Biotechnology

Click here to view our Biotechnology professionals

Our biotechnology practice includes such services as patent procurement, interference and opposition practice, litigation - both plaintiff and defense positions, licensing, technology transfer, patent validity and infringement opinions, and other areas of client counseling. Spearheaded by attorneys, agents, and law clerks with advanced degrees in such areas as biochemistry, molecular biology, immunology, and plant sciences, our biotechnology practice has the combination of technical expertise and legal experience that enables us to represent our clients in the most sophisticated arenas.

We work extensively in cutting-edge sub-specialties, such as the production and use of antisense oligonucleotides, ribozymes, recombinant genes and proteins, monoclonal antibodies, gene-gun applications, and pharmaceutical products for disease treatment and diagnosis, apparatuses and techniques for isolating, labeling, and detecting molecules of biological importance. Our focus on the burgeoning field of nanotechnology is one of the most comprehensive in the legal profession. We understand the far-reaching implications of nanotechnology and its potential to transform technology as we now know it.

Our substantial experience extends worldwide and includes strategic development and the protection of intellectual property for Fortune 500 multinational corporations as well as start-up biotechnology companies.

P: 312.935.2369
F: 312.913.0002
P: 312.913.2140
F: 312.913.0002
Senior Patent Agent
P: 312.913.3357
F: 312.913.0002
P: 312.913.2130
F: 312.913.0002
P: 312.913.2146
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: 312.913.3369
F: 312.913.0002
P: 312.913.3315
F: 312.913.0002
P: 312.913.3333
F: 312.913.0002
P: 312.913.2135
F: 312.913.0002
P: 312.913.3366
F: 312.913.0002
P: 312.913.2116
F: 312.913.0002
P: 312.913.2106
F: 312.913.0002
P: 312.935.2371
F: 312.913.0002
P: 312.935.2372
F: 312.913.0002
P: 312.913.3311
F: 312.913.0002
P: 312.913.3393
F: 312.913.0002
P: 312.913.3346
F: 312.913.0002
P: 312.913.2101
F: 312.913.0002
P: 312.913.3344
F: 312.913.0002
P: 312.913.2126
F: 312.913.0002
P: 312.913.2145
F: 312.913.0002
P: 312.913.3335
F: 312.913.0002
P: 312.913.3349
F: 312.913.0002
P: 312.913.2133
F: 312.913.0002
P: 312.913.2136
F: 312.913.0002
P: 312.935.2379
F: 312.913.0002
P: 312.913.3368
F: 312.913.0002
P: 312.913.3301
F: 312.913.0002
P: 312.913.2114
F: 312.913.0002
P: 312.913.2132
F: 312.913.0002

News

MBHB Partner Bradley Hulbert Is a Featured Co-Speaker for a Panel Presentation
MBHB Partner Patrick Gattari is a Featured Moderator
MBHB Partners Kevin Noonan and Donald Zuhn are Featured Participants in Pre-Conference Workshop
MBHB Partner Joseph Herndon Is a Featured Speaker for a Panel Presentation
MBHB Attorneys Andrew Williams and Michael Borella to Serve as Presenters for Two Symposium Programs

Upcoming Events

March 10, 2015
MBHB Partner Paul Berghoff is a Featured Panelist at This IPO-Sponsored Program
March 19, 2015
April 16-18, 2015
MBHB Partner Bradley Hulbert Is a Featured Presenter
May 21, 2015
May 22, 2015
MBHB Partner Bradley Hulbert Is a Featured Presenter

Past Event

February 25, 2015
MBHB Attorneys Andrew W. Williams, Ph.D. and John "Jay" M. Schafer Are the Featured Presenters
February 17, 2015
MBHB Partner Andrew W. Williams, Ph.D. is a Featured Panelist at this ABA Sponsored Webinar
February 5, 2015
MBHB Partner James Suggs is the Featured Presenter at this COIN Sponsored Program
January 20, 2015
MBHB Attorneys Donald L. Zuhn, Jr., Ph.D., Kevin E. Noonan, Ph.D. and Michael S. Borella, Ph.D. Are the Featured Presenters
January 13, 2015
MBHB Partner Dr. Kevin Noonan Is a Featured Presenter at this ACI-Sponsored Program

Publications

Winter 2015 (snippets)
Foreign patent filing decisions should take into account all of the potential additional costs associated with filing, prosecution, and annuity fees, as well as translation and legal service costs for hiring patent practitioners in each jurisdiction. In this article, five tips are discussed for developing a cost-effective strategy for obtaining foreign patent protection.
Winter 2015 (snippets)
This article highlights some of the takeaway lessons from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board’s decisions and guidance with regard to three of the most important issues: the content of the substitute claim set, the burden of proof, and the requirement of the patent holder to establish patentability of the substitute claims.
Winter 2015 (snippets)
In a 9-0 decision authored by Justice Sotomayor, the Supreme Court held on January 21, 2015 that trademark tacking is a question of fact, which should be decided by a jury. The case, Hana Financial, Inc. v. Hana Bank, sought to resolve the circuit split regarding this issue of whether a judge or a jury should decide the issue of trademark tacking.
Winter 2015 (snippets)
Anticipation is easy enough to establish if the prior art expressly sets forth each of the elements of the claims. However, more interesting issues of proof arise when one or more elements of the claims are not expressly stated in the prior art, but following the prior art necessarily yields the missing elements of the claim.
Winter 2015 (snippets)
It has been about 9 months since Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank International was decided by the Supreme Court. In that time, many district court and Federal Circuit cases have resulted in grants of summary judgment or dismissal based on findings of patent invalidity. Specifically, courts have found the patents at issue to be directed to patent-ineligible subject matter based on the two part framework laid out in Mayo Collaborative Services v. Prometheus Laboratories, Inc., as reiterated and refined in Alice.
February 5, 2015 (snippets Alert)
MBHB snippets Alert - February 5, 2015

On February 4, the Federal Circuit affirmed the Patent Trial and Appeal Board’s (“PTAB” or “Board”) first inter partes review (“IPR”) Final Written Decision. In fact, In re Cuozzo Speed Technologies, LLC. was the first appeal of any IPR Final Written Decision, and it related to the first IPR ever filed. As such, this case was significant not only for its substance, but for what the Federal Circuit said regarding some of the more controversial rules promulgated by the Patent Office for IPR proceedings. With regard to the substance of this case, the Federal Circuit agreed with the Board that the reviewed claims in Cuozzo’s patent were invalid as obvious over the prior art. In this case, the claimed technology was directed to indicating speed limits at particular locations on GPS units.
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=296&pdf=yes
a[href='javascript:packetBuilderSingleClick(document.title);']