RatnerPrestia is pleased to announce the addition of Richard A. Howe II to its Valley Forge, PA office. Mr. Howe recently completed his clerkship in the Civil Division of the Delaware Department of Justice (DOJ). While at the DOJ, he wrote Summary Judgment motions submitted in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware and deposed witnesses for District Court cases. Prior to his time at the DOJ, Mr. Howe clerked for The Honorable Michael J. Kassel, J.S.C. of New Jersey.

RatnerPrestia received a visiting delegation from the State Intellectual Property Office of China (SIPO), at its Washington, D.C. office on February 3. The delegation had also visited Denver and Seattle before coming to Washington. SIPO is the government agency having responsibility for developing China’s intellectual property laws and procedures. It not only examines and issues patents but also oversees China’s intellectual property protection and enforcement procedures in general.

By Rex A. Donnelly

The U.S. Supreme Court’s 6-2 decision in Golan v. Holder on January 18, 2012, confirmed that owners of certain copyrighted works authored outside of the United States can continue to enjoy restored protection under U.S. Copyright law, despite such works having been in the public domain prior to 1994. Owners of works eligible for restored protection who have not already taken steps to enforce rights should consider doing so, and users interested in using or already using foreign-originated works previously believed to be in the public domain need to be aware of the possibility that a foreign owner may claim restored copyrights.

RatnerPrestia is pleased to announce the addition of Antranig Baronian to its Valley Forge, PA office. Baronian has focused his practice on intellectual property law since 2005, with particular expertise in foreign and domestic prosecution of patent and trademark applications and client counseling including the preparation of licenses and opinions on patentability, patent validity, patent infringement, and trademark clearances. He has advised a wide variety of clients, with particular focus on the mechanical and chemical arts including technologies such as electromechanical devices and access hardware for automotive, electronics, marine, and aircraft use, medical devices, industrial processing equipment, pharmaceutical packaging, composite building materials, electrochemistry, water treatment equipment and processes, and food additives.

By Christopher H. Blaszkowski

On Monday, January 9, New Jersey joined the 46 other states that have adopted some form of the Uniform Trade Secrets Act. The “New Jersey Trade Secrets Act” (“the New Jersey Act”) will provide additional uniformity and certainty to businesses and individuals seeking trade secret protection. The Legislature intended, in addition to providing uniformity, that the New Jersey Act exist in harmony with New Jersey’s trade secret common law, noting that the codified rights “are in addition to and cumulative of any other right . . . provided under the common law or statutory law of this State.”

RatnerPrestia is pleased to announce the addition of Derek Richmond to its Washington, D.C. office as Counsel practicing in both intellectual property prosecution and litigation. Richmond is an experienced counselor in infringement, validity and state of the art studies. He routinely advises clients on how best to use intellectual property to develop and strengthen business. Through intellectual property enforcement and licensing negotiations, he has been instrumental in discouraging potential infringers from trespassing on clients’ rights and has established appropriate and profitable licensing programs as a result. On Richmond’s decision to join RatnerPrestia’s Washington office, firm CEO Jonathan Spadt noted, “Derek is a fantastic addition to our growing firm. His positive energy and visible dedication, both to his clients and the growth of our business, is a testament to our culture of attracting new and exciting lawyers to expand what we do for our clients throughout the world.” Read more »

By Paul F. Prestia

As pharmaceutical companies spend more and more money developing new methods for treating and preventing medical problems, the law surrounding patentability of what may be referred to generally as “medical methods” becomes murkier and murkier. Such methods may be methods of treating (a medical condition), methods of use (of a medical product), methods of diagnosing (a medical condition), methods of preventing (such as by vaccination), etc. The usual tests for patentability of any invention, novelty, unobviousness and statutorily acceptable disclosure and claims, apply to these medical methods as well. But a different challenge arises from the threshold question of whether these are the types of inventions that justify patent protection, or as the question is sometimes posed: Are they “patent eligible”? Not, according to traditional patent law, if the claimed invention is wholly or primarily composed of abstract ideas, mental steps only, or is merely an interpretation of the laws of nature. The relevant statute, 35 USC §101, defines patentable subject matter as “ . . . any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof . . “

RatnerPrestia’s Jonathan H. Spadt, was re-elected to a third term as a Commissioner of Lower Pottsgrove Township. Spadt has served as a Commissioner since 2005, sitting also as Board President since January, 2010. Commenting on the challenges of public service, Spadt noted that “leading a law firm is a much different endeavor than leading a township. The stakeholders are much more diverse in the public sector. But one common denominator is the ability to bring people together and achieve buy-in for your vision.” Spadt also serves as RatnerPrestia President and CEO.

RatnerPrestia will host its second annual international conference on Intellectual Property Law in China at the Desmond Hotel and Conference Center on October 19, 2011. Most of the attendees will be in-house corporate intellectual property attorneys. A number of Chinese attorneys will join attorneys from Europe and the U.S. in addressing topics including the Chinese Domestic Patent Landscape, Appellate Decisions Reflecting Chinese Standards for Inventiveness and Sufficiency of Disclosure in Bio/Pharma Cases, Challenges of Establishing and Managing the China Outpost of a Major U.S. Company Conducting R&D in China, Claim Construction and Doctrine of Equivalents in Chinese Litigation, the European Perspective on China IP and Exchanges between China and Europe, IP Monetization in China and Trademark and Trademark Litigation in China. Read more »

By Paul F. Prestia

After six years of anxious anticipation, serious benefactors and observers of the U.S. patent system, and those of us professionally involved in the system, may come to regret the congressional piñata know as the Leahy-Smith America Invents Act. That act may well produce jobs, but not the kinds of jobs the predictions of which impelled Congress and the president to move patent reform to the front burner. Whether and when those predicted new jobs materialize remains to be seen. On that score, doubters may see the act as a bipartisan blunder.