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
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

April 18, 2017
MBHB Partner Joshua Rich Is the Featured Presenter
May 9-11, 2017
MBHB Partners Dr. Kevin Noonan and Dr. Donald Zuhn Are Featured Presenters

Past Event

March 14, 2017
MBHB Partners Dr. Andrew Williams and James Lovsin Are the Featured Presenters
March 7, 2017
MBHB Partner Dr. Emily Miao is a Featured Presenter
January 19, 2017
MBHB Partners Dr. Michael Borella, Dr. Kevin Noonan and Dr. Donald Zuhn Are Featured Presenters
January 17, 2017
MBHB Partner Kirsten Thomson Is a Featured Presenter
November 15, 2016

Publications

March 21, 2017 (snippets Alert)
As was widely expected from the Justices’ positions at oral arguments, a nearly unanimous Supreme Court today struck down the patent laches doctrine in SCA Hygiene Prods. Aktiebolag, v. First Quality Baby Prods., LLC, 580 U.S. __ (March 21, 2017). In the opinion by Justice Alito, the Supreme Court applied the rationale of its own prior decision in Petrella v. Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer, Inc., 134 S. Ct. 1962 (2014), finding that the existence of a six-year statute of limitations in the Patent Act, 35 U.S.C. §286, precluded the application of laches. As such, “laches cannot be interposed as a defense against damages where the infringement occurred within the period prescribed by §286.”
Winter 2017 (snippets)
Owners of U.S. trademark registrations need to know about a few recent rule changes and be mindful of the changes and U.S. Patent and Trademark Office requirements whenever a declaration of use is due.
Winter 2017 (snippets)
In 2011, the Leahy-Smith America Invents Act (“AIA”) established new post-issuance procedures for challenging the validity of a granted patent before the Patent Trials and Appeal Board (“PTAB” or “Board”). Inter partes reviews (“IPRs”) and Covered Business Method patent reviews (“CBMs”) have been available since September 16, 2012, and their utilization since that time has exceeded expectations. A third mechanism, post-grant review (“PGR”), was also made available on that date, but because a PGR petition can only be filed for patents that were examined pursuant to the new First-Inventor-to-File scheme established by the AIA, it has not yet been significantly utilized. Here, we describe the IPR and PGR estoppel provisions of 35 U.S.C. §§ 315(e) and 325(e) and courts’ interpretations of those provisions thus far.
Winter 2017 (snippets)
Seeking to end years of little clarity on two key ethical issues for practitioners, the Patent Office has proposed two new rules of practice. The first rule would allow parties to invoke privilege in inter partes proceedings to prevent the disclosure of communications between clients and non-attorney patent agents. The second rule would change the duty of disclosure to comport with the standard set forth in the Therasense case. Based on the comments from the public, it appears likely that the Office will adopt the patent-agent privilege rule but go back for another round of changes to the duty of disclosure rule.
February 22, 2017 (snippets Alert)
MBHB snippets Alert - February 22, 2017

In an opinion by Justice Sotomayor, the Supreme Court today reversed the Federal Circuit's decision in Life Tech. Corp. v. Promega Corp. involving the proper scope of infringement under 35 U.S.C. § 271(f)(1). This provision provides infringement for exporting "all or a substantial portion of the components of a patented invention," and the Court's decision involved whether exporting only one component was enough for infringement liability.
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.
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);']