Gallagher & Dawsey Co., LPA
is a unique intellectual property law firm whose practice includes intellectual property counseling
and services to businesses and individual inventors, as well as other law firms, regarding patent,
trademark, copyright, and trade secret issues.
Our experienced patent attorneys and trademark attorneys provide various intellectual property
legal services such as patent searches, patent applications, trademark searches, trademark applications,
copyright applications, infringement advice/opinions, and infringement litigation.
Complete our Request Form to receive one of our Free Brochures regarding protecting your intellectual property, or simply relax and receive an intellectual property education by watching the videos in our Online I.P. Video Library.
In today's information based society, the value of patents, trademarks, and copyrights has never
been higher. Contact one of our patent lawyers or trademark lawyers to learn more about protecting
your inventions, brands, and creative works.
The U.S. patent and trademark attorneys of Gallagher & Dawsey Co. LPA serve clients around the
world from our Midwest offices. Our patent and trademark law firm has offices in Columbus, Dayton,
and Cincinnati, Ohio.
|
 Facebook Sues Teachbook for Trademark Infringement: On August 18th, Facebook, Inc. filed a complaint in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California alleging that Teachbook.com, LLC is infringing the FACEBOOK mark by using the TEACHBOOK mark for a social networking website designed for teachers. The complaint notes that the TEACHBOOK mark “rides on the coattails of the fame and enormous goodwill of the FACEBOOK trademark.” The famousness of the FACEBOOK mark will likely play an important role in the suit. The complaint also asserts that the BOOK portion of the FACEBOOK mark is highly distinctive for its goods and services and that allowing others to use “generic plus BOOK” would dilute the value of the FACEBOOK mark. Facebook, Inc. previously opposed the registration of the TEACBOOK mark at the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board, but the opposition proceeding has been suspended pending the disposition of the lawsuit.
Common Sense Dooms Patent: In Wyers v. Master Lock, the CAFC reversed a jury’s decision that found Master Lock failed to prove that Wyers' patents covering trailer hitch locks were obvious. The patents-in-suit dealt with improvements to prior art trailer hitch locks. One improvement was a series of sleeves to allow the lock to fit snugly in various sized apertures, while another improvement dealt with an external seal configured to keep contaminants out of the locking mechanism. After a trial, the jury returned a verdict finding that the hitch lock improvements were not obvious. The CAFC found that the prior art of record disclosed similar sleeve devices and external seals, and concluded that Wyers' patents were obvious. In reaching its conclusion, the CAFC relied heavily on the Supreme Court’s opinion in KSR v. Teleflex. Particularly, the CAFC noted that it was simply a matter of "common sense" to combine the prior art of record to arrive at the inventions claimed by Wyers.
Supreme Court Finally Decides Bilski: On June 28, 2010, the U.S. Supreme Court handed down its long-awaited opinion in the Bilski v. Kappos case. As expected, the Court affirmed the Federal Circuit's judgment that Bilski’s claimed method for hedging risk was not a patent eligible “process” under 35 U.S.C. Section 101. However, the Court rejected the Federal Circuit's "machine-or-transformation test" as the sole test for determining whether an invention is a patent eligible process. Instead, the Court noted that the "machine-or-transformation test" is a "useful and important clue, an investigative tool, for determining whether some claimed inventions are processes under Section 101." The Court went on to explain that Bilski's claimed method was not a patentable-eligible process because it was merely an attempt to patent an abstract idea. Unlike the result expected by many commentators, the Court refused to provide a clarifying rule as to what types of processes are patent eligible under Section 101. As a result, it appears that little has changed with respect to the law on patent eligible subject matter.
Three Years of Silence Prevents Enforcement of Patent Rights: In Aspex Eyewear Inc. v. Clariti Eyewear, Inc. (Fed. Cir. 2010), the CAFC concluded that three years of silence after sending a letter pointing out that some products may infringe claims of several patents was enough to preclude a patent infringement suit. In March 2003, Aspex sent a letter to Clariti stating that some of Clariti’s products may infringe some of the claims of four patents held by Aspex. After several rounds of correspondence, Clariti notified Aspex in June 2003 that its products did not infringe any valid claims of Aspex’s patents. This was the last correspondence between Aspex and Clariti until August 2006 when Aspex sent another letter that listed the specific Clariti product that Aspex believed infringed specific claims of one of their patents. The issue was not resolved and Aspex filed suite against Clariti in March 2007 for patent infringement. The CAFC affirmed the district court’s grant of summary judgment to dismiss the suit based upon the doctrine of equitable estoppel. The CAFC noted that after a three year period of silence, it was reasonable for Clariti to infer that Aspex was not continuing its accusation of infringement.
