Winstead attorneys Frank Amini, Ph.D. and Lekha Gopalakrishnan, Ph.D.  will present a webinar on the topic of protecting trade secrets.

Watch On-Demand Webinar

Trade secrets can be an institution’s most valuable and prolonged assets. However, maintaining trade secrets in an institution can be challenging because trade secret protection requires the implementation of proactive and consistent safeguarding measures. The implementation of such safeguarding measures can be particularly challenging if an institution has multiple employees, departments, offices, or collaborators. Additionally, the rise of remote working environments during the COVID-19 pandemic has further escalated these challenges. Furthermore, determining whether or not trade secret protection is appropriate for a particular invention can be complex, especially if various aspects of the invention must be published or disclosed to regulatory agencies.


Continue Reading ON-DEMAND WEBINAR | Protecting Your Valuable Assets: How To Effectively Identify, Select And Maintain Your Institution’s Trade Secrets

In an effort to support ongoing research and development efforts related to treatments and diagnostic tools for COVID-19, the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”) has announced a prioritized examination pilot program (“the Pilot Program”) directed specifically to patent applications claiming products or processes related to COVID-19.[1]  Under the Pilot Program, the USPTO will advance out of turn certain patent applications relating to COVID-19.[2]  Additionally, certain fees normally associated with prioritized examination, will be waived.[3]  Table 1 provides a summary of the requirements to participate in the Pilot Program.

Continue Reading USPTO Introduces Prioritized Examination Pilot Program for Patent Applications Related to COVID-19

Regardless of the June 23, 2016 vote on Brexit, all owners of European patents, and all applicants seeking patents in Europe, will have both new options, and a new set of important decisions to make.  Most commentators anticipate that the Unitary Patents (UPs) and the Unified Patent Court (UPC) will come into effect and patentees

Patent Marking

Under the patent marking statute, 35 U.S.C. § 287(a),  notice can be actual, or  constructive notice. Actual notice occurs when the alleged infringer is directly informed that its product infringes the patent. Constructive notice can be achieved by affixing a product with the word “patent” or abbreviation “pat.” along with the patent number.

On June 19, 2014, the U.S. Supreme Court issued a unanimous decision in Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank Int’l (Alice)[1].  In Alice, the Court held that several patents that pertained to a computerized platform for eliminating risk in conducting financial transactions between two parties were ineligible for patenting under 35 U.S.C. §101[2]

On June 19, 2014, the U.S. Supreme Court issued a unanimous decision in Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank Int’l (Alice)[i].  In Alice, the Court held that several patents that pertained to a computerized platform for eliminating risk in conducting financial transactions between two parties were ineligible for patenting under 35 U.S.C. §101[ii]

Forwarded by Robert Shaddox from the article of the same title. U.S. Patent & Trademark Office (08/26/14)

The U.S. Patent and Trademark Office announced that it will host seven roadshow events across the country to increase public understanding of the First Inventor to File (FITF) provisions of the America Invents Act. The roadshow events, which

 Cyber-attacks on U.S. companies have increased over recent years resulting in significant costs to companies.  According to surveys, U.S. companies have experienced a 42% increase between 2011 and 2012 in the number of cyber-attacks they experienced per week[1] and the average annualized cost of cyber-attacks for various U.S. companies surveyed in 2013 was $11.56

On June 19, 2014, the U.S. Supreme Court issued a unanimous decision in Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank Int’l (Alice)[i].  In Alice, the Court held that several computer-implemented patents were not eligible for patenting under 35 U.S.C. §101 because they were drawn to nothing more than an abstract idea[ii].  In response

In a recent guest post on the Patently-O blog by Dennis Crouch, http://patentlyo.com/, William Mann, an assistant professor of finance at the Anderson School of Management, UCLA, notes the explosion in USPTO filings that record a creditor’s security interest in a patent.  Secured debt can be a significant source of financing for many technology