los angeles patent attorney Archives

REMEDIES FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT

Remedies for Patent Infringement

Coming to the realization that an unauthorized user has infringed on your intellectual property is an absolute punch in the gut. After all the work and expense, one has put into developing, registering, and marketing your patent, it can be extremely frustrating to watch someone else making money off your idea.

As a patent holder, you have legal options to protect your IP. Here are some remedies you can pursue when you discover someone is infringing your rights.

Cease-and-desist Letters

The first step in many infringement situations is to have your patent attorney send a cease-and-desist letter to the person or company that’s infringing your mark.

There are two types of cease-and-desist letters. The first simply tells the infringing party to stop doing what they’re doing, or to “knock it off.” Often, this letter can be enough to scare the infringer and stop the infringement.

Patent attorneys also often send cease-and-desist letters demanding a settlement from the infringer. In exchange for receiving a settlement, the patent holder would agree not to file a patent infringement lawsuit.

Injunctions

If a cease-and-desist letter is not enough to stop the infringing activity, the next step to stop the infringement is initiating patent litigation. When a complaint is filed alleging patent infringement, they often ask the court for a temporary injunction at the outset of the case. If the judge grants the temporary injunction, the defendant must stop their infringing actions while the case is being litigated.

If a plaintiff is successful in court, part of the case disposition may include a permanent injunction. This would prevent the defendant from infringing the plaintiff’s patent again in the future.

Monetary Awards

In addition to an injunction, plaintiffs can win monetary awards in patent litigation. Patent holders can win a few different types of awards in court. The first type is “reasonable royalties,” which would be equivalent to what someone would pay to license the patent. The second type of monetary award is “lost profits.” This is the amount of money the plaintiff would have earned, but for the defendant’s infringement of the patent.

In some cases, courts will also award reasonable attorney fees to the prevailing party in patent infringement cases, if the facts of the case are “exceptional.”

Have Questions About How to Protect Your Patent? Contact the Highly Reputable Patent Lawyer in Los Angeles

If you have a patent that you suspect is being infringed, or you want to ensure proper protection, the Omni Legal Group is here to help. Omni Legal Group is a premier Patent, Trademark, and Copyright law firm located in Los Angeles. For further information or to schedule a consultation please contact Omni Legal Group at 855.433.2226 or visit www.OmniLegalGroup.com to learn more.

The Interplay between Patents and Trade Secrets for Utilizing Artificial Intelligence

When it comes to effectively protecting valuable technology and products based on artificial intelligence (“AI”), it is important to understand the complex interplay between patent law and trade secret law. There are advantages and potential pitfalls related to both patents and trade secret law. For example, trade secret law can offer protection where patent law does not, and vice versa.

The Challenge is Securing an AI-based Patent

It is commonly said that an invention is only as valuable as the patent that protects the invention. However, this old adage becomes moot if you are unable to secure a patent. When it comes to inventors seeking a patent for a product that utilizes AI technology, the hurdles are quite challenging to overcome in the journey to obtain a USPTO-approved patent.

The difficulties associated with securing a patent for a product predicated on AI goes to the heart of the legal definition for a patent. For example, according to 35 U.S.C. § 101, a patentable subject matter is “any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof.”

The difficulty associated with AI technology and a patent application is that many patent examiners with the USPTO often consider this type of technology to be more of abstract ideas. In an effort to address this issue, the USPTO established multiple categories to refine the definition, but the overarching theme amongst the categories set forth by the USPTO is that if a human mind can accomplish the task, then it is likely an abstract idea.

Trade Secret Law

If an inventor of an AI product or technology is rebuffed by USPTO when applying for a patent, it may be worthwhile to review relevant trade secret laws. Why? Because the protections afforded to trade secrets were bolstered by the enactment of the Defend Trade Secrets Act (DTSA). This federal law was passed in 2016 and contains an array of features focused on reinvigorating what had become a set of stale and ineffective laws that were not very effective in protecting trade secrets.

According to the DTSA, specifically 18 U.S.C. § 1839(3)(B), a secret only needs to have “actual or potential” value derived from the secrecy to be deemed a trade secret for a business. As a result, a trade secret can now cover a plethora of potential subjects, as long as the trade secret meets this new legal standard.