False Marking Fine Exceeds Gross Revenue: Since the beginning of 2010 there have been over one hundred false patent marking lawsuits initiated across the country. The false marking suits target companies that sell products marked with a designation to indicate that the product is patented, such as the word "patented" or a patent number, when the product is not patented or the relevant patent has expired. In a case that made it to the Federal Circuit (CAFC) and was remanded to the district court to recalculate the appropriate false marking fine, the district court recently issued an order requiring the false marker to pay a fine that was more than the revenue generated by selling the falsely marked product. Forest Group v. Bon Tool (S.D. Tex 2010). Under 35 USC 292, the fine for false marking is to be "[no] more than $500 for every such offense." In this case, the evidence showed that 38 pair of falsely marked construction stilts were sold at a price of between $103 and $180. The district court fined the false marking offender at a rate of $180 per set of stilts sold, for a total of $6,840. The court noted that using the highest point in the price range for each set fulfilled the deterrent goal of 35 USC 292.
Federal Circuit Upholds Separate Written Description Requirement: In Ariad Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v. Eli Lilly and Co. (Fed. Cir. 2010, en banc), the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) recently held that the first paragraph of 35 USC section 112 includes a written description requirement that is separate from the enablement requirement. Ariad argued that paragraph one of 35 USC section112 contained a written description requirement and that such a requirement was satisfied by providing a written description that identifies the invention in such a way that those skilled in the art are able to make and use the invention. The CAFC noted that, "[i]f Congress had intended enablement to be the sole description requirement of section112, first paragraph, the statute would have been written differently." The CAFC went on to say that a patent’s specification should not only enable a person skilled in the art to make and use the invention, but must also fully describe the invention and show that the inventor actually invented the invention that is claimed.
|
Intellectual property lawyer David J. Dawsey was appointed to the editorial board of Landslide®, a bi-monthly magazine that offers news and analysis on patents, trademarks, copyrights and related topics. Landslide is a publication of the American Bar Association Section of Intellectual Property Law and is written by and for an audience of intellectual property lawyers. The magazine covers this rapidly evolving legal specialization through an emphasis that includes business, technology, the arts, legislation and international developments.
To celebrate kids going back to school, our patent lawyers have added new content to our Historic Patents page. This month we are showcasing patents awarded to some unbelievable kids. Are you smarter than a 5th grader? A four year old? Amazingly, Becky Schroeder was in 5th grade when she invented her invention, and Julian Pavone was awarded his patent when he was four years old! In 1974, Becky Schroeder was awarded her "Luminescent Backing Sheet for Writing in the Dark" patent, which eventually was used by the US Navy and NASA. Additionally, Julian Pavone was four when he was awarded in 1993 his "Bottle with Applicator" patent, used to cover clothing stains and touch up chipped paint on musical instruments and other items.
IP attorney David J. Dawsey was recently interviewed (7/13/2010) on the nationally syndicated The Small Business Advocate® radio program with Jim Blasingame on the subject of "Common Patent Myths" Click here to listen, and click here to read an article on the subject.
Our intellectual property lawyers have added a new "practice area" page to our website highlighting our "IP Litigation" services. While IP litigation has long been a significant practice area at Gallagher & Dawsey, it now has a dedicated page outlining our common sense approach to patent, trademark, and copyright litigation. Additionally, our patent litigators have added a new "False Patent Marking Litigation in Ohio" article to our IP newsletter archive that is specifically directed to false patent marking actions, and the prolific Northern District of Ohio plaintiff, Unique Product Solutions.
To help cool you down on a hot summer day, our patent attorneys have added new content to our Historic Patents page. This month we are showcasing ice cream patents that not only make the hot summer bearable, but even make it delicious. Through trial and error, Christian Kent Nelson, was able to do what others thought was impossible: combine hot chocolate with ice cream. In 1922 he was awarded his "Confection" patent, which brought the world the more commonly known treat the "Eskimo Pie." Additionally, Frank Epperson was reportedly 11 years old when he invented his frozen treat. Eighteen years later he applied for, and was awarded in 1924 his "Frozen Confectionery" patent, more commonly known as the Popsicle patent.
The trademark lawyers at Gallagher & Dawsey Co. LPA have added yet another new article to the IP Newsletter Archive of over 80 patent and trademark articles. The new article, Understanding Trademarks – Key Differences between Legal Names, Trade Names, and Trademarks, dispels some misconceptions about legal names, trade names, and trademarks; particularly the fact that many business owners mistakenly assume that once they have chosen a business name and registered the business with the state, that they have unlimited rights to the name in conjunction with their business.
Small business intellectual property lawyer David J. Dawsey was recently interviewed (7/7/2010) on the nationally syndicated The Small Business Advocate® radio program with Jim Blasingame on the subject of "Tips on How Small Businesses Can Maximize Their Legal Services Dollar." Click here to listen.
Sports equipment patent lawyer David J. Dawsey was recently interviewed (6/16/2010) on the Australian golf radio program TalkinGolf, hosted by golf writer Rod Morri, regarding golf inventions, patents, and his Golf-Patents blog. Click here to listen.
