Software

Click here to view our Software professionals

Our attorneys have extensive experience with intellectual property issues involving computer software at all levels, from low-level machine code to high-level code that runs Internet-based technologies and database systems. The exponential growth of computing and the Internet have made this aspect of intellectual property a key field to master. At MBHB, we have mastered this complex area through the litigation and prosecution of a number of cases relating to such matters as:

  • data compression
  • data mining
  • computer architecture
  • computer networking
  • cryptography
  • programming languages

 

IP assets that result from the significant time and money invested in research and development for hardware and software deserve protection. From software engineering to network architecture, computer technology runs every sophisticated business. At MBHB, we know the software and computing industries, and we know how to protect our clients' rights.

Many of our attorneys, in addition to strong computer backgrounds, also have Ph.D.-level technical backgrounds in mathematics, physics, biomechanical engineering, and chemistry, which allow them to fully understand the underlying processes in technology systems.

P: 312.913.2141
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: 312.913.3361
F: 312.913.0002
P: 312.913.3313
F: 312.913.0002
Associate
P: 312.913.3305
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: 312.913.3392
F: 312.913.0002
P: 312.913.3360
F: 312.913.0002
P: 312.913.3353
F: 312.913.0002
Associate
P: 312.913.2124
F: 312.913.0002
P: 312.913.3331
F: 312.913.0002
Patent Agent
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: 312.935.2355
F: 312.913.0002
Patent Agent
P: 312.913.3380
F: 312.913.0002
P: 312.913.3398
F: 312.913.0002
Associate
P: 312.913.2125
F: 312.913.0002
Associate
P: 312.913.2113
F: 312.913.0002
P: 312.913.3338
F: 312.913.0002
P: 312.913.2112
F: 312.913.0002
P: 312.913.2129
F: 312.913.0002
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: 312.913.3396
F: 312.913.0002
Patent Agent
P: 312.913.3394
F: 312.913.0002
P: 312.913.2147
F: 312.913.0002
P: 312.913.3303
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: 312.913.3359
F: 312.913.0002
P: 312.913.0001
F: 312.913.0002
Of Counsel
P: 312.913.3337
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
Technical Advisor
P: 312.913.3363
F: 312.913.0002
P: 312.913.2138
F: 312.913.0002
P: 312.913.2114
F: 312.913.0002
Partner
P: 312.913.3390
F: 312.913.0002
Associate
P: 312.913.2142
F: 312.913.0002

Upcoming Events

September 10-11, 2015
MBHB Partners Joseph Herndon, Bradley Hulbert, Kevin Noonan, Ph.D., Thomas Wettermann and Donald Zuhn, Jr., Ph.D. are Featured Presenters
December 9, 2015
December 10-11, 2015
MBHB Partner Bradley Hulbert Is a Featured Presenter

Past Event

July 30, 2015
MBHB Partner James M. McCarthy Is the Featured Presenter
July 20-21, 2015
MBHB Partners Kevin Noonan, Donald Zuhn and Paul Tully Are Featured Presenters
June 26, 2015
MBHB Partner Bradley Hulbert Is a Featured Co-Speaker for a Panel Presentation
June 25-26, 2015
MBHB Partners James Suggs and Nicole Reifman are Featured Course Leaders for this Management Forum-Sponsored Program
June 12, 2015

Publications

August 14, 2015 (snippets Alert)
MBHB snippets Alert - August 14, 2015

The Federal Circuit issued a unanimous en banc decision yesterday regarding when joint tortfeasors may be held liable for literal infringement in Akamai Technologies Inc. v. Limelight Networks, Inc. In its opinion, the court held that method claims can be literally infringed when individual steps of a claimed method are performed by more than one actor under certain circumstances.
Spring 2015 (snippets)
The America Invents Act (AIA) created several adjudicative proceedings within the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) of the U.S. Patent & Trademark Office, including inter partes review, post-grant review, and covered business method review (IPR, PGR, and CBM, respectively). The AIA also provided explicit estoppel provisions with respect to District Court litigation for those proceedings.
Spring 2015 (snippets)
The recent interpretation of patent eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101 by the Supreme Court in Alice v. CLS Bank in June 2014 has caused confusion in the patent world regarding the validity and practicality of software and business method patents. In Alice, the Supreme Court held that claims directed towards a computer-implemented means of mitigating settlement risk by using a third-party intermediary did not qualify as eligible subject matter.
Spring 2015 (snippets)
In a recent verdict, a California federal jury found that Robin Thicke and Pharrell Williams’ smash hit “Blurred Lines” copied Marvin Gaye’s 1977 song “Got To Give It Up” and awarded Marvin Gaye’s children $7.39 million in damages for copyright infringement. In a follow-up to our earlier articles, we discuss some of the issues raised in the case and what impact, if any, the decision can have on musicians who try to emulate a particular genre or another artist’s sound.
Spring 2015 (snippets)
The patent statute makes it clear that subject matter that would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date of a patent application is not patentable. The considerations relevant to obviousness have been set for some time: (1) the scope and content of the prior art; (2) the level of ordinary skill in the art; (3) the differences between the claimed subject matter and the prior art; and (4) secondary considerations of non-obviousness. There has, however, been much litigation on how courts are to apply these considerations to determine whether an invention would have been obvious and therefore not patentable.
Spring 2015 (snippets)
In a 7-2 decision authored by Justice Alito, the Supreme Court held on March 24, 2015, that issue preclusion may apply to Trademark Trial and Appeal Board (TTAB) decisions (B&B Hardware, Inc. v. Hargis Industries, Inc.).
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=294&pdf=yes
a[href='javascript:packetBuilderSingleClick(document.title);']