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

In Quiktrip West, Inc., v. Weigel Stores, Inc.,[2020-1304] (January 7, 2021), the Federal Circuit affirmed the dismissal of Quiktrip’s opposition to registration of Weigel’s W WEIGEL’S KITCHEN NOW OPEN: in view of QuikTrip’s QT KITCHENS mark: The Board evaluated the likelihood of confusion between the marks by referencing the factors set forth in In re E. I. DuPont de Nemours & Co. It first found that the parties’ identical-in-part goods and related services, overlapping trade channels,…
In Simo Holdings Inc. v. Hong Kong Ucloudlink Network Technology Ltd., [2019-2411] (January 5, 2021) the Federal Circuit reversed the district court’s final judgment of $8,230,654 for infringement of claim 8 of U.S. Patent No. 9,736,689, on apparatuses and methods that allow individuals to reduce roaming charges on cellular networks, rejecting the district court’s claim construction. At issue was whether claim 8 required a a “non-local calls database.” The Federal Circuit noted that the…
In ABS Global, Inc. v. Cytonome/St, LLC, [2019-2051] (January 6, 2021), the Federal Circuit dismissed the appeal of a PTAB decision in an Inter Partes Review, sustaining the patentability of certain claims of U.S. Patent No. 8,529,161, finding that it was unlikely that the ‘161 patent would be asserted against the petitioner in the future. Two weeks after the Board’s final written decision, the district court granted in part ABS’s motion for summary judgment, concluding that…
In Simio, LLC, v. Flexsim Software Products, Inc., [2020-1171] (December 29, 2020), the Federal Circuit affirmed the dismissal of Simio’s action for infringement of U.S. Patent No. 8,156,468, System and Method for Creating Intelligent Simulation Objects Using Graphical Process Descriptions, as well as the denial of Simio’s motion for leave to amend its Complaint. The district court found that: the claims are directed to “the decades-old computer programming practice of substituting text[-]based coding with…
In General Electric Company v. Raytheon Technologies Corporation, [2019-1319] (December 23, 2020), the Federal Circuit vacated the Board’s decision finding Raytheon Technologies Corporation’s U.S. Patent No. 8,695,920 on a gas turbine engine not unpatentable for obviousness, and remanded the case for further consideration because the Board lacked substantial evidence for its conclusions. The Board found that prior art disclosed all of the elements of the claimed invention, but then found that by expressly considering…
Can patents be renewed? U.S. patents issue for fixed terms and generally cannot be renewed. A U.S. utility patent has a term of 20 years from its earliest effective, non-provisional U.S. filing date. The term may be extended by the USPTO for Patent Office delays in examining the application, and for certain delays in the FDA regulatory process. Conversely, the term can also be shortened if the applicant uses certain disclaimers during prosecution. Maintenance fees…
In Sionyx, LLC, v. Hamamatsu Photonics KK, [2019-2359, 2020-1217] (December 7, 2020), the Federal Circuit affirmed the district court’s judgment on the following points: Hamamatsu breached its Non-Disclosure Agreement with SiOnyx. Hamamatsu willfully infringed U.S. Patent 8,080,467. SiOnyx is entitled to $796,469 in damages and $1,091,481 of pre-judgment interest for breach of the NDA. SiOnyx is entitled to $580,640 in damages and $660,536 of pre-judgment interest for unjust enrichment. SiOnyx is entitled to post-judgment…
In Vidstream LLC v. Twitter, Inc., [2019-1734, 2019-1735] (November 25, 2020) the Federals Circuit affirmed the PTAB determination that claims 1-35 of U.S. Patent No. 9,083,997 on Recording and Publishing Content on Social Media Websites were invalid for obviousness. The issue on appeal was whether a book authored by Anselm Bradford and Paul Haine is prior art against the ‘997 Patent. The Federal Circuit said whether a document is prior art under 35 U.S.C. §…
In Vectura Limited v. Glaxosmithkline LLC, [2020-1054] (November 19, 2020), the Federal Circuit affirmed the district court determination that U.S. Patent No. 8,303,991, directed to the production of “composite active particles” for use in pulmonary administration, was not invalid and was infringed. The jury awarded $89,712,069 in damages, and after unsuccessful motions for JMOL and a new trial, Glaxosmithkline appealed. The construction of two claim terms were relevant to the appeal. First, the court construed…
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…