 21st, 2016 under Case Law Update.
President Obama has signed the Defend Trade Secrets Act of 2016, creating new federal civil jurisdiction for misappropriation of trade secrets. The Act defines trade secrets broadly as something that the owner took reasonable measures to keep secret and which has economic value due to the secrecy. In addition to providing a new basis of jurisdiction, the Act also allows the government to seize any documents or other materials from the misappropriating party without notice. Intended to limit the spread of any trade secret upon the filing of a complaint, the seizure provision offers a powerful tool to parties whose trade secrets have been misappropriated. The new federal civil jurisdiction does not replace the previously-existing criminal or state jurisdictions, but runs in parallel, providing another alternative for those who wish to protect their trade secrets.
Posted: May 12th, 2016 under Trade Secret.
Greater Philadelphia, PA | May 2016 – RatnerPrestia will host an in-house CLE course at the offices of Arris located at 101 Tournament Dr., Horsham, PA on June 2, 2016 at 10:00 a.m. Shareholder Kenneth N. Nigon and Associate Andrew J. Koopman will present “Patent Procurement and Strategy in the Era of Alice and Mayo”.
Posted: May 10th, 2016 under Press Release.
On May 4, 2016, Robert Bahr, Deputy Commissioner For Patent Examination Policy at the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO), published a memorandum to the examining corps (Memorandum) clarifying how the examiners should analyze claims for subject matter eligibility. On the same date, the USPTO also published six new subject matter eligibility examples, mostly in the life sciences field. All of these materials may be found at http://www.uspto.gov/patent/laws-and-regulations/examination-policy/2014-interim-guidance-subject-matter-eligibility-0. The materials that follow summarize the Memorandum and each of the new examples.
Posted: May 9th, 2016 under Patent.
Washington, D.C. | May 8, 2016 – Sunjeev Sikand was quoted in the May 5, 2016 edition of IP Law360 regarding the impact of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office’s May 2016 memo to examiners, following up on guidance it issued in July 2015 on applying Alice in Patent Act Section 101 rejections.
Posted: May 9th, 2016 under Press Release.
RatnerPrestia Litigation Team Secures Exclusive Trademark Ownership and Business Ownership for Client
This article was published in the May 3, 2016 edition of the Washington Post.
Please click here to view the article.
Washington, D.C. | April 2016 - As reported in yesterday’s Washington Post, RatnerPrestia’s litigation team of Tom Southard, Brian Seal, Victor Balancia, and Sunjeev Sikand, recently resolved a long-running legal dispute over the ownership rights to the Washington, D.C.-based Z-Burger restaurant chain and related intellectual property. The parties to the dispute, Payam “Peter” Tabibian and Mohammad and Ebrahim Esfahani have agreed to divide the six locations at issue into two separate groups, with RatnerPrestia client Tabibian taking exclusive control of the Z-Burger brand and intellectual property. Mr. Tabibian also takes sole ownership of Z-Burger’s flagship location in the Tenleytown neighborhood of Washington, D.C. as well as a second location in the nearby Columbia Heights area. Those two stores are added to Mr. Tabibian’s two other existing locations in the Dupont Circle area and in Towson, Maryland, as well as a DC-based food truck. The Esfahani brothers will phase out their use of the Z-Burger brand in the remaining locations over the next 60 days and then re-brand their restaurants, which are located in Arlington, Virginia, Glover Park and 4th Street Southwest DC, and White Marsh, Maryland. The resolution follows an 18-month long litigation which included a week-long evidentiary hearing presided over by Judge Peter J. Messitte in the U.S. District Court in Greenbelt, Maryland last August.
Posted: May 4th, 2016 under Press Release.
By: Joshua L. Cohen
As Coca-Cola celebrates the centennial of its iconic Coke bottle this year, product innovators, marketing professionals, and intellectual property counsel should pause to examine its origins and reflect on—and pay homage to—Coca-Cola’s achievement.
By: Benjamin E. Leace & Christopher H. Blaszkowski
Inter partes review (IPR) is a powerful alternative or supplement to patent litigation that permits a party to challenge a patent’s validity before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB). In fact, the concurrent use of IPR in connection with federal district court patent litigation has become so pervasive that many patent infringement litigants now consider IPRs to be a de facto counterpart to such litigation.
Posted: May 4th, 2016 under Insight.