Gallagher & Dawsey Co., LPA
is a unique intellectual property law firm whose practice includes intellectual property counseling
and services to businesses and individual inventors, as well as other law firms, regarding patent,
trademark, copyright, and trade secret issues.
Our experienced patent attorneys and trademark attorneys provide various intellectual property
legal services such as patent searches, patent applications, trademark searches, trademark applications,
copyright applications, infringement advice/opinions, and infringement litigation.
Complete our Request Form to receive one of our Free Brochures regarding protecting your intellectual property, or simply relax and receive an intellectual property education by watching the videos in our Online I.P. Video Library.
In today's information based society, the value of patents, trademarks, and copyrights has never
been higher. Contact one of our patent lawyers or trademark lawyers to learn more about protecting
your inventions, brands, and creative works.
The U.S. patent and trademark attorneys of Gallagher & Dawsey Co. LPA serve clients around the
world from our Midwest offices. Our patent and trademark law firm has offices in Columbus, Dayton,
and Cincinnati, Ohio.
|
 Eolas Technologies’ Interactive Internet Claims Don’t Hold Water. In Eolas Technologies Inc. v. Adobe Systems Inc., Eolas was seeking approximately $600 million dollars for infringing the Eolas patents. Some of the companies included in the lawsuit as defendants were Adobe Systems, Amazon, CDW Corp., Google, JC Penney, Staples Inc., Yahoo, and YouTube. Eolas asserted that their patents (USPN 5,838,906 and USPN 7,599,985) covered the interactive aspects of online video, streaming music, image manipulation, and various search features. Unfortunately for Eolas, expert witness Tim Berners-Lee, who is credited for inventing the World Wide Web, presented prior art that predated the Eolas patent applications resulting in a jury finding the patents invalid.
Supreme Court Rules that Foreign Works can be Re-Copyrighted. In Golan v. Holder, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that Congress did not exceed it’s authority by enacting legislation that removed lapsed foreign works from the public domain. Normally, when a work lapses into the public domain anyone is free to use the work without having to pay for the use. In 1994, in order to bring the United States in line with the Berne Convention, the U.S. Congress passed legislation that re-copyrighted foreign works whose copyright had lapsed in the United States but remained protected abroad. Prior to the passage of the legislation, millions of foreign works had lapsed into the public domain. The plaintiff in Golan claimed that the removal of works from the public domain infringed upon the rights of free speech. Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg gave the opinion of the Court, stating "[n]either congressional practice nor our decisions treat the public domain, in any and all cases, as untouchable by copyright legislation. The First Amendment likewise provides no exceptional solicitude for works in the public domain." The Court declared that the harm caused by removing foreign works from the public domain was less important than the act of re-copyrighting foreign works to align U.S. copyright law with the Berne Convention.
American Invents Act Changes False Patent Marking Rules. The recently passed American Invents Act (AIA) has implemented many changes to the practice of patent law. One of these changes affects the enforcement and penalties associated with producing a product labeled with an expired, invalid or inapplicable patent. Prior to the passage of the AIA, a party that discovered an article marked with an expired, invalid or inapplicable patent could bring suit against the responsible marker and split the statutory penalty with the government. Under the old law, false marking was subject to a penalty of $500 “for every such offense.” Under the newly passed AIA, individuals can no longer bring suit against a company for falsely marking a product unless they suffered direct competitive injury as a result of the false marking. Further, a company that has suffered a direct competitive injury can only recover “actual damages,” which are generally difficult to prove. Additionally, prior to the AIA passage, marking a product with an expired patent number was a violation of patent law subject to a penalty. Now, the law no longer penalizes a manufacturer for failing to remove expired patent numbers from their products. Therefore, the new law has effectively eliminated the era of false marking vigilantes.
Much More Already in Effect, with More to Come, in the America Invents Act. The AIA has changed, or will change, many long established laws and procedures in patent prosecution. Some of these include:
- Effective now, a Small Entity can pay $2,400 ($4,800 for large entities) for expedited examination; with a patent office goal of wire to wire prosecution within 12 months. In the larger picture of the costs of patenting, this may represent a good value for many applicants.
- Effective September 2012, for the first time, third parties will have an effective way to bring prior art to the attention of Examiners; potentially giving these third parties the means to block competitors’ applications.
- Effective March, 2013, there will be a wide broadening of the definition of “prior art,” that will make more foreign sources count as patent-disqualifying prior art.
