Chemical

Click here to view our Chemical professionals

We have worked extensively with issues related to industrial chemicals, consumer-product compositions, processes and methods of manufacture and catalysis, waste management technology, process chemistry, surfactants and detergents, and organic synthesis of both small molecules and polymers. We are experienced in preparing and prosecuting chemical patent applications in both the organic and inorganic areas, for compositions such as:

  • synthetic fibers
  • polymers
  • insulating materials
  • adhesives
  • resins
  • carbon coatings
  • silicon coatings
  • glass
  • ceramics
  • agricultural chemicals

 

We have also worked with the manufacturing processes and equipment related to chemical engineering.

We are not just chemical patent attorneys, we also have extensive experience preparing patent portfolios as well as trademark portfolios, PTO interferences and licensing agreements. With a number of our attorneys holding advanced degrees in chemistry and chemical engineering, our firm has true depth in this area. Our expertise in physical and applied chemistry, surface chemistry, agricultural chemistry, nanotechnology, and environmental science spans numerous industries, from industrial manufacturing to cosmetics. We have high level chemical engineers who can analyze all the issues regarding the composition of the intellectual property as well as the legal issues.

P: 312.913.2140
F: 312.913.0002
P: 312.913.2130
F: 312.913.0002
P: 312.913.3330
F: 312.913.0002
P: 312.913.3345
F: 312.913.0002
P: 312.913.3317
F: 312.913.0002
P: 312.913.2109
F: 312.913.0002
P: 312.913.2121
F: 312.913.0002
Patent Agent
P: 312.913.3332
F: 312.913.0002
P: 312.913.2117
F: 312.913.0002
P: 312.913.2143
F: 312.913.0002
P: 312.913.3333
F: 312.913.0002
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: 312.913.2123
F: 312.913.0002
P: 312.935.2372
F: 312.913.0002
P: 312.913.3304
F: 312.913.0002
P: 312.913.3393
F: 312.913.0002
P: 312.913.3346
F: 312.913.0002
P: 312.913.2129
F: 312.913.0002
P: 312.913.2101
F: 312.913.0002
P: 312.913.2126
F: 312.913.0002
P: 312.935.2370
F: 312.913.0002
P: 312.913.2145
F: 312.913.0002
P: 312.913.3349
F: 312.913.0002
P: 312.913.2118
F: 312.913.0002
P: 312.913.2133
F: 312.913.0002
P: 312.913.2136
F: 312.913.0002
P: 312.913.3348
F: 312.913.0002
P: 312.935.2379
F: 312.913.0002
P: 312.913.3301
F: 312.913.0002

Upcoming Events

September 10-11, 2015
MBHB Partners Joseph Herndon, Bradley Hulbert, Kevin Noonan, Ph.D., Thomas Wettermann and Donald Zuhn, Jr., Ph.D. are Featured Presenters

Past Event

July 30, 2015
MBHB Partner James M. McCarthy Is the Featured Presenter
July 20-21, 2015
MBHB Partners Kevin Noonan, Donald Zuhn and Paul Tully Are Featured Presenters
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

Publications

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 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)
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.
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 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.
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=297&pdf=yes
a[href='javascript:packetBuilderSingleClick(document.title);']