Business Methods

Click here to view our Business Methods professionals

Since the courts explicitly sanctioned the patentability of business methods, this area has been rapidly evolving. MBHB's expertise in business consulting and patent law has been a valuable resource for clients developing methods of doing business. We have expertise with business method patents in such fields including:

  • e-commerce
  • finance
  • insurance
  • banking
  • taxes
  • marketing

 

At MBHB, our attorneys also have backgrounds in finance and management, and a number of our attorneys hold advanced degrees in Business Administration.

P: 312.913.2141
F: 312.913.0002
P: 312.913.3342
F: 312.913.0002
P: 312.913.2104
F: 312.913.0002
P: 312.913.2130
F: 312.913.0002
P: 312.913.3361
F: 312.913.0002
P: 312.913.3330
F: 312.913.0002
P: 312.913.2131
F: 312.913.0002
Associate
P: 312.913.3305
F: 312.913.0002
P: 312.913.3397
F: 312.913.0002
P: 360.379.6514
F: 312.913.2557
P: 312.913.2135
F: 312.913.0002
P: 312.913.2116
F: 312.913.0002
P: 312.913.2106
F: 312.913.0002
P: 312.913.3331
F: 312.913.0002
P: 312.913.2123
F: 312.913.0002
P: 312.913.2122
F: 312.913.0002
P: 312.913.2112
F: 312.913.0002
P: 312.913.2129
F: 312.913.0002
P: 312.935.2359
F: 312.913.0002
Patent Agent
P: 312.913.2357
F: 312.913.0002
P: 312.913.3302
F: 312.913.0002
P: 312.913.3396
F: 312.913.0002
Associate
P: 312.913.2118
F: 312.913.0002
P: 312.913.3376
F: 312.913.0002
P: 312.913.3351
F: 312.913.0002
P: 312.913.2119
F: 312.913.0002
P: 312.913.3337
F: 312.913.0002
P: 312.913.0001
F: 312.913.0002
P: 312.913.3367
F: 312.913.0002
P: 312.935.2356
F: 312.913.0002
P: 312.913.3329
F: 312.913.0002
P: 312.913.3300
F: 312.913.0002
Partner
P: 312.913.3390
F: 312.913.0002

Upcoming Events

August 19, 2014
MBHB Attorneys Rory Shea and Michael Borella, Ph.D. Are the Featured Co-Presenters
September 11-12, 2014
Five MBHB Partners Are Featured Presenters at this PLI-Sponsored Seminar

Past Event

July 9, 2014
MBHB Partners Grantland Drutchas and Donald Zuhn, Ph.D. Are the Featured Co-Presenters
July 2, 2014
MBHB Partners Lawrence Aaronson, Michael Borella and Grantland Drutchas Are Featured Presenters at this PLI-Sponsored Webinar
June 12, 2014
MBHB Partner Dr. Andrew Williams is the Featured Moderator at this ABA Sponsored Roundtable Event
June 10, 2014
June 5-6, 2014
MBHB Partners James Suggs and Kirsten Thomson are Featured Course Leaders for this Management Forum-Sponsored Program

Publications

June 19, 2014 (snippets Alert)
MBHB snippets Alert - June 19, 2014

In the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision today in Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank International, the Court affirmed the invalidity of Alice’s patents for computer-implemented methods of reducing settlement risk. This case reached the high court after a severely split Federal Circuit could not agree whether language of the claims met the patent-eligibility requirements of 35 U.S.C. § 101. At the heart of this case was the Federal Circuit’s confusion over the impact of the Court’s 2012 decision, Mayo Collaborative Services v. Prometheus Laboratories, Inc.

June 2, 2014 (snippets Alert)
MBHB snippets Alert - June 2, 2014

In the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision today in Limelight Networks, Inc. v. Akamai Technologies, Inc., the Supreme Court reversed the Federal Circuit's en banc holding that a defendant need not perform all of the steps of a claim to infringe where it performs some and induces third parties to perform the rest.
June 2, 2014 (snippets Alert)
MBHB snippets Alert - June 2, 2014

In today’s decision, the U.S. Supreme Court in Nautilus, Inc. v. Biosig Instruments, Inc. clarified the scope of definiteness required to fulfill the requirement that the patent claims particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the applicant regards as the invention. In Nautilus, the U.S. Supreme Court unanimously rejected the “insolubly ambiguous” standard previously set out by the Federal Circuit.
May 19, 2014 (snippets Alert)

MBHB snippets Alert - May 19, 2014

Today in Petrella v. Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer, Inc. (case number 12-1315), the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that the doctrine of laches could not be invoked to bar a copyright claim that was brought within the statutorily allowed three-year window from the particular act of infringement. In Petrella, the Court reversed the decision of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, which had affirmed the district court’s summary dismissal of the suit based on laches. Resolving a circuit split at the appellate level, the Supreme Court held that the lower courts erred in “failing to recognize that the copyright statute of limitations, §507(b), itself takes account of delay.” Petrella, slip op. at 11. The opinion emphasized that the Supreme Court has “never applied laches to bar in their entirety claims for discrete wrongs occurring within a federally prescribed limitations period.” Id. at 14-15. Rather, the Court stated that laches is a “gap-filling, not legislation-overriding,” measure that is appropriate only when there is not an explicit statute of limitations. Id at 14.

Spring 2014 (snippets)
Patent claim drafting is a challenging exercise that requires balancing potential infringement of the claim against the prior art. A patent practitioner may easily draft a claim of very narrow scope, but if such claim has a low likelihood of being infringed, the value of the claim is extremely diminished.
Spring 2014 (snippets)

Trademark protection is very important in the fashion industry. The ability to protect certain logos and design features may determine the success of a fashion designer’s business. Thus, it is crucial to understand how to protect your fashion trademarks and trade dress.

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=293&pdf=yes
a[href='javascript:packetBuilderSingleClick(document.title);']