BSKB’s intellectual property attorneys write articles on important and timely topics in intellectual property law across a variety of industries. You’ll find the latest articles and industry insights here.

  • May 23, 2013

    IP Update, Vol. 11, No. 2

    by Marc S. Weiner, Nicholas P. Godici, Cynthia Leonard, and Eugene T. Perez. | BSKB

    The USPTO has modified the After Final Consideration Pilot Program (AFCP) to create (AFCP 2.0). The goal is to reduce the number of RCEs filed and increase collaboration between the applicant and the examiner. To participate, the application must contain an outstanding final rejection and be an original filed utility, plant, design, international or continuing application. Reissue or reexamination applications are not eligible. The pilot runs from May 19, 2013 until September 30, 2013 and may be further extended.

  • January 22, 2013

    Descriptive Trademarks Offer Narrow Scope of Protection

    by Michael T. Smith | Inside Counsel

    The use of descriptive marks often sparks disagreement between corporate marketing and legal departments

  • January 8, 2013

    Consumer Reviews May be Protected by Anti-SLAPP Laws

    by Michael T.Smith | Inside Counsel

    Anti-SLAPP laws should serve to further give a potential plaintiff pause when considering a civil action for negative online reviews and comments

  • December 25, 2012

    Having Facebook Fans Doesn’t Count as Business Expectancy

    by Michael T. Smith | Inside Counsel

    Facebook can take down your company’s page if another party complains of infringement

  • November 27, 2012

    Effective Terms of Use Agreements

    by Michael T. Smith | Inside Counsel

  • October 30, 2020

    3D Printing and Patent Law

    by David A. Bilodeau |

    Many people have access to a 3D printer. Thus, conceivably, a person could illegally print (make) a patented object using a 3D printer. Let’s consider the following real life scenario that occurred in Italy during the peak of the coronavirus epidemic in the Spring of 2020.

  • May 29, 2020

    Double Patenting: Expiry Dates Hold the Key

    by MaryAnne Armstrong, Ph.D. | LSIPR

    The April 22, 2014 decision in Gilead Sciences, Inc v Natco Pharma Inc (Gilead) emphasises that obviousness-type double patenting (ODP) is a concern not just during the examination of a patent before the US Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) but is a viable basis for invalidating an issued patent despite the presumption of validity that a patent has under 35 USC §282. In the case, Gilead owned two patents: the ‘483 and the ‘375. After being sued for infringement of the ‘483 patent, Natco asserted that the claims of the ‘483 patent were invalid for ODP as being obvious given the claims of the ‘375 patent.

Contact Us