To celebrate the summer season, our patent attorneys have added new content to our Historic Patents page. This month we are showcasing patents that have helped make the hot days of summer more tasty and beautiful. Although fireworks have been around for thousands of years, it wasn’t until 1994 that The Walt Disney Company was awarded the "Precision Fireworks Display System Having a Decreased Environmental Impact" patent, which pioneered the commercial use of aerial fireworks launched with compressed air rather than gunpowder. Additionally, Ellsworth B. A. Zwoyer helped change the taste and smell of summer by inventing the original charcoal briquette and in 1845 was awarded his "Design For Fuel" patent.
To honor fathers and the gifts that have become Father’s Day staples, our patent prosecution attorneys have added new content to our Historic Patents page. Wide or skinny, striped or plain, cotton or silk, the tie is a Father's Day gift-giving tradition. Although ties have been around for hundreds of years, American tailor Jesse Langsdorf created and patented the tie's modern look, and in 1923 was awarded his "Necktie" patent.
IP attorney David J. Dawsey was recently interviewed (4/13/2010) on the nationally syndicated The Small Business Advocate® radio program with Jim Blasingame on the subject of "Intellectual Property Portfolio Analysis by Venture Capitalists; Are Small Business Owners Missing the Boat?" Click here to listen.
Our trademark attorneys have added yet another new article to the IP Newsletter Archive of over 80 intellectual property articles. The new article, Trademarks – Understanding the Principal Register and the Supplemental Register, explains when a trademark is likely to be registered on the Supplemental Register rather than the Principal Register, as well as the differences between them.
To honor Mothers and those who changed our daily lives, our patent attorneys have added new content to our Historic Patents page. This month we are showcasing patents that made our lives a little better. Although slicing a loaf of bread has been done for thousands of years, it wasn’t until 1932 that Otto Frederick Rohwedder was awarded his "Machine for Slicing an Entire Loaf of Bread at a Single Operation" patent, which helped coin the phrase "the greatest thing since sliced bread." Additionally, Marion Donovan, an exhausted mother of two, certainly showed that "necessity is the mother of invention." Frustrated after changing her baby's dirty cloth diapers, bed sheets and clothing yet again, she invented the first waterproof diaper cover and was awarded her "Diaper Wrap" patent.
As March Madness turns into the NCAA Championship game, our Ohio patent attorneys have added new content to our Interesting Patents page. This month we are showcasing basketball related patents. Although the game of basketball was invented in 1891 by James Naismith, initially a soccer ball was used to dribble up and down the court. It wasn’t until 1929 that G.L. Pierce of Spalding & Bros. was awarded his "Basket Ball" patent, which undoubtedly resembles an early basketball but, contrary to popular opinion, it is not the first patent to disclose a ball that may be used to play basketball. Additionally, Arthur Ehrat, a retired grain elevator manager, changed forever how basketball is played with his "Deformation Preventing Swingable Mount For Basketball Goals" patent.
The patent and trademark lawyers at Gallagher & Dawsey Co. LPA have added yet another new article to their IP Newsletter archive of over 80 intellectual property articles. The new article, A Few Tips for Reviewing a Patent Application, covers basic principles that are helpful when reviewing a patent application drafted by your attorney, but the same principles apply when reviewing issued patents as well.
To honor the 82nd Academy Awards, our intellectual property lawyers have added new content to our Interesting Patents page. This month we are showcasing Oscar winning patent holders. You may remember him as Vito Corleone, or maybe Superman's father, but in his later years he was awarded several patents, including the "Drumhead Tensioning Device and Method" patent. Also, Pixar, the company that brought us Oscar winning animated movies such as Finding Nemo and The Incredibles, holds dozens of patents including the "Pseudo Random Point Sampling Techniques in Computer Graphics" patent.
Ohio intellectual property attorney David J. Dawsey was recently interviewed (1/12/2010) on the nationally syndicated The Small Business Advocate® radio program with Jim Blasingame on the subject of “IP Goals for the New Year that Every Small Business Can Implement." Click here to listen.
As we start out 2010, our Ohio patent lawyers have once again added new content to our Interesting Patents page. This month we are showcasing famous female inventors. You may remember these ladies as great Hollywood beauties, but they were also incredibly intelligent. Julie Newmar was granted the "Pantyhose with Shaping Band for Cheeky Derriere Relief" patent, as well as two other patents, and Hedy Lamarr was granted the "Secret Communication System" patent.
As we ring in a new decade, our patent lawyers are once again adding new content to our Interesting Patents page. This month we showcase a few historic patents from Ohio inventors including a "Chewing Gum Compound" patent, a "Paper Milk Bottle" patent, and a historic "Golf Ball" patent.
Patent litigation attorney Michael Gallagher will be a featured speaker at the Ohio State Bar Association CLE program on December 10, 2009. The program will cover the various aspects of patent litigation from pre-suit considerations all the way to remedies. For more information and to register for the class, please contact the OSBA HERE.
With the holidays and cold weather just around the corner, our patent lawyer decided to highlight some festive patents on our Weird and Wacky Patents page. The new holiday season patents include a "Gingerbread House Apparatus," a "Snowman Accessory Kit," and a "Santa Claus Detector."
|