- Also effective March, 2013, the United States will switch from being a “first to invent” to a “first to file” county, to conform to general world practice. This will greatly change the rules on who is entitled to a patent, and may greatly change traditional practices regarding Provisional Patent Applications and early filing.
Of course, the AIA is much more complex than can be expressed here. Please check with us anytime, and over the course of the next eighteen months, as we see how these changes will affect inventors everywhere.
Stop Online Piracy Act (SOPA) and the War Between the Technology and Entertainment Industries. On October 28, 1998, the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) was added to title 17 of the U.S. Code governing copyright. The purpose of the DMCA was to modify copyright law to cover loop holes in the law caused by the advancement of technology, such as the internet. Under the DMCA, internet service providers are provided a safe haven against liability for copyright infringement by their users, but must comply with a take down notice from a copyright holder.
Unfortunately for the entertainment industry, policing the internet for infringing material is costly and time consuming. As such, the entertainment industry has been lobbying Congress to pass the Stop Online Piracy Act (SOPA), which would allow an online service provider’s entire domain of to be seized and shut down for infringing material uploaded by a user. Thereby, shifting the responsibility of policing for copyrighted works to the internet service provider.
In contrast, the technology industry is lobbying against the passage of SOPA. The enactment of SOPA would impose drastic changes on online service providers, and will cause some to shut down. For instance, as SOPA is currently written, the YouTube domain could be seized and shut down if a user posts an unauthorized work. Furthermore, leaders in the technology industry claim that SOPA has the potential of drastically changing the internet as we know it, which will affect search engines, websites, forums, and blogs.
Copyright Holding Company Righthaven LLC Ordered to Pay $120,000 in Attorney Fees and Court Costs. According the U.S. District Court of Nevada in Righthaven v. Thomas DiBiase, copyright holding company Righthaven LLC tried to shake down and force Thomas DiBiase into a settlement. Thomas DiBiase was running a website that aided in missing body murder cases, and used information found in a story in the Las Vegas Review-Journal. Righthaven claimed ownership of the copyrighted material and threatened to sue DiBiase. Unfortunately for Righthaven, DiBiase decided to not to settle and put up a fight. At trial, DiBiase claimed that the use of the material from the Las Vegas Review-Journal fell under the fair use exemption because the website was non-profit in nature and aided law enforcement. Interesting enough, the judge did not rule on the fair use claims but rather dismissed the case for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. It turns out that Righthaven never owned the copyrights that they claimed ownership in, and did not have a right to seize DiBiase’s website. Furthermore, the judge ruled that Righthaven violated Civil Procedure Rule 11(b) by filing a frivolous lawsuit without merit. As a result, Righthaven was ordered to pay all fees requested by DiBiase, a sum total of approximately $120,000.
“Exceptional” Case Finding Requires Patent Holding Company Plaintiff to Reimburse Defense Costs: In Eon-Net LP v. Flagstar Bancorp (Fed. Cir. 2011), Eon-Net, a patent holding company, sued Flagstar, claiming that Flagstar violated Eon-Net’s patent. Flagstar’s website gave customers the option of applying for a loan online, while Eon-Net’s patent claimed an "information processing system for inputting information from a document or file on a computer into at least one application program . . .," and specified the limitation "hard copy" over a hundred times. Because Flagstar’s paper-free website was clearly outside of the boundaries of Eon-Net’s patent claims, the court issued a summary judgment for defendant and awarded costs and misconduct sanctions against Eon-Net’s counsel and his law firm. The court found that the lawsuit was sufficiently "exceptional" under 35 U.S.C. § 285 to reject the usual rule that each side pays its own legal expenses, and to justify reimbursement for the defendants for their unwarranted expenses. The court, subsequently upheld on appeal, ordered Eon-Net to pay Flagstar $631,134 in defense expenses and misconduct sanctions against Eon-Net’s lawyers. The Court, faulting Eon-Net’s lack of pre-suit investigation and failure to specify any plausible infringement, reminds patent holders of the need for a careful analysis of allegedly infringing products and the necessity of pleading at least a basically well-documented case of infringement.
