Harness Dickey
  • People
  • Global IP Services
    • Practice Areas
    • Industries
    • Case Studies
  • Blog
  • News & Awards
  • About Us
    • Professional Staff
    • Attorneys
    • Life at Harness Dickey
    • Community
    • Global IP Management & Tracking
    • Global Network
    • Diversity
    • Offices
    • Careers
  • IP Atlas
    • Legal Notice
    • Practice Areas
    • IP Atlas
    • Post Grant Review
    • Inter Partes Review
    • Current Openings
    • Welcome to the Harness Dickey Staff Page
    • Professional Staff
    • Attorneys
    • Life at Harness Dickey
    • Community
    • Global IP Management & Tracking
    • Global Network
    • Diversity
    • Global Network
    • Foreign Clients Doing Business in the U.S.
    • Domestic Clients Doing Business Abroad
    • Trade Secrets & Unfair Competition
    • Appellate
    • Inter Partes Review, Post-Grant Review & Other PTO Proceedings
    • Domain Name Disputes
    • Trademark Litigation
    • Copyright Litigation
    • Patent Litigation
    • Cross Border Transactions
    • Licensing & Joint Ventures
    • Due Diligence
    • FTO Opinions
    • Patent Prosecution
    • Trademark & Domain Name Protection
    • Maximizing Trademark Rights
    • Enforcement
    • TTAB Proceedings
    • Global Trademark Strategy
    • Anticounterfeiting
    • Trademark Selection, Prosecution & Registration
    • Customs & Border Protection
    • Copyright Registration & Counseling
    • Authors
    • Search
    • Page Not Found
    • Privacy Statement
    • Industries
    • Case Studies
    • News & Awards
    • People
    • Offices
    • Careers
    • About Us
    • Blog
    • Home
  • Contact Us
  • Client Login

Blog

Subscribe to our Blogs

  • Subscribe to our Blogs

Our business model is to cultivate lawyers who know all there is to know about intellectual property, whether it be special requirements under the America Invents Act (AIA), patenting chemical compositions and pharmaceuticals, current developments in software patenting, or combating “bad patents” in federal court litigation.  Lawyers from our various practice groups enjoy sharing their views in our blogs. Please join our audience and help us enrich the discussion. We welcome your participation and insight.

  • All Categories
    • All Categories
    • BioPharma
    • Chemistry & Nanotechnology
    • Featured
    • Harnessing the Lessons of IP
    • IP Management
    • IPR-PGR
    • Licensing
    • Litigation
    • Patent Prosecution
    • Trademarks
  • 2011
    • All Years
    • 2017
    • 2016
    • 2015
    • 2014
    • 2013
    • 2012
    • 2011
    • 2010
    • 2009
  • Authors
    • John H. Ambrose, Jr.John H. Ambrose, Jr. 2
    • Tyson B. BensonTyson B. Benson 2
    • Jewell N. BriggsJewell N. Briggs 3
    • Elizabeth K. BrockElizabeth K. Brock 7
    • Matthew L. CutlerMatthew L. Cutler 183
    • Donald J. DaleyDonald J. Daley 1
    • Darin W. DeaverDarin W. Deaver 1
    • Gregory S. DeLassusGregory S. DeLassus 42
    • Nicholas S. DrysdaleNicholas S. Drysdale 3
    • Monte L. FalcoffMonte L. Falcoff 1
    • Glenn E. ForbisGlenn E. Forbis 10
    • Mark A. Frentrup, Ph.D.Mark A. Frentrup, Ph.D. 2
    • Michael GambleMichael Gamble 1
    • Jason A. HeistJason A. Heist 1
    • Hemant M. KeskarHemant M. Keskar 4
    • Sung Pil KimSung Pil Kim 1
    • Elisabeth A. KoralElisabeth A. Koral 1
    • Damian H. Kotsis, Ph.D.Damian H. Kotsis, Ph.D. 2
    • Kisuk LeeKisuk Lee 1
    • Robert J. LenihanRobert J. Lenihan 1
    • Joshua A. PartingtonJoshua A. Partington 2
    • Leanne M. RakersLeanne M. Rakers 14
    • Douglas A. RobinsonDouglas A. Robinson 11
    • Joel R. SamuelsJoel R. Samuels 2
    • Neal D. SanbornNeal D. Sanborn 3
    • Jeffrey L. SnyderJeffrey L. Snyder 1
    • Gregory A. StobbsGregory A. Stobbs 9
    • David L. SuterDavid L. Suter 2
    • Michael L. TaylorMichael L. Taylor 1
    • Jennifer R. TurchynJennifer R. Turchyn 2
    • Michael VarcoMichael Varco 2
    • Joseph E. Walsh, Jr.Joseph E. Walsh, Jr. 1
    • Andrew M. WaxmanAndrew M. Waxman 2
    • Bryan K. WheelockBryan K. Wheelock 252
    • Jennifer M. Woodside WojtalaJennifer M. Woodside Wojtala 7
    • Paul E. Zarek, Ph.D.Paul E. Zarek, Ph.D. 2

