About the Principal








Legal Services that are an Investment in Your FutureRSM

IP AND business Law Offices of

Howard L. Hoffenberg, Esq.

(Since 1999)




10940 Wilshire Blvd.

Suite 1600

Los Angeles, CA 90024






74-710 Highway 111

Suite 102

Palm Desert, CA





Tomorrows Finest TodayRSM



Responding to an Office Action in a Patent Case, Part I

Examination Practice in a Patent Case, Part II

A Tour of US Supreme Court patent cases from 1961 to 1999




Computer Implemented Business Method Patent Eligibility: H. Hoffenberg, Patent Eligibility Computerized Business Methods, IP Today, AUG 2012.pdf

EDITORS NOTE: The US Supreme Court built on the Federal Circuit decision discussed in the article; however, the article is still good reading to get an historical perspective of the law.


Domain Names: H. Hoffenberg, Trademark Use in Domain Names, Los Angeles and San Francisco Daily Journal, (July 21, 2010)

Copyright Infringement: Fair Use Carve Out to Infringement published in the Los Angeles Lawyer (2016)




Injunction Contempt: Hoffenberg, Howard, Federal Circuit Revamps the Law on Contempt of an Injunction Prohibiting Patent Infringement, IP Today (June 2011)

Intellectual Property: H. Hoffenberg, Pointers on Trying Intellectual Property Cases, New Matter (Official Publication of the State Bar of California Intellectual Property Section)

Insurance Coverage: H. Hoffenberg, Bypassing An Insurance Exclusion For Trademark Infringement, Los Angeles and San Francisco Daily Journal (January 6, 2010)


EDITORS NOTE: This article could provide insights to certain defendants in getting insurance coverage.


Patents: H Hoffenberg, Federal Circuit Rules Affirmative on the Patentability of Diagnostic Methods After Bilski, IP Today (February, 2011)


Patents: H. Hoffenberg, Will the patentability of genes survive, Nature Biotechnology, Nature Publishing Group (September, 2010)

EDITORS NOTE: The US Supreme Court has issued its decision on the topic, so as the court of last resort in Australia issues its decision on the topic and the law around the world is not uniform. Further, law is always in flux and even the US Supreme Court can revisit an issue and change its pronouncement of the law. The article is still a worthwhile read.


Patents: H. Hoffenberg, Public Empowered to Claim False Marking, Daily Journal Los Angeles, vol. 123, No. 8 (January 8, 2010) p. 6

EDITORS NOTE: Congress changed the statute; however, the article is still a good read to get an historical perspective on the law.


Patents: H. Hoffenberg, The Federal Circuit Strikes Again in EnzoBiochem: The Latest on the Written Description Requirement for Valid BioTech Patents, IP Today, vol. 9, No. 6 (June, 2002) p. 6 (Decision reversed; nonetheless, the article is still instructive)

EDITORS NOTE: On October 5, 2017, the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit made its latest pronouncement on the requirements for claiming in a patent a genus in a case styled Amgen v. Sanofi. More particular, the Amgen court addressed claiming a genus of monoclonal antibodies. This latest decision revives written description law from Enzo Biochem I and makes the foregoing article a valuable read, bearing in mind that in Enzo Biochem II the court held that depositing a sample of a monoclonal antibody with a repository could satisfy the written description requirement for that species of antibody.

Patents: The Lancing Blow to Patent Infringement Litigation in the ED Texas (published on social media)


A Trademarks: A Primer on What Incontestability is Good For, Eligibility and How to Get It (published on social media)

Trademarks: H. Hoffenberg, Victorias Secret Wins Trademark Anti-Dilution Case, Daily Journal Los Angeles, vol. 123, No. 105 (June 2, 2010) p. 5


Trademarks: Howard Hoffenberg, Cost Conscious Procedures for Challenging a Competitors Trademark Registration or Patent


Copyright 2019 IP and Business Law Offices of Howard L. Hoffenberg, Esq.

All Rights Reserved.