Mechanical & Materials

Click here to view our Mechanical & Materials professionals

The strong academic and practical engineering background of our attorneys allows us to help clients secure and protect their rights concerning such mechanical and manufacturing techniques and products. We prepare and prosecute mechanical patents, information technology patents, and biomedical patents for such products as:

  • medical devices
  • nanotechnology
  • industrial controls
  • hot-runner and injection molding systems
  • recycling technology
  • plastic extrusion techniques
  • horizontal directional drilling
  • large scale polymer synthesis
  • offset printing

 

Our attorneys also have strong backgrounds in materials sciences, including polymers and alloys.

Our extensive industry experience in the mechanical and electro-mechanical arts includes complex industrial manufacturing machinery and processes, as well as devices and components for the computer science field, the telecommunications industry, and the environmental engineering arena. At MBHB, a number of our attorneys hold advanced degrees in biomechanical engineering and are able to understand the most technical aspects of patentable mechanics.

Technical Advisor
P: 312.913.3374
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: 312.913.3317
F: 312.913.0002
P: 312.913.2121
F: 312.913.0002
P: 312.913.3332
F: 312.913.0002
P: 360.379.6514
F: 312.913.2557
P: 312.913.2143
F: 312.913.0002
P: 312.913.3315
F: 312.913.0002
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: 312.913.2135
F: 312.913.0002
P: 312.913.3395
F: 312.913.0002
P: 312.913.2106
F: 312.913.0002
P: 312.913.3331
F: 312.913.0002
P: 312.913.2123
F: 312.913.0002
P: 312.913.2137
F: 312.913.0002
P: 312.935.2372
F: 312.913.0002
P: 312.913.3377
F: 312.913.0002
P: 312.913.3304
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: 312.913.2112
F: 312.913.0002
P: 312.913.3372
F: 312.913.0002
P: 312.913.2129
F: 312.913.0002
P: 312.935.2359
F: 312.913.0002
P: 312.913.2126
F: 312.913.0002
P: 312.913.3350
F: 312.913.0002
P: 312.913.3302
F: 312.913.0002
P: 312.935.2370
F: 312.913.0002
P: 312.913.2118
F: 312.913.0002
P: 312.935.2366
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: 312.913.3359
F: 312.913.0002
P: 312.913.0001
F: 312.913.0002
P: 312.913.3348
F: 312.913.0002
P: 312.913.3329
F: 312.913.0002
P: 312.913.3300
F: 312.913.0002
P: 312.935.2379
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

March 7, 2017
MBHB Partner Dr. Emily Miao is a Featured Presenter
March 14, 2017
MBHB Partners Dr. Andrew Williams and James Lovsin Are the Featured Presenters

Past Event

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
November 8, 2016
MBHB Partner Dr. Kevin Noonan Is a Featured Co-Speaker
November 8, 2016
MBHB Partner Kirsten Thomson Is a Featured Presenter

Publications

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)
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.
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)
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.
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)
Despite potential costs, startups can benefit from obtaining IP rights. Not only can IP protection potentially block others from negatively impacting the startup, it can also be seen as valuable property rights by investors. A startup can even potentially monetize IP rights through licenses or sales.
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=299&pdf=yes
a[href='javascript:packetBuilderSingleClick(document.title);']