![[IPWatchdog Logo]](https://ipwatchdog.com/wp-content/themes/IPWatchdog%20-%202023/assets/images/temp/logo-small@2x.png){kind=logo}
John Rogitz
Managing Attorney
Rogitz & Associates
John Rogitz is currently the Managing Attorney at Rogitz & Associates, and he serves on the Executive Committee of the IP Section of the California Lawyers Association.
As Managing Attorney at Rogitz & Associates, John manages the firm’s day-to-day operations and many of the firm’s clients. He is a registered patent attorney specializing in patent preparation and prosecution in a range of technologies including artificial intelligence, autonomous vehicles, extended reality, video games, Internet of things (IoT), blockchain, rules-based software, computer hardware, medical devices, and other electrical and mechanical inventions. His clients range from startups and independent inventors to Fortune 500 companies. Before joining Rogitz & Associates, John was engaged in civil litigation at the Watkins Firm, a San Diego-based law firm.
John is also an adjunct professor of intellectual property at Trinity Law School and has taught IP at the undergraduate level as well. He writes for IPWatchdog and has also been published by IP Today, IP Magazine, and others. John regularly speaks to trade groups like the National Association of Patent Practitioners and Licensing Executives Society and, prior to practicing law, he worked in industry as a web developer.
Recent Articles by John Rogitz
The United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) recently released new guidance to patent examiners on making obviousness rejections. The guidance focuses on post-KSR precedential jurisprudence from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. Some of the guidance is fairly mundane, some of it is not. The purpose of this article is to propose a few responses one might use to counter rejections that apply certain problematic aspects of the new guidance.
If you’re a regular reader of IPWatchdog, it probably wouldn’t surprise you to hear that two different U.S. Court of Appeal for the Federal Circuit (CAFC or Federal Circuit) panels recently issued inconsistent, irreconcilable opinions. But what just happened over the last month is particularly concerning. Specifically, within the span of six days, the Federal Circuit held that: “A computer” means one and only one computer when a subsequent claim element recites “the computer” (Finjan v. Sonicwall); and “A sample stream” means one or more sample streams when a subsequent claim element recites “the sample stream” (ABS Global v. Cytonome/ST).
Upcoming Events with John Rogitz
Patent Portfolio Management Masters™ 2024
June 24-26, 2024
