Charles R. Macedo Image

Charles R. Macedo

Partner

Amster Rothstein & Ebenstein

Charles R. Macedo is a Partner at Amster, Rothstein & Ebenstein LLP, where he advises and litigates in all areas of intellectual property law, including patent, trademark and copyright law, with a special emphasis in complex litigation. He also assists clients in obtaining, maintaining and enforcing patent and trademark portfolios. He has successfully recovered domain names registered to others using clients’ trademarks.

Mr. Macedo is also the author of the book, The Corporate Insider’s Guide to U.S. Patent Practice, originally published by Oxford University Press.

For more information or to contact Mr. Macedo, please visit his Firm Profile Page.

Recent Articles by Charles R. Macedo

NYIPLA Amicus Brief in Ericsson v. Samsung Advocates the Adjudication of U.S. Patent Rights by U.S. Courts

On April 9, the New York Intellectual Property Law Association (NYIPLA) filed an amicus brief in Ericsson Inc. v. Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd., No. 2021-1565, urging a panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit to balance U.S. interests in adjudicating U.S. patent rights against the rule of comity, with respect to an order by a Chinese court restricting the litigation of certain U.S. patents in U.S. courts. Senator Thom Tillis (R-NC), Judge Paul Michel and former U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) Director Andrei Iancu also filed an amicus brief in the case on the same day in support of Ericsson…. Although the NYIPLA did not take a position on the exact scope and content of Judge Gilstrap’s order, it filed an amicus brief to highlight our country’s “strong policy interest in allowing U.S. patent rights to be adjudicated in U.S. courts” and to point out that “[a]llowing China to exercise exclusive dominion over U.S. patent rights and royalty rates and to preclude enforcement of U.S. patent rights within the United States would cause a severe reduction in the value of U.S. patents and jeopardize the very underpinnings of the U.S. patent system.”

Getting Ready for Arthrex: What the Amici Are Saying

The U.S. Supreme Court has agreed to hear, on March 1, 2021, whether administrative patent judges (APJs) of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) are “inferior” officers properly appointed under the Appointments Clause of the U.S. Constitution (U.S. Const., art. II, § 2, cl. 2), and, if not, whether the “fix” by the Federal Circuit in Arthrex v. Smith & Nephew, 941 F.3d 1320 (Fed. Cir. 2019) worked. On February 25, 2021, the New York Intellectual Property Law Association (NYIPLA), will be presenting a special webinar titled “Getting Ready for Arthrex Oral Arguments,” which will summarize the issues presented and include presentations by representative amici on their respective positions.

NYIPLA Amicus Brief in American Axle Urges Supreme Court to Return to Its Precedent in Diehr

On January 25, 2021, the New York Intellectual Property Law Association (NYIPLA) filed an amicus brief urging the U.S. Supreme Court to grant the writ of certiorari in American Axle & Manufacturing Co. Inc. v. Neapco Holdings LLC, No. 20-891. The brief argues that the American Axle case is factually very similar to Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175, 187 (1981), which “recognized that claims, including a calculation based on the Arrhenius equation as part of larger process for curing rubber, were patent eligible.”

Amicus eComp Consultants Urges Supreme Court to Deem PTAB APJs ‘Inferior’ Officers in Arthrex

On December 2, eComp Consultants (eComp) filed an amicus brief urging the U.S. Supreme Court to find Administrative Patent Judges (APJs) of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) in U.S. v. Arthrex, Inc., Nos. 19-1434/-1452/-1458. In its brief, eComp argues that the U.S. Supreme Court should reverse the decision of the Federal Circuit and confirm that APJs of the PTAB are merely inferior officers of the United States who were, therefore, constitutionally appointed. eComp’s Amicus Brief clarifies the errors in the Federal Circuit’s decision.