Federal Circuit Nixes Software Claims: In CyberSource Corp. v. Retail Decisions, Inc. (Fed. Cir. 2011), the Federal Circuit affirmed the district court’s grant of summary judgment of invalidity of claims 2 and 3 of U.S. Patent No. 6,029,154 (the ‘154 patent). The ‘154 patent disclosed a method and system for detecting fraud in a credit card transaction between a consumer and a merchant over the Internet. The Federal Circuit found that the claimed method could be performed entirely mentally, and thus was unpatentable under 35 USC 101. Moreover, the Federal Circuit further found that if a method is capable of being performed entirely mentally, it is not made patentable by claiming the method embodied as program instructions on a computer readable medium.
Narrowing Amendment Bars Infringement by Doctrine of Equivalents: In Duramed Parmaceuticals (Teva Women's Health) v. Paddock Labs. (Fed. Cir. 2011), the Federal Circuit found that a narrowing amendment made during prosecution of the patent at issue prevented the application of the doctrine of equivalents. In this case, Duramed filed a patent application that claimed a conjugated estrogen pharmaceutical composition "coated with a moisture barrier coating." During prosecution, Duramed amended the claims to recite that the composition was coated with "a moisture barrier coating comprising ethylcellulose." Later, Paddock filed an ANDA for a generic version of Duramed's hormone replacement therapy product, and Duramed sued alleging infringement of its product under the doctrine of equivalents because Paddock used polyvinyl alcohol (PVA) as the moisture barrier coating (MBC). Several pre-amendment references discussed the use of PVA-based MBCs. Ultimately, Duramed could not show that PVA was an unforeseeable alternative to ethylcellulose as an MBC, and thus, the narrowing amendment prevented the application of the doctrine of equivalents.
|
On February 2, 2012 patent attorney Michael Gallagher was present at the TechColumbus Innovation Awards ceremony and witnessed our client Celartia, and their Chief Scientific Officer Dr. Emilio Barbera-Guillem, win the "outstanding product" award for companies with less than 250 employees. Click here or here to view some of the patents covering their inventions. Congratulations Celartia!
This month, the team of patent prosecution lawyers at Gallagher and Dawsey Co. LPA have added new content to the Interesting Patents section of the website. These inventions could have come out of a science fiction movie! The new content includes an early "Space Suit" patent that issued in 1968; a patent directed to "Space Living Quarters Having Artificial Gravity Environment;" and a patent for a "Space Vehicle Propelled By The Pressure Of Inflationary Vacuum State."
We did it! Founded in 2002, Gallagher & Dawsey is pleased to celebrate 10 years of protecting, enforcing, and defending our clients' IP rights.
This month the IP lawyers at Gallagher & Dawsey have added new, pet related content to the “Patents for Your Pets” section of our "Interesting Patents" page.
First, we have the "Bird Trap and Cat Feeder" patent. This invention was meant to kill two birds with one stone: reduce the sparrow population, and keep the neighborhood cats well fed. Next, we have the "Apparatus for Determining Dog's Emotions by Vocal Analysis of Barking Sounds and Method for the Same" patent. This invention claims to determine the emotions of a dog by analyzing barking sounds. In the event this invention doesn't let you know when your dog is feeling frustrated, we have the "Flush Toilet for a Dog" patent. Now your dog can take over your bathroom as well as your couch.
On December 30th patent lawyer David J. Dawsey had the pleasure of being a guest on the nationally syndicated The Small Business Advocate® radio program with Jim Blasingame to discuss The America Invents Act and the implications for small businesses. Click here to listen.
The Columbus patent law firm of Gallagher and Dawsey has added new content to the Weird and Wacky Patents section of the Interesting Patents page. The theme this month is "there’s a patent for that?!" First, we've added the patent issued to a young inventor named Steven Olson for a "Method of Swinging on a Swing." Next is a "Sock and Shoe" patent that prevents annoying sock movement. Finally, we’ve added the 1977 patent directed to a "Method for Concealing Partial Baldness.” Yes, the comb-over was patented!
Our Ohio copyright lawyers have added yet another new article to the IP Newsletter Archive of over 80 intellectual property articles. The new article, Public Performance of Copyrighted Material, explains.
Gallagher & Dawsey Co. LPA is pleased to announce the launch of version 2.0 of our PatentMarvel website. In the past four years PatentMarvel has become a popular free online patent tool for U.S. patent lawyers and inventors to create free clean PDF copies of U.S. patents and published applications. Version 2.0 takes several steps forward and includes numerous tools developed by our intellectual property lawyers to ease the lives of US patent attorneys, inventors, and intellectual property owners. It includes a Patent Term Calculator, a Patent Claim Chart Generator, and a Patent Claim Tree Generator. Additionally, a unique toolbar appears at the top of the screen while a user is viewing a PDF that allows the user to quickly search the assignment records and view the maintenance payments via the bibliographic records link. We invite you to spend some time on the site and click on the various tools; you may be surprised by what you find. Enjoy.
