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
P: 312.913.3332
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
Senior Patent Agent
P: 312.913.3393
F: 312.913.0002
Master Patent Agent
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

Publications

Fall 2016 (snippets)
Since the Supreme Court decided Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank Int’l in 2014, patent practitioners and the courts alike have struggled to find clarity in the patent eligibility framework of 35 U.S.C. § 101. For the Federal Circuit in particular, applying the two-step framework set forth in Mayo v. Prometheus and Alice with any consistency has proven difficult, as the lines between abstract and non-abstract ideas, between step one and step two of the framework, and between eligibility (§ 101) and patentability (§§ 102, 103, or 112) have grown fainter.
Fall 2016 (snippets)
In a highly publicized decision of over a year ago, Judge Swain of the U.S. District Court of the Southern District of New York ruled in favor of the luxury retailer Tiffany and Co., deciding that Costco Wholesale Corp. willfully infringed Tiffany’s trademark. Judge Swain’s initial ruling against Costco allowed Tiffany to take Costco before a jury to seek damages, including recovery of Costco’s profits from the sale of the diamond rings, statutory damages, and punitive damages. After several delays, the jury finally met at the end of September for “Phase I” of the trial during which they decided (1) the amount of Costco’s profits and statutory damages under the Federal Lanham Act, and (2) whether Tiffany was entitled to punitive damages.
Fall 2016 (snippets)
The Trans-Pacific Partnership was the latest in a series of multination international agreements aimed at reducing trade barriers and promoting global free trade. However, the subject matter scope of this agreement and the secrecy with which it was negotiated have engendered deep suspicions from a variety of groups regarding whether its goal is truly free trade or whether there are more nefarious motivations behind it. And with the election of Donald Trump, these efforts have apparently amounted to nothing.
December 6, 2016 (snippets Alert)
MBHB snippets Alert - December 6, 2016

On December 6, 2016, the Supreme Court ruled unanimously, in an opinion by Justice Sotomayor, that an award of total profits for infringing a design patent need not be calculated based only on the end product sold to an ordinary consumer. More particularly, in the case of a multicomponent product, the damages award may be calculated based on subcomponents of the end product. In Samsung v. Apple, the Supreme Court applied this rule to reverse Apple’s $400 million damages award against Samsung.
Summer 2016 (snippets)
The near-simultaneous codification of trade secret-related standards on both sides of the Atlantic reflects the increased importance of trade secrets in global economies. A driving force behind the reform in both the US and the EU was a desire to harmonize laws protecting trade secrets.
Summer 2016 (snippets)
By analyzing USPTO data about the number of requests, the pendency of proceedings, and the frequency of finding a substantial new question of patentability (“SNQP”), this article seeks to identify trends that will help patent owners thoughtfully weigh the risks and rewards of supplemental examination.
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);']