Patent Attorney Charlotte

Patent Attorney Charlotte

Are you looking for a Patent Attorney in Charlotte?

Here are some tips for finding a Patent Attorney that will fit your needs:
• Patent attorneys are subject matter specific based on their technical degree. For example electrical engineer, software, physics, biology, biochemistry, chemistry, computer science, or mechanical engineering, etc.
• Specific job experience can create subject matter expertise.

• Most patent attorneys are capable of filing patents on mechanical devices and/or systems.
• Small law firms focusing exclusively on intellectual property often provide specialized attention and service.

• Look for an entrepreneurial patent attorney (one who has his/her own inventions, issued patents or one who participated in starting a new business).
• In general you get what you pay for, avoid on-line legal service offerings.

Call now to for a FREE consultation with Patent Attorney Jeff Watson in Charlotte.

(704)-625-7747

Patent Attorney Charlotte

How to find a Great Patent Attorney

Grell & Watson Patent Attorneys, LLC, 1800 Camden Road, Charlotte, NC 28203. (704) 625-7747‎ phone (678) 373-4746 fax

Jeff Watson , 3911 Carmel Acres Dr Charlotte, NC 28226. (704) 625-7747 phone (678) 373-4746 fax

jwatson@GWpatent.com

By Jeff  Watson

How to Find a Patent Attorney in Charlotte NC

How to Find a Patent or Trademark Attorney in Charlotte NC

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

Patent and Trademark Lawyers are subject matter specific based on their technical degree(s) earned in college. Look for a patent or trademark 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.

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

Call Jeff Watson for a Free patent consultation (704) 625-7747 or email me at jwatson@GWpatent.com

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. US Patent Lawyer Search

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

Intillectual Property Links: Patents, Trademarks and Copyrights

By Jeff Watson

Jeff Watson is a patent attorney with 12+ years of experience.  He tracks the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office  and the Copyright Office for news.  Please find his most recent update below.

The United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”) published International Trademark Classification Changes with a final rule to incorporate classification changes adopted by the Nice Agreement Concerning the International Classification of Goods and Services for the purposes of the Registration of Marks (Nice Agreement).  Link

The United States Copyright Office has published an interim rule amending its regulations concerning the recordation of transfers of copyright ownership and other documents pertaining to a copyright under 17 U.S.C. Section 205, and notices of termination under sections 203, 304(c), and 304(d). Link

The United States Copyright Office has published a final rule establishing a separate, lower filing fee for recording documents with the Office when they are submitted with an electronic title list, i.e., a list of certain indexing information about the works to which such documents pertain.  Link.

The United States Copyright Office has implemented a series of technical upgrades to its electronic registration system.  Link.

The NC bar has published an article by Jacob Moore regarding the recent Federal Circuit decision in In Re Janssen that held that a patent issuing from a continuation-in-part (CIP) application is not eligible for 35 USC Secton 121 safe harbor protection, even if the patent is re categorized as a divisional application during reexamination.  Thus, the court determined that the patent at issue—US 6,284,471 (the ’471 Patent)—was invalid over reference patents US 5,656,272 (the ’272 Patent) and 5,698,195 (the ’195 Patent) under the doctrine of obviousness-type double patenting.  Link.

The United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”) electronically provided the ninth edition, Revision 08.2017, of the Manual of Patent Examination Procedure (MPEP).  Link.

The United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”) provided a notice that addresses the new practice of requiring separate maintenance fees in each reissued patent based on a single original utility patent, and in original utility patents for which a reissue application is pending and at least one reissue patent has already issued. The new practice for multiple reissued patents and certain original patents that are the basis for reissue applications is set forth in the recent final rule to adjust patent fees. See Setting and Adjusting Patent Fees During Fiscal Year 2017, 82 FR 52780, 52791 (November 14, 2017).  Link.

The United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”) provided a final rule with changes in requirements for collective trademarks and services marks.  Link.

The United States Copyright Office has published a final rule amending regulations that govern the deposit requirements for certain types of literary works and musical compositions. Link.

The United States Copyright Office has provided notice of modernizing its practices to increase the efficiency of the group registration option for photographs. Link.