This month, the Ohio patent lawyers at Gallagher and Dawsey have added content to the Historic Patents page that may bring back some fond Christmas morning memories. First, we’ve added a patent issued to C.H Pajeau in 1940. "Toy Construction Blocks”, also known as Tinkertoys, are showing up under Christmas trees to this day. Next, we’ve added the 1966 patent for “Toy Boxers”, better known as Rock ‘em Sock ‘em Robots. Finally, we’ve added the 1971 patent directed to a “Toy Building Set”. These well known building blocks, which some may refer to as LEGO’s, are still popular with kids of all ages.
This month the intellectual property attorneys at Gallagher and Dawsey Co. LPA have added new music related content to our Interesting Patents page. In our “Historic Patents” section, we’ve added a patent issued to G.D. Beauchamp in 1937. This Electrical Stringed Musical Instrument patent was one of the first patents issued for an electric guitar. We have also uncovered a patent directed to a musical pitchfork titled Stringed Musical Instrument. Finally, in the “Weird and Wacky Patents” section, we’ve added a 2007 patent covering an 11-string instrument referred to as the Tarpin, which would challenge even the most accomplished musician.
It’s October and here in Ohio the ghouls and goblins will be trick-or-treating soon. This year, be the hero of your block when, instead of candy, you share your encyclopedic knowledge of interesting patents. To assist you with this endeavor, the Ohio patent lawyers at Gallagher and Dawsey have added creepy new content to their Interesting Patents page. First up, it’s a Broken Heart Shaped Coffin that recently issued to an Ohio inventor. Next, in our Historic Patents section, we have a 1921 patent for the Ouija Board. Last, but not least, in the Wacky Patents section, it’s the Life Expectancy Timepiece patent. "A timepiece for monitoring and displaying the approximate time left in a user’s life."
On August 31st IP attorney David J. Dawsey had the pleasure of being a guest on the nationally syndicated The Small Business Advocate® radio program with Jim Blasingame to discuss signs that a small business may be loafing from an intellectual property strategy point of view. Click here to listen.
Its fall and the cold weather months are right around the corner in Ohio. To give summer a great sendoff, our central Ohio patent attorneys have updated the interesting patent page with inventions that help you get outside and enjoy the last days of summer. First, in preparation for your Labor Day BBQ, check out our Historic Patents page where you will find the design patent for "lumps of Fuel", better known as charcoal briquettes. Additionally, to learn how to keep your BBQ free of snakes by using garlic visit our Weird and Wacky Patents page to read a patent titled "Snake Repellant System", which uses garlic to repel snakes. Lastly, check out a patent titled “Self Containing Enclosure for Protection from Killer Bees to learn how to protect your party from swarms of bees.
Fall is right around the corner and classes will be back in session. To acknowledge this annual event, our IP law firm has added new, school related content to the Interesting Patents page of the website. First, in our "Ohio Inventors" section, we have added a patent covering a "System for Automated Translation of Speech". Next, in the "Weird and Wacky Patents" section, we have added a patent directed to a patent titled "Treadmill Foot-Control for Electronic Gauging of Classroom Satisfaction," an invention that all teachers would love! Finally, in the "Historic Patents" section we have added a patent directed to a 1950's era multiple choice test taking system titled the "Classroom Communicator".
Patent attorney David Dawsey was recently quoted in The Wall Street Journal's article "Golf's Perennial Question" regarding golf technology and patents.
The IP law firm of Gallagher & Dawsey Co. LPA has added new extreme sports patent content to the Weird and Wacky Patents section of our Interesting Patents page. First, we have added a "Levitationarium For Air Flotation Of Humans" patent covering an invention patented in 1984 by Canadian inventor Jean St-Germain directed to a means of human air flotation. Second, we have added the famous "Body Connected Bike" patent. Granted to Justin W. Trenary in 2004, this invention allows the rider to experience biking from a new perspective.
Patent lawyer David J. Dawsey was recently interviewed (5/26/2011) on the nationally syndicated The Small Business Advocate® radio program with Jim Blasingame on the subject of "IP Considerations When Launching a New Product." Click here to listen.
