Biotechnology

Click here to view our Biotechnology professionals

Our biotechnology practice includes such services as patent procurement, interference and opposition practice, litigation - both plaintiff and defense positions, licensing, technology transfer, patent validity and infringement opinions, and other areas of client counseling. Spearheaded by attorneys, agents, and law clerks with advanced degrees in such areas as biochemistry, molecular biology, immunology, and plant sciences, our biotechnology practice has the combination of technical expertise and legal experience that enables us to represent our clients in the most sophisticated arenas.

We work extensively in cutting-edge sub-specialties, such as the production and use of antisense oligonucleotides, ribozymes, recombinant genes and proteins, monoclonal antibodies, gene-gun applications, and pharmaceutical products for disease treatment and diagnosis, apparatuses and techniques for isolating, labeling, and detecting molecules of biological importance. Our focus on the burgeoning field of nanotechnology is one of the most comprehensive in the legal profession. We understand the far-reaching implications of nanotechnology and its potential to transform technology as we now know it.

Our substantial experience extends worldwide and includes strategic development and the protection of intellectual property for Fortune 500 multinational corporations as well as start-up biotechnology companies.

P: 312.935.2369
F: 312.913.0002
P: 312.913.2140
F: 312.913.0002
Senior Patent Agent
P: 312.913.3357
F: 312.913.0002
P: 312.913.2130
F: 312.913.0002
P: 312.913.2146
F: 312.913.0002
P: 312.913.3330
F: 312.913.0002
P: 312.913.3345
F: 312.913.0002
P: 312.913.2109
F: 312.913.0002
P: 312.913.2121
F: 312.913.0002
P: 312.913.2117
F: 312.913.0002
P: 312.913.3369
F: 312.913.0002
P: 312.913.3315
F: 312.913.0002
P: 312.913.3333
F: 312.913.0002
P: 312.913.2135
F: 312.913.0002
P: 312.913.3366
F: 312.913.0002
P: 312.913.2116
F: 312.913.0002
P: 312.913.2106
F: 312.913.0002
P: 312.935.2371
F: 312.913.0002
P: 312.935.2372
F: 312.913.0002
P: 312.913.3311
F: 312.913.0002
P: 312.913.3393
F: 312.913.0002
P: 312.913.3346
F: 312.913.0002
P: 312.913.2101
F: 312.913.0002
P: 312.913.3344
F: 312.913.0002
P: 312.913.2126
F: 312.913.0002
P: 312.913.2145
F: 312.913.0002
P: 312.913.3335
F: 312.913.0002
P: 312.913.3349
F: 312.913.0002
P: 312.913.2133
F: 312.913.0002
P: 312.913.2136
F: 312.913.0002
P: 312.935.2379
F: 312.913.0002
P: 312.913.3368
F: 312.913.0002
P: 312.913.3301
F: 312.913.0002
P: 312.913.2114
F: 312.913.0002
P: 312.913.2132
F: 312.913.0002

Upcoming Events

July 30, 2015
MBHB Partner James M. McCarthy Is the Featured Presenter

Past Event

June 26, 2015
MBHB Partner Bradley Hulbert Is a Featured Co-Speaker for a Panel Presentation
June 25-26, 2015
MBHB Partners James Suggs and Nicole Reifman are Featured Course Leaders for this Management Forum-Sponsored Program
June 12, 2015
June 3, 2015
May 28, 2015
MBHB Partner Patrick G. Gattari is the Featured Presenter

Publications

Spring 2015 (snippets)
The America Invents Act (AIA) created several adjudicative proceedings within the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) of the U.S. Patent & Trademark Office, including inter partes review, post-grant review, and covered business method review (IPR, PGR, and CBM, respectively). The AIA also provided explicit estoppel provisions with respect to District Court litigation for those proceedings.
Spring 2015 (snippets)
In a 7-2 decision authored by Justice Alito, the Supreme Court held on March 24, 2015, that issue preclusion may apply to Trademark Trial and Appeal Board (TTAB) decisions (B&B Hardware, Inc. v. Hargis Industries, Inc.).
Spring 2015 (snippets)
The patent statute makes it clear that subject matter that would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date of a patent application is not patentable. The considerations relevant to obviousness have been set for some time: (1) the scope and content of the prior art; (2) the level of ordinary skill in the art; (3) the differences between the claimed subject matter and the prior art; and (4) secondary considerations of non-obviousness. There has, however, been much litigation on how courts are to apply these considerations to determine whether an invention would have been obvious and therefore not patentable.
Spring 2015 (snippets)
In a recent verdict, a California federal jury found that Robin Thicke and Pharrell Williams’ smash hit “Blurred Lines” copied Marvin Gaye’s 1977 song “Got To Give It Up” and awarded Marvin Gaye’s children $7.39 million in damages for copyright infringement. In a follow-up to our earlier articles, we discuss some of the issues raised in the case and what impact, if any, the decision can have on musicians who try to emulate a particular genre or another artist’s sound.
Spring 2015 (snippets)
The recent interpretation of patent eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101 by the Supreme Court in Alice v. CLS Bank in June 2014 has caused confusion in the patent world regarding the validity and practicality of software and business method patents. In Alice, the Supreme Court held that claims directed towards a computer-implemented means of mitigating settlement risk by using a third-party intermediary did not qualify as eligible subject matter.
May 26, 2015 (snippets Alert)
MBHB snippets Alert - May 26, 2015

The Supreme Court issued its decision today in Commil USA, LLC v. Cisco Systems, Inc. In a nutshell, the Supreme Court held that a good faith belief in invalidity (or presumably unenforceability) is no longer a defense against inducement (and presumably contributory infringement).
Close
Generate a PDF of your page(s)
Clear
Close
Remove
Page has been queued
An error has occurred
Add
Added to queue
View
Confirm Delete All Message
No Items in Packet Message
To add a page, select Add. To view the package, select View.
false
http://www.mbhb.com/services/xpqServiceDetail.aspx?xpST=ServiceDetail&service=296&pdf=yes
a[href='javascript:packetBuilderSingleClick(document.title);']