**Navigating the Patent Application Process is Not Easy. Take Action by Contacting an Experienced Patent Attorney in Los Angeles Today**

Securing a patent for an invention is extremely important. Nevertheless, the patent application process is complex and can be intimidating to navigate. This is where Omni Legal Group comes in. Whether you are looking for a provisional patent, non-provisional patent, design patent, utility patent, or plant patent application, you can always count on the professionals at Omni Legal Group to give you and your invention the care and attention it deserves. Omni Legal Group is a premier Patent, Trademark, and Copyright law firm located in Los Angeles. For further information or to schedule a consultation please contact Omni Legal Group at 855.433.2226 or visit www.OmniLegalGroup.com to learn more.

The Federal Government Can Be Held Liable for Patent Infringement

If you have ever asked yourself, “can the U.S. government be held liable in a civil action for patent infringement?” Here is the answer – Yes. This is because the federal government has effectively waived sovereign immunity when it comes to civil claims alleging patent infringement. As a result, the federal government can be the named defendant in a civil action alleging patent infringement, in certain circumstances.

Legal Basis to File a Civil Action against the Government

The legal basis to file a civil lawsuit against the U.S. government for patent infringement is 28 U.S.C. § 1498. This federal statute states that whenever an invention is protected by a registered patent and is used or manufactured by or for the United States without license of the patent owner, then the patent owner is afforded a civil remedy by filing a civil action against the federal government in the United States Court of Federal Claims. A civil claim can demand recovery of reasonable compensatory damages associated with the government’s use and manufacture of a patent-protected product.

Court of Federal Claims Maintains Jurisdiction over Patent Infringement

If a patent owner is looking to file a patent infringement lawsuit against the federal government, it is important to understand that you cannot simply file a lawsuit in any federal court. The civil action must be filed specifically within the U.S. Court of Federal Claims. Why? Because this is a unique court established to adjudicate civil claims based upon “the Constitution, federal statutes, executive regulations, or contracts, express or implied in fact, with the United States.”

Exception for Federal Contractors

There is an important exception you need to be aware of if you are looking to file a civil action against the federal government for patent infringement. The exception is that a patent owner is prohibited from suing a federal contractor who produced the allegedly infringing product or performed the allegedly infringing method. Instead, any civil action must be filed against the federal government. Though, it is worth noting that the federal government’s contract with the allegedly infringing contractor may require the contractor to indemnify the government for liability and costs associated with the litigation.

**Have Questions About Securing a Patent or Protecting Your Current Patent? Take Action by Contacting a Patent Attorney in Los Angeles Today**

If you have a registered patent that you suspect is being infringed, whether by a private competitor or federal government, one of the most important things you can do is take proactive steps to assess your legal options and determine what can be done to protect your patent. Thus, it is in your best interest to retain the services of a reputable patent in attorney Los Angeles such as the lawyers at Omni Legal Group. Omni Legal Group is a premier Patent, Trademark, and Copyright law firm located in Los Angeles. For further information or to schedule a consultation please contact Omni Legal Group at 855.433.2226 or visit www.OmniLegalGroup.com to learn more.

Filing an Information Disclosure Statement (IDS)

When filing a patent application, you have a legal obligation to disclose all information known to you that is material to the “patentability” of your device, product, idea, etc. These disclosures must be formally conveyed to the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) in accordance with 35 C.F.R. §1.56. You may be asking, “what exactly constitutes material information for my patent application?” Well, the governing standard is that any information that a reasonable patent application examiner would consider important in assessing whether to grant the application is deemed to be material. It is also important to understand that this disclosure duty is ongoing from the moment you file the application all the way to the issuance of the U.S. Patent.

Limitation of Disclosure Requirement

It is worth noting that the disclosure requirement set forth in 35 C.F.R. §1.56 only obligates an applicant to disclose material information that is “actually known” to the applicant and does not require a search to be conducted. This is an important, and necessary, limitation since the USPTO wants to avoid disclosures that are based purely on conjecture or speculation.

Satisfying the Duty to Disclose

The duty of disclosure is satisfied when you submit an Information Disclosure Statement (IDS) to the USPTO listing relevant patents, patent applications, and other published documents or information. Depending on the nature of the disclosure, a copy of the document may also need to be provided to the USPTO.

Ramifications Associated with Failing to Disclose Material Information

The ramifications from failing to comply with the duty of disclose can be quite severe. For example, if it is determined that you willfully failed to provide material information to the USPTO, it can result in a later ruling of “unequitable conduct” that ultimately renders your issued patent unenforceable. If that was not bad enough, when there is evidence of willful failure to disclose, it exposes you to being sued for damages in federal court.