Call Jeff Watson for a Free patent consultation (704) 625-7747 or email me at jwatson@GWpatent.com

Intellectual Property Links: Patent, Trademark, and Copyright

 

By Jeff Watson

Jeff Watson is a patent attorney with 11+ years of experience.  He tracks the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office  and the Copyright Office for news.  Please find his most recent update below.

The United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”) had a Roundtable on Intellectual Property and Trade Shows.  The roundtable discussion was held on October 18, 2017 at the USPTO headquarters in Alexandria, Virginia and addressed IP infringements at trade shows.  Link

The United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”) issued the October 2017 Trademark Manual of Examining Procedure (“TMEP”).  The revision clarifies USPTO trademark policies and practices and includes relevant Trademark Trial and Appeal Board (“TTAB”) and court decisions before September 1, 2017.  Link.  View October 2017 TMEP Highlights.  For a complete list of changes, see the “Change Summary“.

The United States Copyright Office is proposing to create a new group registration option for a limited number of unpublished works.To qualify for this group option, all the works must be created by the same author or the same joint authors, and the author or joint authors must be named as the copyright claimant for each work. Link

The United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”) provided a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking in the Federal Register on October 18, 2017.  The USPTO proposes to amend the Rules of Practice in
Trademark Cases to remove the rules governing trademark interferences. This proposed rule implements the USPTO’s
work to identify and propose regulations for removal, modification,
and streamlining because they are outdated, unnecessary, ineffective,
costly, or unduly burdensome on the agency or the private sector.  Link.

The United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”) provided a practice tip that addresses when an examining attorney may presume that an applicant owns a conflicting prior registration or application, despite differences in the terminology used to identify the owner’s entity type in the respective records.  Link.

The United States Copyright Office proposed amendments to regulations governing the group registration of newspapers.  Link.

The United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”) finalized revised patent fee schedule.  Link.

The United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”) provided a notice that the Madrid Protocol has new voluntary mark description in international applications and subsequent designation forms.  Link.

The United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”) launches a two-year Diversion Pilot Program for patent and trademark practitioners that aligns USPTO with the practices of more than 30 state attorney discipline systems to help protect the public from practitioners who fail to comply with the USPTO’s standards for ethics and professionalism.  Link.

The United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”)provides notice of participatign in the signing of bilateral Memoranda of Cooperation with the Korean Intellectual Property Office (“KIPO”) and the Japan Patent Office (“JPO”) that is designed to provide the Examiner’s with the best prior art by combining the search expertise of examiners at the USPTO and JPO or KIPO before issuing an office action in the patent application.  Link.

The United States Copyright Office has initiated the seventh triennial rulemaking proceeding under the Digital Millenium Act (“DMCA”), which provides that the Librarian of Congress, upon the recommendation of the Register of Copyrights, may adopt temporary exemptions to the DMCA’s prohibition against circumvention of technological measures that control access to copyrighted works.  Link.

Call Jeff Watson for a Free patent consultation (704) 625-7747 or email me at jwatson@GWpatent.com

Intellectual Property Links: Copyright

By Jeff Watson

Jeff Watson is a patent attorney with 11+ years of experience.  He tracks the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office  and the Copyright Office for news.  Please find his most recent update below.

The United States Copyright Office has posted a final rule that makes a non-substantive technical change to the U.S. Copyright Office’s regulations governing the affixation and position of copyright notice on various types of works.  Read more here.

The United States Copyright Office published an archive of copyright office rulings and government briefs in copyright cases.  Link

The United States Copyright Office published a revision to seciton 108 with copyright exceptions for libraries and archives.  Link

Call Jeff Watson for a Free patent consultation (704) 625-7747 or email me at jwatson@GWpatent.com

Intellectual Property Links: Trademark and Copyright

By Jeff Watson

Jeff Watson is a patent attorney with 11+ years of experience.  He tracks the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office  and the Copyright Office for news.  Please find his most recent update below.

The USPTO amended its rules regarding petitions to revive an abandoned trademark application and petitions to the Director of the USPTO regarding other trademark matters and to codify USPTO practice regarding requests for reinstatement of abandoned trademark applications and cancelled or expired trademark registrations.  Read more here.

Link to the Trademark Exam Guide 02-17 on Merely Information Matter.

