Harness Dickey Harnessing Innovation for 100 Years
  • People
  • Global IP Services
    • Practice Areas
    • Industries
    • Case Studies
  • Blog
  • News & Awards
  • About Us
    • Careers
    • Offices
  • IP Atlas
  • 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

      • Biologics & Biosimilars
        • Antitrust Issues
        • Competitor Dynamics
        • FDA Guidance & Updates
        • Interchangeability
      • BioPharma
      • Chemistry & Nanotechnology
      • IP Management
      • IPR-PGR
      • Litigation
      • Patent Prosecution
      • quIPs
      • Trademarks
  • All Years
    • 2021
    • 2020
    • 2019
    • 2018
    • 2017
    • 2016
    • 2015
    • 2014
    • 2013
    • 2012
    • 2011
    • 2010
    • 2009
  • Authors
    • John H. Ambrose, Jr.John H. Ambrose, Jr. 2
    • Jewell N. BriggsJewell N. Briggs 8
    • Elizabeth K. BrockElizabeth K. Brock 7
    • Christopher M. CaubleChristopher M. Cauble 1
    • William J. CoughlinWilliam J. Coughlin 1
    • Matthew L. CutlerMatthew L. Cutler 192
    • Donald J. DaleyDonald J. Daley 1
    • Nicholas S. DrysdaleNicholas S. Drysdale 7
    • Monte L. FalcoffMonte L. Falcoff 3
    • Glenn E. ForbisGlenn E. Forbis 11
    • Michael GambleMichael Gamble 1
    • Jason A. HeistJason A. Heist 1
    • Michael P. KellaMichael P. Kella 1
    • Hemant M. KeskarHemant M. Keskar 4
    • Sung Pil KimSung Pil Kim 1
    • Elisabeth A. KoralElisabeth A. Koral 10
    • Damian H. Kotsis, Ph.D.Damian H. Kotsis, Ph.D. 4
    • Kisuk LeeKisuk Lee 1
    • Chris K. MillerChris K. Miller 1
    • Michael R. NyeMichael R. Nye 4
    • Joshua A. PartingtonJoshua A. Partington 4
    • Leanne M. RakersLeanne M. Rakers 26
    • Douglas A. RobinsonDouglas A. Robinson 17
    • Joel R. SamuelsJoel R. Samuels 16
    • Jeffrey L. SnyderJeffrey L. Snyder 1
    • David L. SuterDavid L. Suter 2
    • Michael L. TaylorMichael L. Taylor 1
    • Jennifer R. TurchynJennifer R. Turchyn 4
    • Michael VarcoMichael Varco 3
    • Joseph E. Walsh, Jr.Joseph E. Walsh, Jr. 1
    • Andrew M. WaxmanAndrew M. Waxman 2
    • Bryan K. WheelockBryan K. Wheelock 632
    • Jennifer M. Woodside WojtalaJennifer M. Woodside Wojtala 12
    • Scott E. YackeyScott E. Yackey 1
    • Paul E. Zarek, Ph.D.Paul E. Zarek, Ph.D. 3
  • Trademark Enforcement Attorneys

    January 7, 2021

    It’s OK to Give Less Weight to Suggestive and Descriptive Terms when Comparing Marks as a Whole

    More

  • Harness Dickey patent Attorneys Detroit St. Louis Dallas Washington, DC

    January 6, 2021

    Even If Phrase Was In the Preamble, it is a Claim Limitation that was Not Met

    More

  • December 29, 2020

    Late Request For Leave to Amend Complaint to try to Save Patent on Ineligible Subject Matter Denied

    More

  • December 23, 2020

    A Preference for Something Else is not Teaching Away

    More

  • photo of chess pieces representing biosimilar competitive dynamics

    December 7, 2020

    Breach of Confidentiality Agreement Required Transfer for Resulting Patents

    More

  • IP Litigation and Contested Matters

    November 26, 2020

    Petitioner Can Substantiate Prior Art When Challenged by Patent Owner

    More

August 31, 2015

PTAB Finds Copyright Notice is Inadmissible Hearsay – Denies Petition for IPR

By: Matthew L. Cutler, Principal

July 1, 2015

Board Disqualifies Reference As Not Meeting Requirements of 102(e)

By: Matthew L. Cutler, Principal

May 18, 2015

Doctrine of Inurement Does Not Save Design Patent in IPR Proceeding

By: Matthew L. Cutler, Principal

April 24, 2015

“Indirect” Common Inventorship Not Sufficient To Support Priority Claim Under 35 U.S.C. §120

By: Glenn E. Forbis, Principal

April 3, 2015

IPR Incorporation by Reference Argument Not Enough to Save Priority Claim

By: Matthew L. Cutler, Principal

March 25, 2015

PTAB Rules Lab Notebooks Insufficient to Prove Conception and Reduction to Practice

By: Matthew L. Cutler, Principal

March 24, 2015

PTAB Rejects Two Attempts by Patent Owners to Antedate Prior Art

By: Matthew L. Cutler, Principal

March 6, 2015

Motion to Exclude is Proper Vehicle in IPR to Remove Reference as Evidence

By: Matthew L. Cutler, Principal

October 20, 2014

Later Priority Date for IPR-Challenged Patent Where No Written Description in Parent

By: Matthew L. Cutler, Principal

February 5, 2014

Dell Ends Up With a Mixed Bag of Results in 2 IPR Petitions Filed Against Acceleron

By: Matthew L. Cutler, Principal

December 3, 2013

Burden is on Petitioner to Prove Priority Date of Patent Challenged in Inter Partes Review

By: Matthew L. Cutler, Principal

November 22, 2013

Board Gives No Weight to Previous Examiner and District Court Decisions that Prior Art Was Antedated

By: Matthew L. Cutler, Principal

November 18, 2013

Copyright Notice without Day and Month Insufficient to Establish Reference as Prior Art

By: Matthew L. Cutler, Principal

October 30, 2013

Priority Date of Challenged Patent Sustained by Board, But IPR Trial Still Instituted on Other Grounds

By: Matthew L. Cutler, Principal

October 17, 2013

Expert Opinion on Claim Construction Must Include Evidence to be Given Weight by PTAB

By: Matthew L. Cutler, Principal

September 17, 2013

Board’s Claim Construction Limited to What it Needed To Initiate IPR Trial

By: Matthew L. Cutler, Principal

Stay current

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

  • © 2021 Harness, Dickey & Pierce, P.L.C. All rights reserved.