Electrical

Click here to view our Electrical professionals

Electronics have permeated almost everyone’s daily lives. Tomorrow’s innovative technologies are often based on turning today’s research and development efforts into making devices and systems smaller, faster, or more reliable. Recouping the time and money associated with those efforts requires obtaining dependable patent protection to thwart would-be copyists and freeloaders. We help companies and individuals strategically protect their electrical and computer-related inventions.

Almost half of our professionals hold bachelor’s or advanced degrees in electrical engineering, computer engineering, and computer science. Others have relevant coursework and experience in tangentially related fields, such as mechatronics, bioinformatics, biomedical engineering, electrochemistry, and medical imaging, for example. Many worked as engineers prior to their legal training. Still others enjoy pertinent hobbies, such as utilizing smart-home technology, implementing high-end home theater and audio systems, flying consumer-grade drones, and installing marine electronics and instruments.

Our patent prosecution services span more than simply drafting and prosecuting patent applications. We work hard to understand each client’s business so that we can help craft patent portfolio strategies that meet the client’s goals. Our firm’s full suite of intellectual property offerings allows us to provide end-to-end service from initial interviews with inventors and managers to counseling on tricky patent issues to licensing and litigating issued patents. We have found that careful preparation and prosecution of patent applications results in stronger, more effective licensing and litigation positions.

Our attorneys and agents have technical expertise in the full spectrum of electrical and computer-related technologies, including:

  • 3D printing
  • Aircraft electronics
  • Alternative energy
  • Analog and digital circuitry
  • ASICs
  • Augmented reality
  • Autonomous vehicles
  • Biochips
  • Bioinformatics
  • Biomedical instrumentation
  • Biometrics
  • Cellular technology
  • Clean technology
  • Computer architecture
  • Computer hardware
  • Consumer electronics
  • Control systems
  • Data compression
  • Digital cameras
  • Digital television
  • Digital video
  • Electric motors
  • Embedded systems
  • Firmware
  • Flash memory
  • Flexible electronics
  • FPGAs
  • Graphics processing
  • HVAC systems
  • Image processing
  • Imaging devices
  • Industrial controls
  • Instrumentation
  • Integrated circuits
  • Internet applications
  • Internet-of-Things (IoT)
  • Light-emitting diodes (LEDs)
  • Machine-to-Machine (M2M)
  • Medical devices
  • Medical imaging
  • MEMS
  • Microchips
  • Microprocessors
  • MPEG
  • Nanotechnology
  • Navigation devices
  • Network security
  • Networking
  • Optical and magnetic storage devices
  • Optics
  • Optoelectronics
  • Power regulators
  • Printing devices
  • RF electronics
  • Robotics
  • Satellite positioning (GPS)
  • Satellite technology
  • Semiconductor devices
  • Semiconductor fabrication
  • Semiconductor processing equipment
  • Sensors
  • Signal processing
  • Signaling formats
  • Supercomputers
  • Telecommunications
  • Unmanned Aerial Vehicles (drones)
  • User interfaces
  • Video compression
  • Video gaming technology
  • Virtual reality
  • Wearable computers
  • Wireless and landline telephony

 

Contact one of our practice group leaders to get started with protecting your electrical and computer-related innovations. 

P: 312.913.2141
F: 312.913.0002
Patent Agent
P: 312.913.3316
F: 312.913.0002
P: 312.913.3342
F: 312.913.0002
P: 312.913.2104
F: 312.913.0002
P: 312.913.2140
F: 312.913.0002
P: 312.913.2130
F: 312.913.0002
P: 312.913.2131
F: 312.913.0002
P: 312.913.3313
F: 312.913.0002
P: 312.913.3341
F: 312.913.0002
P: 360.379.6514
F: 312.913.2557
P: 312.913.3334
F: 312.913.0002
P: 312.913.2139
F: 312.913.0002
P: 312.913.2107
F: 312.913.0002
P: 312.913.3392
F: 312.913.0002
P: 312.913.3360
F: 312.913.0002
Master Patent Agent
P: 312.913.3353
F: 312.913.0002
P: 312.913.3395
F: 312.913.0002
P: 312.913.3331
F: 312.913.0002
P: 312.913.3319
F: 312.913.0002
P: 312.913.2122
F: 312.913.0002
P: 312.913.2137
F: 312.913.0002
P: 312.913.3380
F: 312.913.0002
P: 312.913.3398
F: 312.913.0002
P: 312.913.2125
F: 312.913.0002
Patent Agent
P: 312.913.3362
F: 312.913.0002
P: 312.913.3311
F: 312.913.0002
P: 312.913.3338
F: 312.913.0002
P: 312.913.2112
F: 312.913.0002
P: 312.913.3372
F: 312.913.0002
P: 312.913.2129
F: 312.913.0002
Senior Patent Agent
P: 312.913.3358
F: 312.913.0002
P: 312.935.2359
F: 312.913.0002
P: 312.913.3350
F: 312.913.0002
P: 312.913.3302
F: 312.913.0002
P: 312.913.3354
F: 312.913.0002
P: 312.913.3396
F: 312.913.0002
P: 312.913.3303
F: 312.913.0002
P: 312.913.3376
F: 312.913.0002
P: 312.913.3347
F: 312.913.0002
P: 312.913.3399
F: 312.913.0002
P: 312.913.3351
F: 312.913.0002
P: 312.913.3356
F: 312.913.0002
P: 312.913.2119
F: 312.913.0002
P: 312.913.3336
F: 312.913.0002
P: 312.913.3359
F: 312.913.0002
P: 312.913.0001
F: 312.913.0002
P: 312.913.3329
F: 312.913.0002
P: 312.913.3300
F: 312.913.0002
P: 312.913.2128
F: 312.913.0002
Patent Agent
P: 312.913.3363
F: 312.913.0002
P: 312.913.2138
F: 312.913.0002
Partner
P: 312.913.3390
F: 312.913.0002
P: 312.913.2142
F: 312.913.0002

Upcoming Events

May 9-11, 2017
MBHB Partners Dr. Kevin Noonan and Dr. Donald Zuhn Are Featured Presenters
May 16, 2017
May 17-18, 2017
MBHB Partner Bradley Hulbert Is a Featured Presenter
May 24, 2017
MBHB Partner Kevin Noonan, Ph.D. Is the Featured Speaker

Past Event

April 18, 2017
MBHB Partner Joshua Rich Is the Featured Presenter
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

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)
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.
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=291&pdf=yes
a[href='javascript:packetBuilderSingleClick(document.title);']