Harness Dickey

Harness Dickey’s team of trademark and patent attorneys serve clients in all areas of intellectual property law, including patents, trademarks, IP litigation, PTAB Proceedings, trade secrets, due diligence investigations, and global IP management.

In response to Detroit’s growing automotive industry, J. King Harness established Harness Dickey in 1921. Serving as the head of the patent department for the Ford Motor Company, Harness understood the value of expertise in intellectual property and set out to open a firm that would focus exclusively on intellectual property law.

Today, we are one of the top IP law firms in the U.S. measured by both the number of attorneys and by objective rankings of results. Our trademark and patent attorneys represent world leaders in business and technology, and our collective experience spans practically every practice area and niche specialty within intellectual property law.

Harness Dickey Blogs

Latest from Harness Dickey

15 USC 1115(b)(4) provides that the use of a registered term is not trademark infringement if it is used “otherwise than as a mark” (meaning it is not made to look like the registered trademark or any registered trademark) and it is descriptive of, and used fairly and in good faith, to describe your goods or services. The Northern District of California in Freelancer International Pty. Ltd. v. Upwork Global, Inc. [20-cv-06132-SI], recently provided some…
In a crowded market like the pet food market, it is important for companies to distinguish themselves from the competition. The following topics provide a broad overview of crucial IP areas where pet food manufacturers will want to focus. Trademark Management There are only so many ways a company can say “pet food.” To differentiate all of the different pet foods between all of the different brands, consumers look to company names, logos, and packaging…
In Apple Inc. v. VOIP-PAL.com, Inc., [2018-1456, 2018-1457] (September 25, 2020), the Federal Circuit affirmed the PTAB’s determination that claims of U.S. Patent No. 8,542,815 and 9,179,005 were not invalid for obviousness. The Federal Circuit also affirmed the PTAB’s imposition of sanctions against VOIP-PAL. The ‘815 and ‘005 patents describe the field of invention as “voice over IP communications and methods and apparatus for routing and billing” and relate to routing communications between two different…
In Network-1 Technologies, Inc. v. Hewlett-Packard Co., [2018-2338, 2018-2339, 2018-2395, 2018-2396] (September 24, 2020), the Federal Circuit affirmed-in-part and reversed-in-part the district court’s claim construction and remanded; vacated the district court’s JMOL on validity and remanded; and affirmed the district court’s decision with respect to improper claim broadening. U.S. Patent No. 6,218,930, titled “Apparatus and Method for Remotely Powering Access Equipment over a 10/100 Switched Ethernet Network,” discloses an apparatus and methods for allowing…
In Facebook, Inc. v. Windy City Innovations, LLC, [2018-1400, 2018-1401, 2018-1402, 2018-1403, 2018-1537, 2018-1540, 2018-1541] (September 4, 2020), the Federal Circuit affirmed-in-part, vacated-in-part, and remanded the Board’s final written decisions on the ’245 and ’657 patents in IPR2016-01156 and IPR2016-01159, affirmed the Board’s final written decision on the ’552 patent in IPR2016-01158, and affirmed-in-part the Board’s final written decision on the ’356 patent in IPR2016-01157; and dismissed as moot Facebook’s appeal of the Board’s…
Hot N’ Sweet Concepts, LLC sued Nextbite Brands, LLC, in the Western District of Oklahoma for infringing its MOTHER CLUCKER trademark. In addition to the inexplicable popularity of MOTHER CLUCKER as a name for a restaurant, this case potentially has another important lesson for trademark practitioners. Among other things, Hot N’ Sweet Concepts is asserting a U.S. Reg. No. 5,288,452 on MOTHER CLUCKERS that Hot N’s Sweet acquired from Pass Restaurant Group, LLC after Hot N’…
In Egenera, Inc. v. Cisco Systems, Inc., [2019-2015, 2019-2387] (August 28, 2020), the Federal Circuit affirmed the district court’s claim construction but vacated the invalidity judgment of U.S. Patent No. 7,231,430, based on judicial estoppel, and remanded for further proceedings. Prior to claim construction, during an Inter Partes Review proceeding, Egenera separately petitioned the USPTO to remove one of the eleven listed inventors from the ’430 patent (the presence of the inventor prevented Egenera…
In Neville v. Foundation Constructors, Inc., [2020-1132] (August 27, 2020), the Federal Circuit affirmed summary judgment of the asserted claims of U.S. Patent Nos. 7,914,236 and 9,284,708 relating to foundation piles. The parties disputed the construction of two claim limitations relating to the “end plate,” which separate the claims at issue into two groups. The first set of claims require an “end plate having a substantially flat surface disposed perpendicular to the centerline of…
In Baxalta Inc. v. Genentech, Inc., [2019-1527] (August 27, 2020), the Federal Circuit vacated the district court’s judgment of non-infringement of the asserted claims of U.S. Patent No. 7,033,590 because the district court erred in construing the terms “antibody” and “antibody fragment,” and remanded. Generally, antibodies are Y-shaped structures comprising two heavy chains (H chains) and two light chains (L chains). Baxalta argued “antibody” should be construed as a molecule having a specific amino…