Harness, Dickey & Pierce, PLC

Contact
Share
Info
5445 Corporate Dr
Suite 200
Troy, MI 48098, United States
Phone: (248) 641-1600
Fax: (248) 641-0270
Areas of Practice
  • Appellate Practice
  • Intellectual Property
  • International Law & Trade
  • Litigation
  • Science, Computers, & Tech
Locations
Other U.S. Locations
  • Michigan
  • Missouri
  • Texas
  • Virginia
Number of Attorneys
100+ Attorneys

At The Bench: 2017 Mid-Year Case Review

Impression Prods. v. Lexmark Int’l, 137 S. Ct. 1523, 581 U.S. ___ (2017) The Supreme Court held that all patent rights are exhausted upon the first sale of a patented product, regardless of where the sale is made or whether a…more
 /  Civil Procedure, Commercial Law & Contracts, Intellectual Property, International Law & Trade, Science, Computers, & Technology

When Your Background Dooms The Invention

37 CFR 1.77(b)(7) suggests that a patent application should include a “Background of the Invention.” The Background of the Invention, however, can cause trouble if the drafter is not careful…more
 /  Administrative Law, Intellectual Property

Federal Circuit Reverses PTAB for Refusing to Allow Supplementation of Record to Add Later Inconsistent Deposition Testimony from an Expert

The Board exercises substantial power over the scope of the record in IPRs, but the Federal Circuit’s decision in Ultratec v. CaptionCall illustrates a limit on that power. The case involved a collection of consolidated IPR…more
 /  Administrative Law, Civil Procedure, Intellectual Property

Objective Indicia Were Properly Considered and Did Not Save Cookie Package Patent from Summary Judgment of Obviousness

In Intercontinental Great Brands LLC v. Kellogg North American Co., [2015-2082, 2015-2084] (September 7, 2017), the Federal Circuit affirmed summary judgment that Kraft’s U.S. Patent No. 6,918,532 was invalid for obviousness,…more
 /  Civil Procedure, Intellectual Property

Mere Quantification of the Results of a Known Process is Not Patentable

In Southwire Co. v. Cerro Wire LLC, [2016-2287] (September 8, 2017), the Federal Circuit affirmed the PTAB’s decision in an Inter Partes reexamination that the claims of U.S. Patent No. 7,557,301 on a method of making cable are…more
 /  Administrative Law, Civil Procedure, Intellectual Property

Knowledge of Ex-Employees Working for Accused Infringer Makes Inducement Claim Plausible

In Lifetime Industries, Inc., v. Trim-Lok, Inc., [2017-1096] (September 7, 2017), the Federal Circuit reversed the district court’s dismissal of Lifetime’s complaint for infringement of U.S. Patent 6,966,590, failing to…more
 /  Civil Procedure, Intellectual Property

Dance Like No One is Watching; Email Like it’s Being Read Aloud at your Deposition

“Dance like no one is watching; email like it’s being read aloud at your deposition” This sentiment was passed along this morning by a colleague. It is good to be periodically reminded to be careful with your business and…more
 /  Law Practice Products & Services

Follow-on IPR Petitions are Unfair to Patent Owners and an Inefficient Use of the Process

In General Plastic Industrial Co., Ltd. v. Canon Kabushiki Kaisha, IPR2016-01357, Paper 19, (September 6, 2017), and IPR2016-01358, IPR2016-01359, IPR2016-01360, and IPR2016-01361, an expanded panel of the PTAB denied…more
 /  Administrative Law, Intellectual Property

Out-of-CTRL C

CTRL C and CTRL V (copy/paste) are widely used keyboard commands to add interesting content to emails, newsletters and slide decks. Everyone does it, so it must be okay, right? Not quite...…more
 /  Intellectual Property

Federal Circuit’s Amicus Brief in Oil States

Although the Federal Circuit already passed on the constitutionality of Inter Partes Reviews, considering some of its recent decisions, it appears that the Federal Circuit questions the competence of the PTAB to conduct…more
 /  Administrative Law, Civil Procedure, Constitutional Law, Intellectual Property

Not Every Instance of an Agency Reaching Inconsistent Outcomes in Similar, Related Cases will Necessarily be Erroneous

In Vicor Corp. v. Synqor, Inc., [2016-2283] (August 30, 2017) the Federal Circuit affirmed in part, vacated in part, and remanded the Board’s decisions in two reexaminations, one in which the Board found that certain claims of…more
 /  Administrative Law, Civil Procedure, Intellectual Property

“A Reasonable Adjudicator Would have Wanted to Review this Evidence.”

In Ultratec, Inc. v. Captioncall, LLC., [2016-1706, 2016-1707, 2016-1708, 2016-1709, 2016-1710, 2016-1712, 2016-1713, 2016-1715, 2016-2366] (August 28, 2017), the Federal Circuit vacated and remanded Board decisions invalidating…more
 /  Administrative Law, Civil Procedure, Intellectual Property

Preemption is “Part and Parcel” of the §101; But Lack of Preemption Does Not Necessarily Establish Patentability

In Return Mail, Inc. v. United States Postal Service, [2016-1502] (August 28, 2017), the Federal Circuit affirmed the PTAB’s decision that the US Postal Service had standing to challenge Return Mails patents in an CBMR, and that…more
 /  Administrative Law, Civil Procedure, Conflict of Laws, Constitutional Law, Intellectual Property

News Alert: Precedential Patent and Trademark Order by the Federal Circuit

In June, the Federal Circuit panel ruled (over Judge Stoll’s dissent) that 35 U.S.C. § 145’s “all expenses of the proceedings” provision requires a patent applicant to pay attorneys’ fees to the USPTO when the applicant elects…more
 /  Administrative Law, Civil Procedure, Civil Remedies, Intellectual Property

Routine Optimization Cannot Make Invention Obvious Without A Reasonable Expectation for Success

In In re Stepan Co., [2016-1811] (August 25, 2017), the Federal Circuit vacated the Patent Trial and Appeal Board’s affirmance of the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1–31 of U.S. Patent Application No. 12/456,567 on herbicidal…more
 /  Administrative Law, Civil Procedure, Intellectual Property
Showing 1-15 of 948 Results
/
View per page
Page: of 64
This profile may constitute attorney advertising. Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Any correspondence with this profile holder does not constitute a client/attorney relationship. Neither the content on this profile nor transmissions between you and the profile holder through this profile are intended to provide legal or other advice or to create an attorney-client relationship.

"My best business intelligence,
in one easy email…"

Your first step to building a free, personalized, morning email brief covering pertinent authors and topics on JD Supra:
Sign up using*

Already signed up? Log in here

*By using the service, you signify your acceptance of JD Supra's Privacy Policy.
*With LinkedIn, you don't need to create a separate login to manage your free JD Supra account, and we can make suggestions based on your needs and interests. We will not post anything on LinkedIn in your name. Or, sign up using your email address.