Contributor Page
Brooks Kushman
Email  |  Website  |  Articles
Contact Details
Tel: +1 248 358-4400
Fax: +1 248 358-3351
1000 Town Center
22nd Floor
Michigan MI 48075
United States
By Sangeeta G. Shah, John Rondini
On January 12, 2108, the U.S. Supreme Court agreed to hear an appeal addressing whether a patent owner proving infringement under 35 U.S.C. § 271(f) is entitled to damages suffered outside the United States...
By Andrew Turner, John Rondini
The PTAB recently designated two decisions as informative that concern the time bar to filing an inter partes review (IPR).
By Andrew Turner
In an en banc decision, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit ruled that the appeals court may review the Patent Trial and Appeal Board's determination, in connection with a decision to institute...
By Hope Shovein
Earlier this year, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that the Lanham Act's prohibition on the registration of disparaging trademarks was unconstitutional. Matal v. Tam, 137 S.Ct. 1744 (2017).
By John E. Nemazi, Michael S Brodbine, Sangeeta G. Shah
United States Patent and Trademark Office has published final rules increasing certain fees relating to patent examination and post grant proceedings...
By David Berry, Sangeeta G. Shah
The USPTO Patent Trial and Appeal Board recently designated three decisions as "informative" under the Board's procedures. Informative decisions are not binding authority ...
By John E. Nemazi, Rachel Smith
The USPTO Patent Trial and Appeal Board announced that it will continue to reject claims as indefinite under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) when they contain words or phrases whose meaning is "unclear," ...
By Sangeeta G. Shah, John Rondini
On October 4, 2017, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit issued an en banc decision rejecting certain procedures adopted by the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB or Board)...
By Sangeeta G. Shah
In re Cray Inc., No. 2017-129 (Sept. 21, 2017). Under the court's ruling, the presence of a remote employee working from home in the district generally would not be sufficient to establish venue.
By Sangeeta G. Shah, Michael N MacCallum
A familiar strategy in inter partes ("IPR") review proceedings under the America Invents Act ("AIA") is for petitioners to file multiple petitions challenging claims in an issued patent...
By Bernard Tomsa, Isaac Slutsky
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit reversed a district court ruling dismissing a patent infringement action on the ground that the asserted claims were not patent-eligible under Alice Corp. Pty...
By Thomas Lewry
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit has held that an applicant for patent who pursues an appeal to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia under 35 U.S.C. §145 must pay the USPTO's legal fees in defending the appeal...
By David Berry
On June 12, 2017, in its final patent-related decision of the October 2016 term, the U.S. Supreme Court issued a unanimous decision interpreting two disputed provisions in the Biologics Price Competition and Innovation Act of 2009, 42 U.S.C. § 262(l).
By Mark A. Cantor, Elizabeth Janda
The U.S. Supreme Court has held that a portion of Section 2(a) of the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. §1052(a), is unconstitutional as a violation of the First Amendment's protection of free speech.
By Alan Gocha
The Digital Millennium Copyright Act ("DMCA") grants Internet service providers and intermediaries (collectively "ISPs") a series of safe harbors that limit secondary liability for copyright infringement.