Logo

 

Home

Mission

About the Principal

Services

Testimonials

Key

Links

BENEFITs/ROI

Publications

FIND US and SITE MAP

Legal Services that are an Investment in Your FutureRSM

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

HLHinFrontOfOfficeClose-up

Hoffenberg in front of PD Office

 

RIVERSIDE

74-710 Highway 111

Suite 102

Palm Desert, CA

92260

760-347-3470

 

Tomorrows Finest TodayRSM

 

GUIDES

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

Front page of article thumbnail

Examination Practice in a Patent Case, Part II

Front page of article thumbnail

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

 

Front page of article thumbnail

 

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

 

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

All Rights Reserved.

USER AGREEMENT and PRIVACY POLICY