The United States Copyright Office is proposing to amend the regulations governing the deposit requirements for certain types of literary works and musical instruments.  Read more here.

The United States Copyright Office provided a proposed schedulde and analysis of copyright recordation fees to go into effect on or about December 18, 2017.  Link

Link to the Trademark Exam Guide 03-17 on Surname Combined with Wording.

Link to the Trademark Exam Guide 04-17 on Summary of “Revival of Abandoned Applications, Reinstatement of Abandoned Applications and Cancelled or Expired Registrations, and Petitions to the Director

Call Jeff Watson for a Free patent consultation (704) 625-7747 or email me at jwatson@GWpatent.com

The Patent Process

By Jeff Watson

Jeff Watson is a patent attorney with 11+ years of experience.  He tracks the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office  and the Copyright Office for news.  Please find his most recent update below.

 

Obtaining a patent is often a long and complicated process which generally requires the aid of a patent attorney or patent agent.  It is quite typical to take two years to obtain a patent, and for some types of inventions significantly longer (you are in ‘Patent Pending‘ status this whole time).  During this process, much of what is necessary is essentially a negotiation process with the United States Patent & Trademark Office (USPTO) to allow as much as possible of your invention.  This article will attempt to give a brief overview of that process and the parties involved.

A patent grants the inventor, an exclusive licensee or assignee of the patent, the exclusive right to prevent or exclude others from making, using, selling, offering to sell or importing the invention into the United States.  A patent attorney is an attorney at law admitted to the bar in at least one state and who is authorized to practice before the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) after passing an extensive examination.  A patent agent takes the same exam, but is not authorized to practice law outside of federal matters, as authorized by the USPTO, such as filing patent applications.  Generally an inventor will contact a patent attorney or patent agent to conduct a patent search.  Assuming there appear to be patentable features to the invention, a patent application will be drafted and filed with the USPTO.  Subsequently, a series of communications will be conducted back-and-forth between an Examiner at the USPTO and the inventor’s patent attorney or agent.  Following arguments by each, a patent will either be granted or denied.  Each of these steps will be discussed in greater detail below.

The Patent Search

Before filing a patent, it is highly recommended that an inventor request a patent search.  Patent searches are primarily conducted by patent attorneys, patent agents or professional patent searchers, but should only be interpreted by patent attorneys who are familiar with the law.  A patent search allows an inventor to determine if the invention is most likely patentable before committing the resources necessary to draft, file and prosecute a patent.

A patentability opinion is the application of law to facts disclosed in reference documents, such as patents and published patent applications, and more specifically the application of what is disclosed in these prior-art references as it pertains to the invention one wishes to patent.  Prior art can briefly be described as any information which has been made publicly available before the conception of the idea which relates to the invention.  More specifically, if the invention has been known or used by others in the United States, patented or described in a printed publication, including the Internet, anywhere in the world, then the invention is unlikely to be patentable.  Thus, a substantial amount of fact gathering is required for a patent search.

The Patentability Opinion

Once these facts are gathered and the patent search is complete, the next step is to interpret the facts and apply them to the invention.  The same group of patent documents can often be seen in many ways or construed differently by different persons, but a competent opinion as to the patentability of an invention will be provided by a qualified patent attorney.  The patentability opinion resulting from the patent search drafted by the patent attorney will tell an inventor what prior art exists and which aspects of the invention are most likely to be found patentable.  Upon finding patentable aspects of an invention, an inventor can better decide whether or not to dedicate the resources necessary to drafting a patent and filing it with the USPTO.

In preparing a patentability opinion from the patent search, a patent attorney is looking particularly for certain things.  First, if every element of the invention is disclosed (sometimes referred to as ‘taught’) by a patent or other publication, the new invention will not be considered to be novel, and thus, is not patentable.  Second, the patent attorney looks to see if each of the elements of the new invention can be found by looking in several references.  If a combination of two or more references discloses each and every element of the new invention, it may not be patentable.  The references must be from the same field of art; that is, references related to automotive devices would not likely be combinable with references related to clothing.  Further, there must be some reason  to combine the references, although the law is shifting as to this aspect.  Lastly, references that ‘teach away’ from the new invention, that is, that basically say that a portion of the new invention cannot be done or would not likely succeed, will not be combinable as to that portion.

