Blog

Lead compound analysis (LCA) has been used in the evaluation of chemical compound Obviousness for the past 20 years.[1]  This approach supplemented the historic formulation of In re Dillon.[2]  While the Dillon analysis pivots about the structural similarity of the cited compound to that claimed and any motivation to make the claimed compound, LCA involves selection of a lead compound that is the most promising candidate for modification to improve its activity.  As such, it represents a somewhat more difficult standard than in Dillon.

Dilworth IP’s Benjamin Lehberger recently spoke at the Lawyer-Pilot Bar Association’s Winter 2019 Convention in Cocoa Beach, FL. Ben’s talk, entitled “Where are We Headed in Space? Charting the Industry’s Trajectory Through Patent Filings” showed how the patent landscape for space technology has changed dramatically over time. Despite NASA being the dominant filer for decades, Ben showed that the last 20 years of filings have been led by private firms. He also considered how the latest patents filings, on technologies such as artificial gravity and global internet access, give insight into what’s next in space.

This article was originally published in the the Greater Bridgeport Bar Association (GBBA) News Brief In January, the Supreme Court issued a ruling on how the commercial life of a new product can become fatal to the possibility of obtaining a patent on that product. This is a perennial issue […]

Forty years ago, people were dancing to Stayin Alive by the Bee Gee’s, munching on Reese’s Pieces for the first time, and watching John Travolta & Olivia Newton-John in Grease, and Jamie Lee Curtis in Halloween (the first one!).  A lucky few were playing Space Invaders on their Atari 2600, or DOS-based games on their Apple II computer; and the iPhone was not yet a glint in Steve Jobs’ eye.  Coincidentally, forty years ago the mark “GUILD INVESTMENT MANAGEMENT” (GIM) was being used by Guild Investment Management, Inc. for investment advisory services while the mark “GUILD MORTGAGE COMPANY” (GMC), owned by Guild Mortgage Company (Guild), was being used for mortgage banking services.[2]  Nevertheless, decades later an application for the GMC mark in International Class 36 was refused by the Examiner, who argued that there was a likelihood of confusion with the GIM mark because “the marks, nature of the services and trade channels were similar.”[3]  The Trademark Trial and Appeal Board agreed, despite finding that “consumers ‘may exercise a certain degree of care in investing money, if not perhaps in seeking a mortgage loan.’”[4]  Guild appealed to the Federal Circuit.

This article was originally published in the Greater Bridgeport Bar Association’s News Brief, Click Here to download Dur-A-Flex, Inc., based in East Hartford, is preparing for trial on a trade secret misappropriation case in May 2018, in Hartford Superior Court (HHD-CV14-6049281-S).  In January, Dur-A-Flex filed a Motion to Seal, asking the […]

The Dilworth IP Team is excited to run in support the Hole in the Wall Gang, a charitable organization founded by Paul Newman in 1988. The charity runs camps and various other programs across the Northeast for seriously ill children and their families. On June 2nd, team members Michael Dilworth, Bill Reid, and […]

For the first time since the Mayo Supreme Court decision of 2012, the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) in Exergen vs Kaz has ruled in favor of the patent eligibility of a medical diagnostic invention.  While nonprecedential, this 2-to-1 decision is noteworthy for the guidance it provides to patent professionals seeking to protect diagnostic inventions.  Specifically, it instructs that diagnostic methods may be eligible for patent coverage so long as they use unconventional methods for detecting analytes.  Additionally, the Exergen decision offers another endorsement of the view put forth recently by the CAFC in Berkheimer v. HP and Aatrix v. Green Shades, that the inventive concept analysis that can arise in step-2 of the Mayo/Alice test is at least in part a factual question and not just a question of law.  This factual vs legal debate continues to have reverberations throughout the patent law field, affecting both the manner in which courts conduct 101 examinations as well as the conclusions they reach.

Dr. Anthony Sabatelli & David Puleo will be presenting a free webinar on Thursday, April 19th at 1:00 PM (ET) for Dilworth IP, entitled, “Just What is the Federal Circuit Thinking? A Path Forward Amid Subject Matter Eligibility Variability.” Tens of millions spent on product development – how do you protect your company’s technology in an environment where the Federal Circuit redefines patent eligible subject matter on nearly a weekly basis, and where the USPTO’s application of these judgments is just as inconsistent? Is subject matter eligibility no longer a question of law and is it now morphing into a question of fact?

The U.S. District Court of Connecticut has ruled that a small Connecticut manufacturing company can sue an Indiana- based national manufacturer and wholesaler for trademark infringement in Connecticut, based on the defendant’s modest sales to distributors in Connecticut.  This illustrates how Connecticut courts provide an important forum for Connecticut business to protect their brands against out-of-state competitors that sell into Connecticut.

Matthew Siegal, a patent attorney with Dilworth IP’s affiliate firm, Dilworth & Barrese, and Of Counsel to Dilworth IP, recently had an article published in The Intellectual Property Strategist entitled, “Even the Value of the Smallest Salable Unit Must Bes Apportioned.” In the article, Mr. Siegal discusses the Federal Circuit ruling in Finjan, Inc. v. Blue Coat.