  • June 24, 2017

    Gnireenigne

    More

  • June 23, 2017

    Give a Man Cupcake Sushi, and He’ll Have Dessert for a Day; Teach a Man to Make Cupcake Sushi, and He’ll Rip You Off

    More

  • June 23, 2017

    For Waterproofing Patent, Arguments Against Obviousness Didn’t Hold Water

    More

  • June 22, 2017

    “Catch-All” Phrases Insufficient To Give Proper Notice of Grounds for Petition

    More

  • June 21, 2017

    Lack of Enablement in Provisional Application Results in Loss of Priority

    More

  • June 19, 2017

    Missed opportunity: Federal Circuit Again Offers No Clarifying Insight on Alice’s Two-Step Framework

    More

October 31, 2011

ADAPTING TO PATENT REFORM

IPR-PGR.com

Matt Cutler’s Professional Blog: Harnessing Patent Office Litigation: A Comprehensive Guide to Inter Partes Review and Post Grant Review Proceedings

August 22, 2011

CyberSource v. Retail Decisions, Inc.

August 18, 2011

The Cost of Sloppy Claim Drafting

August 11, 2011

CAFC MYRIAD DECISION: This is Not a “Gene Patent” Case

July 26, 2011

USPTO Proposes Amending Rule 1.56 To Define Materiality In Accordance With Therasense

July 20, 2011

Launch of .XXX Domain Names – Blocking Registration of Trademarks as Domains

June 17, 2011

Does the Federal Circuit “mean” it this time? Adding confusion to when claim language lacking the word “means” should be subject to means-plus-function analysis.

June 17, 2011

A possibility among a limited number is not necessarily a predictable solution; teaching away need not be specific.

June 10, 2011

Microsoft Corp. v. i4i Limited Partnership, U.S., No. 10-290 (June 9, 2011).

June 10, 2011

Stanford v. Roche Molecular Systems, Inc.

June 2, 2011

Global-Tech Appliances, Inc. v. SEB SA – The Supreme Court Addresses Inducement of Patent Infringement

May 27, 2011

Therasense’s Stringent Inequitable Conduct Test

May 4, 2011

TTAB: Prompt Filing of Supplemental Response Cures Procedural Deficiency in Expert Disclosures

April 27, 2011

Incorporation by reference does not expand claim scope

April 25, 2011

TiVo Inc. v. Echostar Corp.

April 22, 2011

Providing Support for Generous Construction of a Claimed Range

April 18, 2011

Federal Circuit Overturns Precedential BPAI Opinion, Allows Reissue Only to Add Dependent Claims

April 15, 2011

Harness Dickey Ranks in Top 5 of U.S. Patent Firms

April 8, 2011

Innovention Toys, LLC, V. MGA Entertainment, Inc.

April 8, 2011

THE ORAL ARGUMENT IN MYRIAD, April 4th, 2011

Posts navigation

1 2 Load more posts

Stay current

  • Subscribe to our Blogs
  • Twitter
  • Facebook
  • LinkedIn
    • Privacy Statement
    • Legal Notice

  • © 2017 Harness, Dickey & Pierce, P.L.C. All rights reserved.