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: 312.913.2109
F: 312.913.0002
P: 312.913.2121
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
Associate
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: 312.935.2356
F: 312.913.0002
P: 312.935.2379
F: 312.913.0002
P: 312.913.3301
F: 312.913.0002

Past Event

November 20, 2014
MBHB Partners Alison Baldwin and Rory Shea Are the Featured Presenters
November 19-21, 2014
November 5-6, 2014
MBHB Partners Lisa Schoedel and James Suggs Are Featured Co-Presenters at this Management Forum-Sponsored Conference
October 21, 2014
MBHB Partner Patrick Gattari Is the Featured Presenter
September 19, 2014

Publications

November 17, 2014

Prior to filing a patent application at the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”), an applicant seeking patent protection for an invention should consider conducting a prior art search. Also known as a patentability search, a prior art search involves discovering and examining art, such as issued patents, published patent applications, and other published documents, that can affect the potential to obtain a patent on the invention. More exhaustive prior art searches may also include discovering and examining any prior uses or prior sales of technology related to the invention.

Fall 2014 (snippets)
When Congress created the Inter Partes Review (“IPR”) and Covered Business Method (“CBM”) review procedures for challenging the validity of an issued patent, it was intended for these processes to be quicker and more cost-effective than challenging patent validity in the district court system. One of the mechanisms Congress utilized for achieving these objectives was limiting the types of discovery allowed as part of the IPR and CBM processes. This was a lofty goal and pundits questioned whether this restricted scope of discovery could be maintained in practice. With the passage of two years under the IPR and CBM systems, a noticeable trend has emerged regarding how the Patent Trial and Appeal Board is accomplishing these Congressional objectives through its decisions on motions for additional discovery.
Fall 2014 (snippets)
In December, the Supreme Court of the United States will hear oral arguments on two trademark cases: B&B Hardware, Inc. v. Hargis Industries, Inc. and Hana Financial v. Hana Bank. These cases address the issues of whether a preclusive effect should be given to U.S. Trademark Trial and Appeal Board (TTAB) decisions on likelihood of confusion and whether trademark tacking is an issue of fact or an issue of law, respectively.
Fall 2014 (snippets)
The America Invents Act’s (“AIA’s”) overhaul of the U.S. Patent law system has significantly redefined what constitutes available prior art that can be used to reject patent applications or invalidate patents. In this article, we will discuss how the AIA expanded the definition of prior art, describe the AIA § 102 prior art exceptions, and suggest strategies that practitioners can consider in dealing with prior art and transitional applications.
Fall 2014 (snippets)
Unlike patents and copyrights, trade secrets have historically been protected primarily under state law rather than federal law. That long history may soon change, as bills to create a federal cause of action for trade secret misappropriation are advancing through both houses of the U.S. Congress. These bills would allow trade secret owners to bring a federal civil action for trade secret misappropriation as long as the trade secret “is related to a product or service used in, or intended for use in, interstate or foreign commerce.” And, for the first time ever, the pending bills have the bipartisan support necessary for passage.
Summer 2014 (snippets)
In the seminal decision of Egyptian Goddess, Inc. v. Swisa, Inc., the Federal Circuit struck down one of the two tests commonly used for determining design patent infringement, the “point of novelty” test. Despite rejecting this test, the court incorporated the consideration of prior art into a slightly revised version of the "ordinary observer" test, the hypothetical "ordinary observer" now having familiarity with the prior art. This article will examine the application of this revised version of the "ordinary observer" test, and specifically the consideration of the “plainly dissimilar” analysis set forth by Egyptian Goddess.
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);']