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

Matthew Sean Tucker

Home/Matthew Sean Tucker

About Matthew Sean Tucker

Matthew Sean Tucker is an Attorney practicing with a particular focus on patents, trademarks and personal injury, including car accidents, slip & falls, and dog bites, and other acts of negligence. Matthew holds a B.S. in Electrical Engineering from the University of Central Florida. Furthermore, Matthew received his J.D. at the University Of Baltimore School Of Law with a dual concentration in intellectual property law and business law. He is also a member of the Florida Bar, and an inventor of several patent pending inventions.
Google+

Personal Injury Jury Instructions

PERSONAL INJURY JURY INSTRUCTIONS When considering how much to demand for a personal injury, your accident attorney will review the amount of damage that you have incurred, and will continue to incur in the future. Medical bills, lost wages, and future medical bills are examples of the types of damage that is recoverable. Insurance adjusters are not considering the types of instructions levied to the Jury, but attorneys should when contemplating the types of compensation that will or could be awarded. § 501.1 Personal Injury and Property Damages When it is proven during a trial that Defendant is liable for the accident, the Court instructs the Jury write on the verdict form, in dollars, the total amount of loss, injury, or damage which the greater weight of the evidence shows will fairly and adequately compensate him or her for the loss, injury, or damage, including any damages that he or she is reasonably certain to […]

By | 2017-05-18T18:53:16+00:00 August 6th, 2014|Car Accident, Civil Litigation, Personal Injury, Slip & Fall|Comments Off on Personal Injury Jury Instructions
Read More

Accident Attorney Review of State Farm v. Curran

New Uninsured Motorist Opinion from the Florida Supreme Court Turning to the Florida Supreme Court, our attention is brought to a case involving uninsured motorist policies and compulsory medical examinations (“EUOs”). The question before the Court was: [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"][fusion_tagline_box backgroundcolor="" shadow="yes" shadowopacity="1" border="1px" bordercolor="" highlightposition="left" content_alignment="left" link="" linktarget="_self" button_size="small" button_shape="square" button_type="flat" buttoncolor="" button="" title="" description="WHEN AN INSURED BREACHES A COMPULSORY MEDICAL EXAMINATION PROVISION IN AN UNINSURED MOTORIST CONTRACT, DOES THE INSURED FORFEIT BENEFITS UNDER THE CONTRACT WITHOUT REGARD TO PREJUDICE? IF PREJUDICE MUST BE CONSIDERED, WHO BEARS THE BURDEN OF PLEADING AND PROVING THAT ISSUE?" animation_type="0" animation_direction="down" animation_speed="0.1" class="" id=""][/fusion_tagline_box]The Supreme Court answered in the negative for the first part of the issue presented. For the second part of the question, the Court held that the insurer pleading the affirmative defense has the burden of pleading and proving prejudice. The facts go as follows. The Insured held a $100K underinsured motorist policy with State Farm Automobile Insurance Company to cover for personal injury and car accidents. Due to estimated damages at $3.5 million, it should come as no surprise that the insured requested the entire $100K. Because it reached the Supreme Court of Florida, it should be immediately clear that State Farm did not tender the policy limits. Instead, State Farm attempted to set a compulsory medical examination (CME) with a doctor that the insured also attempted to schedule an appointment with. For unclear reasons, the policy holder ultimately declined to attend the CME and simply filed a lawsuit. The trial court in the Fifth District reviewed a summary judgment request that argued [...]

By | 2017-05-18T18:53:16+00:00 August 5th, 2014|Car Accident, NEWS|Comments Off on Accident Attorney Review of State Farm v. Curran
Read More

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