The Patent Application

patent application is made up of the specification (written discussion), the claims and drawings of the different embodiments of the invention.  The claims are actually what describe the invention, but the specification and drawings provide the explanation of the invention so that the claims will have meaning.  The specification contains the background of the invention discussing what is previously known and what is lacking that makes the invention desirable or necessary, a summary of the new invention, and a detailed description of the new invention which sets forth through a description of the drawings, the embodiments of the inventions.  Both preferred and alternate embodiments (variations) may be found to describe different ways of making or using the invention.

The claims generally set out the scope of the invention and the scope of protection which will be afforded the invention.  The claims describe, in a very specific legal style, the essential and patentable features of the invention in a manner which clearly defines what would infringe on the patent.  Thus, the claims are the central part of an application, while the summary of the invention and the detailed description in accompaniment with the drawings are often easier to read, and describe the invention in its broader aspects and uses, thereby providing support to what is in the claims.  Once the specification and claims have been written and the drawings have been drafted, the completed patent is sent to the inventor for review.  After any necessary revisions or additions, and with the inventor’s final approval and signature of the declaration that they are the actual inventor(s), the application can then be filed with the USPTO.

At the United States Patent & Trademark Office

Once the patent application has been received by the USPTO with its accompanying forms, payment and information, confirmation is sent by the USPTO to the patent attorney or patent agent who represents the inventor.  The application will be reviewed by the USPTO’s Office of Initial Patent Examination (OIPE) to ensure that everything necessary is present and then the application will be scanned and entered into the USPTO’s electronic database.  Afterward, the application is assigned to a Group Art Unit at the USPTO (that is a group that deals with the type of invention submitted) where it will be further assigned to an Examiner, who works in the specific field or area of study.

The Examination

The Examiner will review the application and conduct a separate search of the relevant prior art to determine if she/he feels the invention is patentable, based primarily on whether it is novel and non-obvious.  The Examiner may find prior art which was not available during the patent search or other information pertaining to the invention.  Most of the time, the Examiner will find at least some aspects of the claims of the application which she/he does not feel is patentable and will send a Non-final Office Action to the inventor’s representative patent attorney or patent agent.

Restriction

Occasionally, the Examiner may consider the application to contain two or more different inventions.  In such a case, the Examiner will require the inventor to restrict to a single invention and continue the prosecution at the USPTO on that invention only.  However, the inventions that are not selected may be held in abeyance and subsequently prosecuted as their own separate applications to result in additional patents issued, so long as they are re-filed before the first patent issues.  An Examiner may also require restriction to a single species that is part of a larger genus.  In such a case, the Examiner is limiting the breadth of his/her search and examination to the single species and if it is found patentable, then the other non-selected species should also be patentable if they are linked through the genus.  For instance, if an invention was for a car with wheels and subsequent separate dependent claims were to cars with three wheels and cars with four wheels, the Examiner might require that either three or four be selected as the species.  It is also possible that an Examiner may require selection between species based on what is shown in the drawings.  In such case, the inventor, through his/her attorney will need to restrict to a single or group of drawings and identify the claims that relate to that single or group of drawings.

When a requirement for Restriction is received, a response must be made within one month to avoid paying surcharges.  Later responses may be made for five more months at increasingly heavy surcharges.  If no response is made within six months from the issuance of the Office Action, the patent application will go abandoned.

Non-final Office Actions

After the Non-final Office Action is received by the patent attorney, it will be analyzed to determine whether it appears that the Examiner’s view may be overcome through either amendment or argument or both, and a copy of the Office Action will be sent to inventor along with suggestions from the patent attorney or patent agent of how to proceed.  The patent attorney or patent agent may agree with the Examiner’s comments and suggest the claims be amended to comply with the Examiner’s suggestions, or there will be disagreement with the Examiner’s point of view.  If there is disagreement by the patent attorney over the patentability of the patent application, then a response to the Office Action will be sent to the USPTO which sets forth, on behalf of the inventor, the arguments for patentability.  Now the Examiner may either agree with the arguments of the patent attorney or patent agent and issue a Notice of Allowance granting the application, or she/he may still disagree and issue another Office Action.  The second and any subsequent Office Actions may be Non-final or the Office Action can be Final.  So long as the Examiner issues a Non-final Office Action and there is still a question to patentability, the patent attorney or patent agent and the Examiner may continue to discuss the reasons for or against patenting the invention.  The goal of the patent attorney or patent agent is to get the broadest protection for the inventor at this stage as possible and hopefully any disagreements will be resolved in favor of the inventor.  If so, then a Notice of Allowance will be issued and the patent will be granted.

