Today's Date: September 1, 2014 Search | Home | Contact | Services | Patent Attorney | Patent Search | Provisional Patent Application | Patent Application | Software Patent | Confidentiality Agreements

Posts Tagged ‘ oblon spivak ’

A Patent Conversation with Steve Kunin

Posted: Tuesday, May 28, 2013 @ 9:30 am | Written by Gene Quinn | 3 comments
| Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
Posted in: AIPLA, Gene Quinn, Interviews & Conversations, IP News, IPWatchdog.com Articles, Patents

Steve Kunin

Steve Kunin is the head of Oblon Spivak’s Post Grant Patent Proceedings practice group, and is also on the firm’s Management Committee. He is also a friend. For several years now I’ve been getting together with Steve for lunch periodically to talk about a variety of patent issues. I have long wished that the tape recorder were running. Like me, he loves talking patents, law and policy. I floated the idea of an on the record conversation and he agreed. Between our individual travel schedules we managed to meet up with my iPhone recorder running on May 6, 2013, in a conference room at Oblon Spivak in Alexandria, Virginia.

Kunin is not your typical attorney and brings a unique perspective to virtually any conversation on patents. For over three decades he was a career employee of the United States Patent and Trademark Office, rising to the level of Deputy Commissioner for Patent Examination Policy, which is a particularly important position within the USPTO, and one that put him on the front lines of patent examination policy for a decade.

As we ate lunch after the interview Kunin told me that he thought I might ask about the difference between working for government and private practice and what lessons he has learned in each role. Sadly, that is an excellent line of questioning that I didn’t consider. We did, however, talk about numerous, hard-hitting issues ranging from secret prior art, to the estoppel provisions associated with post grant procedures, to the Economic Espionage Act, to Metallizing Engineering, to the Supreme Court, the Washington Nationals, upcoming summer blockbuster movies and much more. We also discussed the algorithm cases at the Federal Circuit and whether the patent system is really broken, but our interview was several days before the Federal Circuit’s “decision” in CLS Bank v. Alice Corp.



Oblon Signs Five Year Deal with Copyright Clearance Center for Its Annual Copyright License

Posted: Friday, Nov 30, 2012 @ 6:30 am | Written by Gene Quinn | 5 comments
| Tags: , , , , , , , ,
Posted in: Attorneys, Copyright, Gene Quinn, IP News, IPWatchdog.com Articles, Law Firms, Patent Prosecution, Patents

Yesterday the Copyright Clearance Center, Inc. (CCC), a not-for-profit organization and leading provider of licensing solutions, announced that one of the top patent firms in the United States has signed a five year licensing deal, taking advantage of CCC’s Annual Copyright License. The firm is Oblon, Spivak, McClelland, Maier & Neustadt, L.L.P., which year after year is the top firm in terms of the number of cases filed and handled at the United States Patent and Trademark Office.

“Law firms thrive on the exchange of information,” said Miles McNamee, Vice President, Licensing and Business Development, CCC. “The Annual Copyright License gives Oblon Spivak employees the freedom and flexibility to share content with each other.”

“We think this is a win-win situation for Oblon and CCC,” said Brad Lytle, Managing Partner, Oblon Spivak. “This license allows us to go about our business and focus our efforts on protecting the intellectual property of our clients.”

But why is Oblon taking a copyright license, that is the real question?



CAFC Denies Writ of Mandamus in PTO Interference Proceeding

Posted: Tuesday, Aug 10, 2010 @ 7:30 am | Written by Gene Quinn | Comments Off
| Tags: , , , , , , , , ,
Posted in: Federal Circuit, Gene Quinn, IP News, IPWatchdog.com Articles, Patents, USPTO

On August 2, 2010, a panel of the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit consisting of Chief Judge Rader and Judges Bryson and Moore summarily denied a petition for writ of mandamus filed by Allvoice Developments US, LLC. On July 12, 2010, Allvoice petitioned the Federal Circuit asking that court to issue a writ of mandamus directing the United States Patent and Trademark Office’s Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences to vacate its decision declaring an interference between Allvoice’s patent, US Patent No. 5,799,273 (“the Mitchell patent”) and Patent Application No. 09/351,542 (“the Holt application), which is a continuation of Patent Application No. 08/566,077, which was filed November 13, 1995.  Advanced Voice Recognition Systems Inc. (AVRS) is the assignee of the Holt application.