The Ohio intellectual property lawyers at Gallagher & Dawsey Co. LPA have added new content to our Weird and Wacky page to highlight the beginning of summer and inventive ways to keep cool. We all know that eating an ice cream cone can be a daunting task, having to keep turning the cone before your hand is covered in melting ice cream. In 1999, Rick Harrison was awarded his "Motorized Ice Cream Cone" patent, virtually eliminating this chore. Additionally, brothers Joshua and Noah Wien liked cooling off on a Slip 'N Slide®, but didn't like the bruises and cuts they got from the rough terrain under the toy. In 1996, the teenagers were awarded their "Aquatic Safety Slide and Wading Pool" patent, cushioning the ride of those sliding on their invention.
Intellectual property lawyer Michael J. Gallagher will present the "IP Litigation" portion of an intellectual property seminar on "Intellectual Property Basics" at the Ohio State Bar Association's CLE in Columbus, on June 1, 2011 and in Cleveland on June 8, 2011. Michael will speak on the subjects of "defending your intellectual property, IP enforcement, and aggressively managing IP portfolios." Click HERE for more information.
Our patent lawyers have added new content to our Historic Patents page to spotlight, an inspiring patent holder. We probably have all used earmuffs when it is cold outside. What isn't widely known about earmuffs is that they were invented by a teenager. In 1877, Chester Greenwood was awarded his "Ear-Mufflers" patent, commonly known as the Ear Protector. His extremely popular invention came in any color you wanted, as long as it was black.
On April 28, 2011 patent lawyer Michael J. Gallagher presented on the subject of "Introduction to Copyright, Trademark and Other IP Law” at the Law Review CLE in Columbus, Ohio. Click HERE for more information.
This month, our Ohio patent attorneys have added new content to our Historic Patents page that gives new meaning to the phrases "accident is the name of the greatest of all inventors," and "necessity is the mother of all invention." First we pay tribute to recently deceased Dr. Harry Coover. In 1942 he invented, quite by accident, an incredibly stable adhesive. In 1956 he was awarded the "Alcohol-Catalyzed Cyanoacrylate Adhesive Composition" patent, better known as Super Glue. Additionally, Melinda and Brad Shepard grew tired of their toddler spilling his snacks everywhere and came up with the idea to make a spill proof container for snacks. In 2007 Brad Shepard was granted his "Spill-Proof Container" patent, which became commonly known as The Gyro Bowl.
Patent attorney David J. Dawsey was recently interviewed (2/25/2011) on the nationally syndicated The Small Business Advocate® radio program with Jim Blasingame on the subject of "The Decline in Patent Activity by US Small Businesses and IP Goals of Developing Countries." Click here to listen.
To celebrate the month of March, our Ohio intellectual property attorneys have added new content to our Famous Inventors' Patents and Historic Patents page. This month we are going back in history to significant events that occurred in the month of March and a couple of patents that were issued as a result of these events. On March 14, 1879, Albert Einstein was born. Although most commonly known as the father of modern physics, he also was granted several patents including in 1936 the "Light Intensity Self Adjusting Camera" patent. Additionally, on March 18, 1965, Soviet Air Force pilot Alexey Leonov took the first walk in Space, touching off the 'race for space.' Two months later, Paul Fisher filed his patent application and in 1966 was granted his "Anti Gravity Pen" patent, commonly known as The Space Pen or Astronaut Pen.
Our Ohio patent lawyers have added yet another new article to the IP Newsletter Archive of over 80 patent and trademark articles. The new article, Understanding the Type of Patent Opinion You Need, explains the differences between patentability, freedom to operate, and infringement opinions.
To celebrate the month of romance, our Ohio intellectual property attorneys have added new content to our Historic Patents page. This month we are highlighting patents that may cause your heart to skip a beat or may give you an idea of how to celebrate the day of love, otherwise known as St. Valentine's Day. Roses have always been a symbol of romance and love. Appropriately, in 1931 Henry F. Bosenberg was issued the first plant patent by the USPTO for his "Climbing or Trailing Rose" patent. Additionally, to keep both your and your Valentine's hands and hearts warm while walking along on a winter's day, in 1952 Mark Neider was granted a patent on the "Glove or Mitten Construction" invention, allowing sweethearts to hold hands inside a single glove. On the other hand, for those wanting to pop the question, Roni Rydlewicz was issued in 2008 his "Heart Shaped Diamond or Similar Article" patent for his sentimental design.
|