As with the requirement for Restriction, a response must be made to the Non-final Office Action.  The time frame for the Non-final Office Action allows a response within three months without having to pay a surcharge.  A response must still be made within six months from issuance of the Office Action to avoid abandonment.

Final Office Actions

Eventually, if the Examiner continues to refuse to allow any claims and the Examiner considers the claims and arguments to have already been addressed in a prior Office Action, a Final Office Action may be issued.  As with the Non-final Office Action, a Final Office Action may be responded to within three months without surcharge or up to six months with surcharges.  After six months, the application will go abandoned if no response is made.  For the following reason, it is prudent to actually file a response within two months, rather than waiting three or more.

Advisory Action

For Final Office Actions, there is a special case.  If a response is made within two months, the Examiner will try to issue an Advisory Action commenting, or may allow the application based on the response.  It is important to respond to Final Office Actions within the two month timeframe because if the Examiner is still disallowing some or all claims in the Advisory Action, there is still time to take action without having to pay a surcharge if the action is taken before the end of the first three months.   Principally, the patent attorney or patent agent can continue to argue patentability through filing a Request for Continued Examination or through the Appeal process.  If the inventor no longer wishes to proceed, the application will go abandoned.

Note:  In certain circumstances for a short period of time, patent applications (or patents) that have gone abandoned may be resurrected.  A patent attorney should be consulted promptly if such has occurred to allow for a timely resurrection of the application or patent.

Issuance

Once claims have been allowed, the patent application can proceed to Issuance.  A Notice of Allowance will be issued along with a Notice of Allowability that may explain why the Examiner has allowed the claims.  The issue fee must be paid within three months (NO EXTENSIONS) or the application will go abandoned.  Once the issue fee is paid, the application will typically issue as a patent within about two to three months.

 

If you have any questions about this article, or are interested in obtaining a patent or having a patent search conducted, please feel free to contact Grell & Watson Patent Attorneys of Charlotte, North Carolina.  Alternatively, feel free to read other articles on similar subjects relating to both foreign and United States patent, trademark and copyright law.

For more information on the patent process, please visit Patent Information.

The content of this article is not intended to be, and does not constitute, legal advice and does not create attorney-client privilege. Consult the attorney of your choice before embarking on any legal matter or any document preparation/filing.

Call Jeff Watson for a Free patent consultation (704) 625-7747 or email me at jwatson@GWpatent.com

Intellectual Property Links – Copyright

By Jeff Watson

Jeff Watson is a patent attorney with 11+ years of experience.  He tracks the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office  and the Copyright Office for news.  Please find his most recent update below.

The Copyright Office has initiated the seventh triennial rulemaking proceeding under the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA), 17 U.S.C.  1201, which provided that the Librarian of Congress, upon the recommendation of the Register of Copyrights, may adopt temporary exemptions to section 1201’s prohibition against circumvention of technological measures that control access to copyrighted works.  read more here.

On Thursday, June 29th, 2017, the U.S. Copyright Office Published Final Rule for Group Registration of Contributions of Periodicals under 37 CFR Parts 201 and 202.  Read more here.

Call Jeff Watson for a Free patent consultation (704) 625-7747 or email me at jwatson@GWpatent.com

Intellectual Property Links – Trademarks and Copyrights

By Jeff Watson

Jeff Watson is a patent attorney with 11+ years of experience.  He tracks the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office  and the Copyright Office for news.  Please find his most recent update below.

