Call Tucker IP Today! 954.204.0444 or 305.423.9713|info@TuckeripLaw.com
FacebookTwitterGoogle+Linkedin

Yearly Archives: 2014

Home/2014

Denver Patent Office Opens

Denver Patent Office Open For Business Denver, Colorado now supports a permanent United States Patent and Trademark Denver Satellite Office. Denver, which has a large population of patent attorneys, allows the USPTO the ability to retain Examiners locally. Denver offers a high quality of life, which differs from the life style of the Washington, D.C. area. Denver is a very sought after location and may provide a location to steel talent away from Silicon Valley. The Denver Satellite Office is estimated to create one hundred thirty Patent positions, from Patent Examiners to Patent Judges with Patent Trial and Appeal Board. With this office, the USPTO has now expanded into the Mountain Time Zone. The goal of the Patent Office is to support offices in every time zone. While the USPTO does not have plans for a Fort Lauderdale Patent Office presently, it would make sense for the USPTO to consider a South Florida location due to the amount of innovation taking place. It is believed that opening offices across the United States will help spur innovation through startups and enterprises, as well as creating high-paying jobs. Denver’s Deputy Under Secretary of Commerce for IP and USPTO Deputy Directory Michelle K. Lee delivered opening remarks on June 30, 2014. She stated her commitment to creating incentives to innovate, creating tools to produce and product creative ideas, and balancing risks of developing new technologies. Deputy Director Lee rightly recognizes the advantages that U.S. companies have obtained by providing innovators with protection for their ideas. Most importantly, the Satellite office is intended to reduce the backlog of patents that have jammed up the USPTO headquarters. Any inventor or Patent Attorney will tell you that the backlog is years [...]

By | 2017-05-18T18:53:17+00:00 August 5th, 2014|NEWS, Patents|Comments Off on Denver Patent Office Opens
Read More

Trans-Tasman Patent Attorney Regime

Trans-Tasman Patent Attorney Regime With the emergence of the bilateral trans-Tasman patent attorney regime, patent attorneys from Australia and New Zealand can practice across borders to prosecute patents in both countries. This agreement is very beneficial for both Australia and New Zealand, which have a combined total of less than five hundred (500) patent attorneys, yet serve a combined population of approximately 28 million people.[1][2] Practitioners registered in both countries must be aware of the filing deadlines for both countries. For example, the filing of a national phase application that stems from an international application is thirty-one months for both countries. However, this is not the case for every country to the Convention. For this reason, it is important for patent attorneys licensed in both countries understand the differences between the laws. For example, Australian patent applications are not examined automatically.[3] The applicant’s patent practitioner must file a request for examination within two (2) months of receiving the notice from the Australian Patent Office. And at the time of examination, the applicant must provide details, such as any assignment or employment that derives the rights in the patent. Oppositely and similar to the United States, New Zealand patent applications are examined in due course simply by filing and waiting in line at the New Zealand patent office.[4] Yet another difference, New Zealand requires that divisional patent applications are filed before the parent application is accepted, whereas Australia allows 3 months from the acceptance of the parent application to file. Approximately half of all Australian and New Zealand patent attorneys are registered to prosecute patents in both countries.[5] Accordingly, it is important to vet your patent attorney to make sure they understand some of the differences [...]

By | 2014-07-02T15:34:52+00:00 July 2nd, 2014|Patents, Uncategorized|Comments Off on Trans-Tasman Patent Attorney Regime
Read More

Trademark Attorney Review of Great Lakes Transportation v. Yellow Cab of Florida

Trademark Attorney Review of Great Lakes Transportation v. Yellow Cab of Florida In a case for trademark infringement, attorneys’ fees and costs can be awarded for exceptional trademark cases.  However, it is important to recognize the difference between a trademark infringement case versus a contract dispute between two former partners for the use of a trademarked name.   This is why it is vital to hire an experienced trademark attorney that understands the nuances of trademark law.  Too many attorneys claim to practice trademark law when in fact these attorneys have no real experience in trademark law.  In this case, the dispute over whether trademark law applies cost the plaintiff a significant amount of attorneys fees.  In fact, the case overall generated 351 separate docket entries which likely required a substantial amount of attorney's fees. Background The dispute arose over the use of METRO CARS and METRO CARSFL where there was allegedly a written agreement that provided a license for the trademarks.  The agreement provided that termination of the agreement required discontinued use of the METRO CARSFL.  It appears that the trademark argument was that because discontinuation should have occurred, the case shifts to trademark infringement.  However, a seasoned trademark attorney would likely recognize that this is a breach of contract.  This also highlights the importance of a carefully drafted contract that specifies what happens at the termination of the agreement.  It is important to note that the Defendant proffered evidence supporting the argument that a license agreement never existed. Exceptional Cases The Lanham Act allows the court to award attorney’s fees to the prevailing party in exceptional cases.  However, “exceptional” is not otherwise defined by the Act.  In some cases, the courts have held that [...]

By | 2017-05-18T18:53:17+00:00 February 21st, 2014|Trademarks|Comments Off on Trademark Attorney Review of Great Lakes Transportation v. Yellow Cab of Florida
Read More

Patent Attorney Review of Pride Family Brands v. Carl’s Patio

Patent Attorney Review of Pride Family Brands v. Carl’s Patio The issue of novelty may not garner much attention with the patent office during the application phase, but that all changes during litigation when opposing patent attorneys seek to invalidate your patent rights. One of the main requirements for obtaining patent rights is novelty, which states that: […]

By | 2017-05-18T18:53:17+00:00 February 10th, 2014|Patents|Comments Off on Patent Attorney Review of Pride Family Brands v. Carl’s Patio
Read More

Slip & Fall Attorney Review of Ramsey v. Home Depot

Slip & Fall Attorney Review of Ramsey v. Home Depot Virtually everyone has visited a business and said “somebody is going to get hurt” from a dangerous condition.  Diving a little deeper, you may have wondered whether the owner would be liable if somebody actually becomes injured.  Your slip & fall attorney will first determine whether the danger is concealed or open and obvious.  If the danger is concealed, then the business owner has a duty to warn the public of the hidden danger, but only if the business itself knew or should have known of the concealed danger.  Alternatively, a business can be held liable for injuries that result from a failure to use ordinary care to maintain its premises in a reasonably safe condition. Open and Obvious Hazard In Florida, while a business owes a duty to maintain their premises in a reasonably safe condition, there is no duty to warn against an open and obvious condition which is not inherently dangerous.[fusion_builder_container hundred_percent="yes" overflow="visible"][fusion_builder_row][fusion_builder_column type="1_1" background_position="left top" background_color="" border_size="" border_color="" border_style="solid" spacing="yes" background_image="" background_repeat="no-repeat" padding="" margin_top="0px" margin_bottom="0px" class="" id="" animation_type="" animation_speed="0.3" animation_direction="left" hide_on_mobile="no" center_content="no" min_height="none"][1]  However, liability is always apportioned according to fault.  Thus, even when the danger is open and obvious, an injured party may still argue whether the condition was dangerous and whether the owner or occupier of the land should have anticipated that the dangerous condition would cause injury, despite that the danger was open and obvious.[2] Facts In the instant case, Gudrun Ramsey was shopping at Home Depot.  After shopping, she returned to the parking lot and tripped on a wheel stop that is common place in many parking lots.  Ramsey sued home depot for negligence claiming that home [...]

By | 2017-05-18T18:53:17+00:00 February 7th, 2014|Slip & Fall|Comments Off on Slip & Fall Attorney Review of Ramsey v. Home Depot
Read More