Area Of Focus

MOVING FORWARD
WITH TECHNOLOGY

Nanotechnology

Carbon nanotubes. Molecular engineering. Mechanochemistry. These are all terms that can make anyone’s head spin over the sheer complexity of the technical definitions. Yet, the ever-changing science of nanotechnology —working as it does at the atomic level— continues to offer sweeping changes and apparently limitless possibilities in medicine, biology, chemistry, materials science, electronics, communications, and other disciplines. 

At the same time, nanotechnology also raises a wide range of important legal IP challenges that are cross-border and transnational in nature which affect many businesses today, no matter the size.  This may include the protection of commercial ownership rights, application of new technologies, raising R&D capital, preparing and prosecuting patent applications, as well as managing one’s IP portfolio and assets.  

With over 75 years of experience in obtaining intellectual property protection for innovations in a broad array of disciplines, including in biotechnology, chemistry, electronics and communications, manufacturing, materials sciences, and pharmaceuticals, Brinks Gilson & Lione attorneys understand the unique nature of innovations in nanotechnology and are well qualified to help clients protect their inventions.  Our practice is comprised of more than ten attorneys with PhD’s in addition to the advisors who are chemists, chemical engineers, biochemists, and materials scientists.  It allows us to provide a multi-dimensional approach to delivering top notch legal services.

Understanding the technology behind many of our clients’ businesses is critical.  In the field of nanotechnology, no detail is considered too small for our attorneys. 

Our approach to providing customized legal solutions in this highly technical field is how we earn the trust of our clients and develop long-term relationships. 

It is how we move forward.

Forward Thinking
alert

Those who were hoping for a clear standard to emerge as a result of the Federal Circuit’s grant of en banc review on the issue of burdens of proof for motions to amend in post-grant proceedings under the American Invents Act (“AIA”) may be disappointed by Aqua Products, Inc. v. Matal, No. 2015-1177, which issued October 4, 2017...

alert

In affirming a District Court vacatur of a jury verdict of infringement under the doctrine of equivalents, the Federal Circuit held that patent owner Dr. Jang failed to prove that his equivalents theory did not ensnare the prior art...

alert

Under 35 U.S.C. § 315(e), a final written decision in an inter partes review (“IPR”) by the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“PTAB”) results in estoppel of certain actions by the petitioner...

alert

In Ultratec, the Federal Circuit cited several problems with the Board’s permissive rules of trial proceedings and held the Board abused its discretion in its consideration of supplementary evidence...

alert

On appeal of the district court’s dismissal of Visual Memory, LLC’s patent infringement complaint against NVIDIA Corporation, the Federal Circuit concluded...

alert

In late June 2017, Sen. Chris Coons (D-DE), Sen. Tom Cotton (R-AR), Sen. Dick Durbin (D-IL) and Sen. Mazie Hirono (D-HI) co-sponsored and introduced in the U.S. Senate the Support Technology and Research for Our Nation’s Growth and Economic Resilience  Patents Act of 2017...

alert

On June 23, 2017, the Federal Circuit held that a party appealing a decision from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“PTAB”)...

Press Releases

Brinks Gilson & Lione, one of the nation’s largest intellectual property law firms, announced that Keith D. Weiss, Ph.D., an intellectual property attorney in the firm’s Ann Arbor office, will be a presenter at the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE) International Conference on Nanotechnology, to be held July 25-28 in Pittsburgh...

alert

On June 5, 2017, the Federal Circuit arrived at two different conclusions concerning whether a case is exceptional under 35 U.S.C. § 285, reversing the district court in both cases...

event

Brinks attorneys Rashad Morgan, Aisha Hasan and Mark Jenkins will provide an insightful discussion on topics which will ...

alert

As part of its annual “Special 301” identification and review of countries that deny adequate and...

alert

On December 1, 2016, the U.S. Copyright Office launched its new electronic registration system ...

alert

On December 6, 2016, the Supreme Court in Samsung Electronics Co. v. Apple Inc. upset the framework for determining damages for infringement of a design patent in the context of a multicomponent product.  Under § 289 of the Patent Act, the infringer of a design patent is liable for all of its profit from the manufacture or sale of the infringing “article of manufacture.” 

alert

The Supreme Court recently granted a petition for writ of certiorari to review the Federal Circuit’s en banc ...

alert

Earlier this month, the Federal Circuit held a software-based patent to be eligible under 35 U.S.C. § 101 in...

alert

In recent months, the Ninth Circuit and Fourth Circuit have issued important rulings about how the Lanham Act, ...

alert

On July 25, 2016, the Federal Circuit, in In re Magnum Oil Tools Int’l, reversed the final decision of an inter partes ...

alert

On July 11, 2016, the United States Patent and Trademark Office (Office) announced a new Post-Prosecution ...  

alert

On June 23, the United Kingdom (UK) voted to exit the European Union (EU) – a decisive move whimsically known ...

alert

The Federal Circuit, in an en banc decision, held that to be “on sale” under pre-AIA § 102(b), a product must be the ...

alert

In vacating a District Court grant of summary judgment that a patent directed to a cryopreservation process was ...

alert

On June 21, 2016, the Federal Circuit, in Immersion Corp. v. HTC Corp., held that a patent application filed as a continuation of an earlier application on the issue date of the earlier application has been “filed before the patenting” of the earlier application, and therefore is entitled to the earlier application’s filing date under 35 U.S.C. § 120...

in the media
On June 17, 2016, IP Frontline published an article entitled, “Never Late is Better: PTAB Denies Petitioners Motion in IPR After Missing Filing Deadline By Minutes” written by Oluwafemi Masha, Kent E. Genin and Jennifer Fox.  Please ...
alert

On May 23, 2016, the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) issued a decision denying motions...

Press Releases
SALT LAKE CITY— Intellectual property law firm Brinks Gilson & Lione announced today that Dr. Jonathan Hartley has joined the firm’s Salt Lake City office as a scientific advisor. Dr. Hartley focuses on nanotechnology, ...
alert

On May 13, 2016, the Federal Circuit, in Merck & Cie v. Watson Labs., Inc., held that an offer for sale that qualifies as a commercial offer under the law governing contracts...

alert

The Supreme Court recently granted a petition for writ of certiorari to review the Federal Circuit’s en banc decision in SCA Hygiene Prods. Aktiebolag v. First Quality Baby Prods., LLC.

alert

President Obama signed into law yesterday the Defend Trade Secrets Act, establishing for the first time an ostensibly uniform national trade secret protection standard...
 

alert

On April 25, 2016, the Supreme Court heard oral arguments in a case, Cuozzo Speed Technologies, LLC v. Lee, No. 15-446, that seeks to determine whether the Patent Trial and Appeal Board...

alert

Suggestions to amend or abolish 35 U.S.C. § 101 of the Patent Act are increasing in light of the number of software and biological patents...

alert

On April 4, 2016 the United States Senate unanimously passed the Defend Trade Secrets Act (S. 1890). 

Group Chairs
Contact
Shareholder
Ann Arbor, MI
Group Chairs