Harness Dickey Blog

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.

Latest from Harness Dickey Blog

In a recent IPWatchdog panel discussion, Harness Dickey’s new CEO Ray Millien posited that the only obstacle to autonomous cars is software. Given the present state of §101 jurisprudence, however, “once someone solves that problem, it’s an abstract idea.” Considering the technologies §101 is currently holding back, and imagining the technologies §101 will hold back if this problem is not corrected, patent lawyers of the future might one day read something like this: In In…
I’m a fan of podcasts. Knowing this, a friend recently directed me to a podcast from a well-known marketing guru who was giving advice about intellectual property, and patents in particular, during one of his episodes. My friend was curious to know if I agreed with this podcast host. I listened and, after hearing the host’s general misunderstanding of the intellectual property system in the United States, I thought it would be a good idea…
Willie Wonka famously said that invention is 93% perspiration, 6% electricity, 4% evaporation, and 2% butterscotch ripple. South Africa and Australia have removed the “perspiration” requirement allowing AI to be named the inventor on a patent. (South African issued Patent No. 2021/03242 earlier this year on an AI invention; and in August 2021, and an Australian Judge ruled in Thaler v. Commissioner of Patents, VID 108 of 2021, that the same AI invention qualified for patent…
In Piano Factory Group, Inc. v. Schiedmayer Celesta GmbH, [2020-1196] (September 1, 2021), the Federal Circuit affirmed the TTAB’s cancellation of Piano Factory’s registration on Schiedmayer for falsely suggesting a connection with Schiedmayer in violation of Section 2(a). A false association claim under section 2(a) of the Lanham Act is similar in some respects to a likelihood of confusion claim under section 2(d) of the Act, although the statutory protection against a false suggestion…
If your company designs and manufactures unique consumer products, then you likely already know about patents. You might even have a utility patent for one or more of your products. But you may not know about design patents. Utility Patents vs. Design Patents Utility patents focus on what makes your product tick, meaning the functional or useful aspects of your product. What does the product do and how is it used? Think of function and use…
In Campbell Soup Company v. Gamon Plus, Inc., [2020-2344, 2021-1019] (August 19, 2021), the Federal Circuit reversed the PTAB determination that U.S. Design Patent Nos. D612,646 and D621,645 would not have been obvious. The ’646 and ’645 patents, which each claim “[t]he ornamental design for a gravity feed dispenser display, as shown and described. The ‘646 patent has one figure: U.S. Patent No. D612646, Fig. 1 Most of the features in the drawings are…
In Hyatt v. Hirshfeld, [2020-2321, 2020-2323, 2020-2324, 2020-2325] (August 18, 2021), the Federal Circuit affirmed the district court’s denial of an award of the USPTO’s expert witness fees in defending a civil action under 35 USC § 145 brought by patent applicant Hyatt. In a prior appeal the Federal Circuit held that 35 USC § 145 does not entitle the USPTO to recover its attorneys fees. The Patent Office also sought reimbursement of its…
In Valve Corporation v. Ironburg Inventions Ltd., [2020-1315, 2020-1316, 2020-1379] (August 17, 2021), the Federal Circuit affirmed in part, reversed in part, vacated in part, and remanded two PTAB decisions determining that some claims of U.S. Patent No. 9,289,688 were shown to be unpatentable, while other claims of the ‘688 patent and the claims of U.S. Patent No. 9,352,229 were not shown to be unpatentable. The ’688 patent is directed to an improved controller…
In Teva Pharmaceuticals International GmbH v. Eli Lilly and Company, [2020-1747, 2020-1748, 2020-1750] (August 16, 2021), the Federal Circuit affirmed the Board’s determination that the claims of U.S. Patent Nos. 9,340,614, 9,266,951, and 9,890,210 are unpatentable because they would have been obvious over the cited prior art. The patents are directed to humanized antagonist antibodies that target calcitonin gene-related peptide (“CGRP”), that has been shown to be a potent vasodilator in the periphery. Teva…
In Personalweb Technologies LLC v. Google LLC, [2020-1543, 2020-1553, 2020-1554] (August 12, 2021), the Federal Circuit affirmed the district court’s judgment on the pleadings that various claims of U.S. Patent Nos. 7,802,310, 6,415,280, and 7,949,662 were ineligible for patenting, and therefore invalid, under 35 U.S.C. § 101. The patents relate to data-processing systems that assign each data item a substantially unique name that depends on the item’s content, also known as a content-based identifier.…