|
IP AND business Law Offices of
Howard L. Hoffenberg, Esq.
(Since 1999)
|
Hoffenberg in front of LA Office
|
LOS ANGELES
10940
Wilshire Blvd.
Suite 1600
Los
Angeles, CA 90024
310-670-5825
|
Hoffenberg in
front of PD Office
|
RIVERSIDE
74-710
Highway 111
Suite 102
Palm
Desert, CA
92260
760-347-3470
|
Tomorrows
Finest TodayRSM
|
GUIDES
PUBLICATIONS
|
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.
|
Front page of
article thumbnail
|
|
Domain Names:
H. Hoffenberg, Trademark Use in Domain Names, Los Angeles and
San Francisco Daily Journal, (July 21, 2010)
|
Front page of
article thumbnail
|
|
Copyright Infringement: Fair Use Carve Out to
Infringement published in the Los Angeles Lawyer (2016)
|
Front page of
article thumbnail
|
|
Injunction
Contempt: Hoffenberg, Howard, Federal Circuit Revamps the Law on Contempt
of an Injunction Prohibiting Patent Infringement, IP Today (June 2011)
|
Front page of
article thumbnail
|
|
Intellectual Property: H. Hoffenberg, Pointers
on Trying Intellectual Property Cases, New Matter (Official Publication
of the State Bar of California Intellectual Property Section)
|
Front page of
article thumbnail
|
|
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.
|
Front page of
article thumbnail
|
|
Patents: H
Hoffenberg, Federal Circuit Rules Affirmative on the Patentability of
Diagnostic Methods After Bilski, IP Today (February, 2011)
|
Front page of
article thumbnail
|
|
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.
|
Front page of
article thumbnail
|
|
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.
|
Front page of
article thumbnail
|
|
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.
|
Front page of
article thumbnail
|
|
Patents: The Lancing Blow to Patent Infringement
Litigation in the ED Texas (published on social media)
|
Front page of
article thumbnail
|
|
Hoffenberg,
Howard, Federal Circuit … [on] … Divided Patent Infringement, Daily
Journal Los Angeles, vol. vvv, No. nnn (January 2, 2020) p. ppp
|
The article pertained to the decision
of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in Syngenta Crop
Prot., LLC v. Willowood, LLC, 2019 U.S. App. LEXIS 37411 (Dec.
18, 2019). Typically, patent infringement is prosecuted under 35 USC
Section 271(a). In an issue of first impression, the Syngenta
court held that patent infringement prosecuted as a violation of 35 USC
Section 271(g) was applicable to both imported and domestic goods, that
Section 271(g) focused upon a product made by a process (i.e., not the process) and accordingly, divided infringement was
inapplicable. Hence, an end run around the obstacle of divided patent
infringement.
|
|
|
|
A Trademarks: A Primer on What Incontestability
is Good For, Eligibility and How to Get It (published on
social media)
|
Front page of
article thumbnail
|
|
Trademarks: H.
Hoffenberg, Victorias Secret Wins Trademark Anti-Dilution Case, Daily
Journal Los Angeles, vol. 123, No. 105 (June 2, 2010) p. 5
|
Front page of
article thumbnail
|
|
Trademarks: Howard Hoffenberg, Cost Conscious
Procedures for Challenging a Competitors Trademark Registration or Patent
|
Front page of
article thumbnail
|
|
|
|