Supplemental Examination

If you are applying for a patent or currently own a patent and, at some point, you discover material information that should have been disclosed to the USPTO, you can request a “supplemental examination” which affords the opportunity to consider, reconsider, or correct information believed to be relevant to the patent. The ability to request a supplemental examination is available at any point during the period of enforceability for the patent.

There are various benefits associated with a request for supplemental examination. Once your supplemental examination materials are filed with the USPTO, a review will be undertaken, and you will usually get a response from the federal agency within three months. The response will typically come in the form of a certificate indicating whether the information you provided raises a “substantial new question of patentability.” If that is the case, an ex parte, re-examination of the patent will be required. If not, the request ends there. Another benefit associated with a request for supplemental examination is that a patent cannot be deemed unenforceable based solely on information that was considered, reconsidered, or corrected during a supplemental examination, so you can have a level of confidence during this process that you will not, sua sponte, lose your patent protections.

**Contact an Experienced Patent Attorney in Los Angeles Today**

As you can see, the process of applying for a patent is complex, time-intensive, and involves an array of different rules and regulations. Hence, it is in your best interest to retain the services of a patent in attorney Los Angeles such as the highly reputable professionals at Omni Legal Group. Omni Legal Group is a premier Patent, Trademark, and Copyright law firm located in Los Angeles. For further information or to schedule a consultation please contact Omni Legal Group at 855.433.2226 or visit www.OmniLegalGroup.com to learn more.

Different Types of Patent Searches

When an individual or business is looking to apply for a patent, they are usually surprised to discover the array of options that need to be analyzed in order to conduct a proper patent search. The reason there are multiple patent search options is because the scope of the search will be determined by the overarching reason for the search.

Generally, there are four types of patent searches that can be conducted:

Novelty (patentability) search
Freedom to Operate (FTO) search
Non-infringement search; and
Validity search

Let’s take a look at each…

Novelty Search

The most common type of patent search is the novelty search. Why? Because this type of search is initiated to help determine the likelihood of successfully getting a patent application through the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO). Most startup companies engage in a novelty search to help assess whether a particular invention is actually patentable and worth the time and money to pursue a patent with the USPTO. Another benefit is that a novelty search routinely provides valuable information to inventors. For example, it can provide context and insight into other businesses competing in the same sector.

To complete a novelty search, you will need to clearly identify the invention and itemize each element and key aspect that you believe makes your invention novel and unique. Once this is done, a comprehensive search can be conducted through the USPTO database for patents and publications, Google, and other databases to assess whether any aspect of your invention has already been patented or would be considered “obvious” to the point where filing a patent application would not be worth the time, money, and energy.

Freedom to Operate Search

A Freedom to Operate (FTO) search (also known as a Clearance search), helps determine whether it would be prudent to commercialize a particular product in light of current products that have enforceable patent rights. The FTO search would determine whether you have the freedom to operate and commercialize an invention without a major risk of getting sued for patent infringement. If, for example, a Freedom to Operate search locates information that indicates a risk of patent litigation, you can assess whether to abandon the commercialization of the proposed invention, engage in a redesign, or possibly reach out to the owner of the patent and negotiate a licensing agreement.

Non-infringement Search

A non-infringement search, much like a Freedom to Operate search, is generally pursued to help determine if a proposed invention could infringe on an already-active patent. However, this search is unique in that it focuses on a specific patent, or set of patents, that have been previously identified as relevant to your invention. Engaging in a non-infringement search is generally recommended when a new product, process, or technology is created but is known to be similar to an existing patented product, process, or technology. This is especially true when there are known and recognized competitors with enforceable patent rights.

Validity Search

The validity search is considered to be the rarest form of patent searches. It is typically only pursued in the context of patent litigation where a defendant, or potential defendant, in a patent infringement lawsuit is seeking information that could be used to invalidate a particular patent thereby nullifying that patent owner’s legal rights.

Need Help with Conducting a Proper Patent Search? Contact an Experienced and Respected Patent Attorney in Los Angeles Today

As noted above, there is an inherent level of complexity associated with even attempting a patent search. To help ensure the search is done correctly and thoroughly, contact the highly reputable patent attorneys at Omni Legal Group. Omni Legal Group is a premier Patent, Trademark, and Copyright law firm located in Los Angeles. For further information or to schedule a consultation please contact Omni Legal Group at 855.433.2226 or visit www.OmniLegalGroup.com to learn more.

los angeles patent attorney

Tag: los angeles patent attorney