Eric Guttag is a US Patent Attorney with over 30 years of corporate and private intellectual property law experience relating to patent, trademark, copyright, trade secret and unfair competition matters, computer and Internet law.

Eric is also a contributing author on IPWatchdog.com. Most frequently Eric writes about recent Federal Circuit cases, particularly those in the biotechnology, pharmaceutical and chemical areas.

Eric’s specialties including patent application drafting, prosecution, and patentability studies; infringement and validity studies; international patent prosecution; patent and know-how licensing; consulting, confidentiality, clinical study and research agreements; trademark searches and opinions; trademark registration and prosecution; trademark freedom-to-use studies and trademark litigation and dispute resolution.

Eric’s particular area of technical focus is in the chemical arts, although he also has experience with mechanical and optical inventions as well.

Guttag IP Law | LinkedIn

Eric’s Articles on IPWatchdog.com

• No Quanta of Solace for Farmer Bowman: Unlicensed Planting of Patented Seed Infringing Use, Not Patent Exhaustion*May 20, 2013
• Reverse Payments: Into the Belly Of The Hatch-Waxman Beast Part 3April 24, 2013
• Carve Outs: Into The Belly of the Hatch-Waxman Beast Part 2April 11, 2013
• A Primer on Paragraph IV Certifications: Into the Belly of the Hatch-Waxman Beast Part 1April 3, 2013
• Business Method Patents and the Equitable Standard for Granting Permanent Injunctions: The eBay Case*January 4, 2013
• I Sat at the Knee of a Master: My Dad, Alvin Guttag*January 2, 2013
• AMP v. Myriad: SCOTUS Must Remember What Case Is Not About*December 9, 2012
• Voter Verified: Online Periodical Held to be Printed PublicationNovember 8, 2012
• Outside The Box Innovations v. Travel Caddy: Is a Misstatement of Small Entity Status Per Se Material to Patentability?*September 23, 2012
• RMail v. Amazon.com: Can Invalidity Based on 35 U.S.C. § 101 Be Properly Raised as a Defense in Litigation?*September 13, 2012
• The Discordant En Banc Ruling in Akamai Technologies and McKesson Technologies Part II*September 5, 2012
• CAFC’s Joint Infringement Conundrum: The Discordant En Banc Ruling in Akamai Technologies & McKesson Technologies, Part 1*September 4, 2012
• AMP v. USPTO Remand: Déjà Vu as Federal Circuit Majority Reaffirms Myriad’s Isolated DNA Sequences Are Patent-Eligible*August 17, 2012
• Momenta Pharmaceuticals: The Hatch-Waxman “Safe Harbor” Widens to Include Post-FDA Approval Activity*August 7, 2012
• Bancorp Services: Further Fracturing of the Patent Eligibility Landscape for Business Methods and Systems*July 27, 2012
• CLS Bank International: A Fractured Landscape of Patent Eligibility for Business Methods and Systems*July 12, 2012
• Debunking the Gene Patent Mythology: Professor Holman’s Supplemental Brief in the AMP Remand*June 22, 2012
• Divining What Mayo Means: Exploring the SmartGene Case*April 13, 2012
• Chakrabarty Controls on Isolated DNA Sequences, not Mayo*April 3, 2012
• The Way Forward from Mayo Collaborative Services is through the Classen Immunotherapies Remand*March 30, 2012
• Selective Precedent Amnesia: The Nonsensical Reasoning in the Supreme Court’s Mayo Collaborative Services Decision Part 3*March 28, 2012
• A Matter of Patent Law Despotism: The Nonsensical Reasoning in the Supreme Court’s Mayo Collaborative Services Decision Part 2*March 26, 2012
• Eviscerating Patent-Eligibility of Drug Testing Methods: The Nonsensical Reasoning in the SCOTUS Prometheus Decision*March 21, 2012
• CAFC Muddle: Deciphering the Marine Polymer En Banc Ruling*March 19, 2012
• CAFC Makes Murky Anticipation Ruling on Overlapped Process Ranges in ClearValue*February 22, 2012
• What Do the Proposed Patent Fee Changes Really Mean?*February 18, 2012
• CAFC Rules “Secret Prior Art” Requires Only Appreciation that Invention Made in Teva Pharmaceutical*December 4, 2011
• Some More Heretical Thoughts on Strategies for Coping with First to File Under the America Invents Act*October 5, 2011
• CAFC: Intervening Rights for Claims Unamended During Reexam*September 27, 2011
• Federal Circuit Again Rules Equivalent Foreseeable in DuramedJuly 25, 2011
• Present Assignment of Future Invention Rights: Some Heretical Thoughts on the Stanford Case*July 14, 2011
• American Davids of Innovation, Start Your Engines: Strategies for Coping with First to File Under the America Invents ActJuly 7, 2011
• Bayh-Dole Compliance Obligations Meet America Invents ActJuly 1, 2011
• Best Mode Patent-Raptor Claims Another Victim in WellmanMay 6, 2011
• The Impact of the CAFC’s Joint Infringement Conundrum on Protecting Interactive TechnologiesApril 19, 2011
• Did the CAFC Miss the Real “Written Description” Issue in Crown Packaging?April 13, 2011
• Converting Your Inventions to Dollars and CentsAugust 27, 2010
• Through the Fuzzy Bilski Looking Glass: The Meaning of Patent-Eligible under 35 U.S.C. § 101July 22, 2010
• Section 273 is NOT a Red Herring: Stevens’ Disingenuous Concurrence in BilskiJune 30, 2010
• No $5.4 Trillion Bounty for False Patent Marking Bounty HunterJune 15, 2010
• CAFC Judge Plager Says Definiteness Requirement Needs TeethMay 31, 2010
• Time Bomb: CAFC Says Threat + Waiting 3 Years = EstoppelMay 26, 2010
• Things I Learned: An Inventor’s Journey from Idea to MarketApril 7, 2010
• Foaming at the Mouth: The Inane Ruling in the Gene Patents CaseMarch 30, 2010
• Pressure Products v. Greatbatch: Why Another 5 Judge Panel?March 26, 2010
• Not Losing the Forest for the Trees: Newman Concurs in AriadMarch 23, 2010
• Best Mode Patent-Raptor Devours Another Victim in AjinomotoMarch 10, 2010
• How to Effectively But Safely Tell the Story of the InventionMarch 3, 2010
• Judge Rader Doth Protest Too Much in Media TechnologiesMarch 2, 2010
• CAFC: Reliance on Unrelated Licenses Doom Damage AwardFebruary 8, 2010
• Divisional of Divisional Reaches Safe Harbor of 35 U.S.C § 121January 28, 2010
• CAFC Rules Claim Terms Must Be Construed in ContextDecember 8, 2009
• The Bilski Oral Argument Speaks Volume: Start with 35 U.S.C. § 112November 12, 2009
• CAFC: Method for Calibrating Drug Dosage Is TransformativeSeptember 21, 2009
• Entire Market Value Rule Lives As $357 Million Verdict DiesSeptember 14, 2009
• The Strange Case of Martek Biosciences v. NutrinovaSeptember 7, 2009