Examination guides issued subsequent to the publication of the Trademark Manual of Examining Procedure (TMEP) (April 2017), or any issued prior to publication but not incorporated into the TMEP, are listed below. Generally, examination guides issued prior to the publication of the TMEP April 2017 have been incorporated into the TMEP.July 2017 Revision of Patent Cooperation Treaty Procedures

The newest version of the Compendium from the U.S. Copyright Office was released in draft form on June 1, 2017. In preparing this update, the U.S. Copyright Office conducted a comprehensive review of all chapters. Revisions to the registration chapters clarify how and when the Office communicates with applicants and how it handles duplicate claims, deposit requirements, and claims involving multiple works. It also provides preliminary guidance for claims involving useful articles based on the Supreme Court’s recent decision in Star Athletica v. Varsity Brands. Revisions to the recordation chapter provide additional guidance for recording notices of termination and information on the Office’s new electronic system for the designation of agents.June 2017 updated to Trademark Trial and Appeal Board Manual of Procedure (TBMP)

The United States Copyright Office has completed the first comprehensive public study assessing the operation of section 1201 of title 17, United States Code. Enacted in 1998 as part of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (“DMCA”), section 1201 prohibits the circumvention of technological measures employed by or on behalf of copyright owners to protect access to their works (also known as “access controls”), as well as the trafficking in technology or services that facilitate such circumvention. It also prohibits trafficking in technologies or services that facilitate circumvention of technological measures that protect the exclusive rights granted to copyright owners under title 17 (also known as ‘‘copy controls’’). In addition, section 1201 establishes a triennial rulemaking process through which the Librarian of Congress, following a public proceeding conducted by the Register of Copyrights in consultation with the National Telecommunications and Information Administration of the Department of Commerce (“NTIA”), may grant limited exceptions to the bar on circumventing access controls.

Call Jeff Watson for a Free patent consultation (704) 625-7747 or email me at jwatson@GWpatent.com

Intellectual Property Links : PCT Procedures and Updated TBMP

By Jeff Watson

Jeff Watson is a patent attorney with 11+ years of experience.  He tracks the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office  and the Copyright Office for news.  Please find his most recent update below.

July 2017 Revision of Patent Cooperation Treaty Procedures

June 2017 updated to Trademark Trial and Appeal Board Manual of Procedure (TBMP)

Call Jeff Watson for a Free patent consultation (704) 625-7747 or email me at jwatson@GWpatent.com

Intellectual Property Links – Copyright Office

By Jeff Watson

Jeff Watson is a patent attorney with 11+ years of experience.  He tracks the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office  and the Copyright Office for news.  Please find his most recent update below.

Copyright Office Announces Open Application Period for Ringer Fellowships

Copyright Office Releases an Updated Draft of the Compendium of U.S. Copyright Office Practices, Third Edition

Call Jeff Watson for a Free patent consultation (704) 625-7747 or email me at jwatson@GWpatent.com

Patent Forum Shopping – TC Heartland v. Kraft Foods

By Jeff Watson

Jeff Watson is a patent attorney with 11+ years of experience.  He tracks the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office  and the Copyright Office for news.  Please find his most recent update below.

Tara Muller, of the NC Bar Association Blog, recently published an article about Forum Shopping in patent cases based on the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in TC Heartland v. Kraft Foods on May 22, 2017.

“In a much-anticipated ruling on May 22, 2017, the U.S. Supreme Court in TC Heartland v. Kraft Foods narrowed the definition of venue for patent infringement cases. Until last week, a patent holder could sue an alleged infringer in any venue where the defendant was doing business, causing forum shopping and a very high concentration of patent cases in plaintiff-friendly venues like Eastern District of Texas. Roughly 40 percent of infringement suits, many filed by non-practicing entities, have been filed in ED TX in the last two years. Now, however, patent enforcers must file suit in the judicial district in which the corporate defendant “resides” (meaning state of incorporation) or where it has committed alleged acts of infringement AND has a regular and established place of business. Experts predict TC Heartland will increase the cost of litigation and drastically end forum shopping. They forecast a flood of litigation into other states, including Delaware, where so many companies incorporate, or tech-sector states like California and New Jersey.”
Click here to read more.

Call Jeff Watson for a Free patent consultation (704) 625-7747 or email me at jwatson@GWpatent.com

« Older posts

© 2018

Theme by Anders NorenUp ↑