Weintraub Firm

Subscribe to Weintraub Firm's Posts

Many growing businesses face the problem of having ideas that will give them a leg up on the competition or new products that will revolutionize their industries but lack the financial or intellectual resources to, without the assistance of partners, bring those ideas to fruition or to bring the products to market. Even more established businesses often find it necessary to supplement their own internal resources with ideas and products from other businesses. These are situations in which confidentiality agreements become an important means of intellectual property protection for such businesses.
Continue Reading Do’s and Dont’s of Confidentialty Agreements

By Adam Jones

How many of you have ever cleaned out your garage, dusted the cobwebs off of old ski boots, exercise equipment and children’s toys that have been outgrown or forgotten, and put all the stuff that you don’t use anymore in front of your house for a weekend garage sale? Or maybe, when you could really use some extra cash, you decided that you were finally willing to part with your commemorative Star Trek shot glass collection and listed it for sale on ebay, hoping it would trigger a ferocious bidding war between a few obsessed Trekkies around the world. Auctions, whether held online or in your front yard, have long been a great way for buyers and sellers to come together and exchange goods for mutual benefit. If auctions are a great way to sell your old junk, can they work for the sale of less tangible assets like intellectual property?
Continue Reading Looking to Sell Your Patent Portfolio? Put it on Ebay

By Julie Garcia

Indemnification is generally a subject that is important, yet easily overlooked during business transaction negotiations. Although the scope and purpose of the indemnification can take on many different appearances, the underlying theme always remains the same, who will be held liable in the event that a problem arises. Once the parameters of the indemnification are established between the parties, there are a number of logistical details that should be considered which may prove to be important in the event indemnification is sought at a future time by one of the parties. Companies that own or license intellectual property generally focus on the scope of the indemnification, which may include infringement and ownership issues. The process by which one party may assert a right for indemnification and the process by which any defense will be conducted should be carefully considered by the parties and incorporated into the agreement between the parties.
Continue Reading The Ins and Outs of Indemnification

By Audrey Millemann

In an interesting decision in the biotechnology area, the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit recently held that certain nucleic acid sequences had no utility and were not enabled. In re Fisher (Fed. Cir., September 7, 2005).

The owner of the patent at issue is the biotechnology giant, The Monsanto Company. The patent application claimed five purified nucleic acid sequences known as expressed sequence tags (ESTs) that encode certain proteins in maize plants. Although the inventors identified the ESTs, they did not know the function of the genes or the proteins. The application described several uses for the ESTs, including gene mapping in maize, providing primers to use in polymerase chain reaction processes to duplicate genes, determining the presence of polymorphisms, isolating promoters, controlling gene expression, and locating genes in other plants.

The examiner rejected the claim under 35 U.S.C. ��101 on the grounds the ESTs had no specific and substantial utility. The examiner found that the uses described by Monsanto were not specific as they were no different from the uses of any EST, and were not substantial as the proteins encoded by the ESTs had no identifiable function. The examiner also rejected the claim on the grounds that it was not enabled under 35 U.S.C. ��112, first paragraph, finding that the application could not teach how to use the ESTs because they had no specific and substantial utility.
Continue Reading How Useful is Useful

By Scott Hervey

Canada has made a fundamental change in its Trade-mark Examination practice. It had been a longstanding practice in the Canadian Intellectual Property Office (the governmental body responsible for reregistering trade-marks) of determining the priority of applications based on the earliest of the following: the date of first use or making known in Canada, the date of filing in Canada, or the date of filing of the Paris Convention priority application. The legitimacy of assessing priority in this regard was challenged and overturned by the Federal Court of Appeals in May of this year in Attorney General of Canada v. Effigi (2005 FCA 172).
Continue Reading Canada Adopts The First To File System For Trade-marks