323-660-9916 info@tsircoulaw.com

Patent Procurement

At Tsircou Intellectual Property Law, we lead clients through the process of securing patent rights in the United States and throughout the world.

We work with clients who have a broad array of goals for their patents. Patents are a powerful business tool. With a strong patent one can fend off competitors from critical technologies or products, build business value and monetize investments in research and through a royalty program. With a vast understanding of our clients’ ever changing needs, we construct a patenting strategy to align with their business objectives.

Within the firm, we build and execute a process for identifying innovations, securing patent rights for those innovations and developing a patent portfolio that best protects our clients.

Representative services relating to patents procurement include:

  • U.S. and foreign patent application preparation and prosecution
  • Representation before the Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences, of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office
  • Patent portfolio development and maintenance

Related News


Apple v. Samsung: Latest Developments in ongoing Litigation

We reflect on the U.S. Federal Circuit Court of Appeals ruling in favor of Apple on September 17, 2015, regarding a permanent injunction that would bar Samsung from making, using, selling, developing, advertising, or importing into the United States any software or code capable of implementing features in Samsung’s products which infringe Apple’s patents.

“Your Assignment, Should You Choose to Enforce It”: New case law on IP assignment contracts obligates employers to diligently protect their legal rights

The United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, which hears all appeals involving patent law complaints, recently decided Personalized User Model, LLP, and Konig v. Google, Inc., case 14-1841/15-1022 (Fed. Cir., Aug. 18, 2015), which focused on an employment agreement for the assignment of intellectual property rights. This decision handed down important new guidelines for employers to take when dealing with enforcing assignments of employee’s IP

February 2015 News

In Ericsson, Inc., et al v. D-Link Systems Inc., et al, No. 2013-1625, -1631, -1632, 1633, a case relating to Wi-fi technology, the Texas federal judge upheld a 2013 jury verdict that found that D-Link Systems, Netgear Inc., and five other companies infringed three Ericsson patents and rejected defendants’ request for a new trial. More specifically, the Federal Circuit held that for “standard essential patents” (“SEPs”), which are patents that cover specific technology that a certain industry standard requires such that complaint devices necessarily infringe certain claims in the patent, many of the standard Georgia-Pacific factors, which are factors used to determine reasonable royalties, do not apply to cases involving SEPs. We also reflect on the Alice Corporation Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank International, et al., 134 S. Ct. 2347 (2014) decision, which has now confirmed that what used to be a much laxer § 101 subject matter gatekeeper has transformed into a relentless business method patent-barring nightmare for many. The Supreme Court held that transforming a long-known method of reducing risk in financial trading to be implemented by a computer does not overcome a §101 subject matter rejection. Although the ruling provided some guidance in terms of how computerrelated patents should be written to avoid an Alice rejection, most practitioners and industry experts are unsatisfied with the “we’ll know it when we see it” attitude that seems to be spreading throughout the lower court holdings. Additionally, we discuss a recent case from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, e.Digital Corp v. Futurewei Techs., Inc., et al, No. 3:13-cv00783,No. 2014-1019, -1242, -1243 (Fed. Cir. Nov. 19,...

October 2014 News

Elon Musk’s Space Exploration Technologies, Corp. (SpaceX) is challenging a patent on which Jeffrey Bezos, CEO of Amazon.com, is a named inventor. SpaceX has initiated an inter partes review stating that the patent belonging to Blue Origins is invalid for obviousness. The documents SpaceX cites in its petition address similar systems and technologies that relate very closely to the technology covered by the invention. We also reflect on the past Supreme Court term, during which the Supreme Court decided an unprecedented amount of intellectual property cases. This not only demonstrates the increasing importance of intellectual property to the nation’s economy, but also the importance of evolving the law to meet our changing technological landscape. Additionally, we discuss the USPTO’s release of a new examination guide, “Service Mark Specimens.” In the article, we explain what specimens are, the different types of specimens, and what kind of trademark applications require them. In addition, we explain how the new USPTO guide should help to clear up confusion regarding service mark specimens and help applicants avoid delays and overcome specimen refusal in use-based trademark applications. Finally, we discuss how USPTO Post-Grant Proceedings work and their potential to change how patents are challenged. These administrative proceedings, created by the America Invents Act in 2011, are cheaper and more expeditious alternatives to litigation which theoretically make it easier for patentees to strengthen their patents and competitors to challenge them. Elon Musk v. Jeff Bezos: SpaceX Challenges Reusable Rocket Patent Elon Musk’s SpaceX is challenging a patent on which Jeffrey Bezos, CEO of Amazon.com, is a named inventor. SpaceX has initiated an inter partes review stating...