Startups & Entrepreneurs

Click here to view our Startups & Entrepreneurs professionals
Related Chairs: Emily Miao

Startup companies and entrepreneurs often face significant risk and liability with respect to Intellectual Property (IP) on their path to success. Intellectual property issues arise regularly in business, particularly with startups companies, and if not addressed, permanent loss of IP rights or exposure to potential litigation may arise. McDonnell Boehnen Hulbert & Berghoff LLP can help maximize opportunities while minimizing risk and liability with respect to IP issues by assisting startup companies and entrepreneurs in avoiding common pitfalls while protecting and enhancing their IP assets.

MBHB attorneys provide creative, pragmatic business solutions through a variety of intellectual property services, including litigation, prosecution, and general client counseling. We routinely counsel startup companies and entrepreneurs in developing strategies to protect their IP assets. Our attorneys are skilled in all aspects of IP prosecution, including drafting patent applications and prosecuting them before the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office and abroad. We assist in the development and selection of trademarks, securing trademark registrations, and establishing appropriate trademark usage for packaging and advertisement. We help startup companies and entrepreneurs in obtaining and maintaining federal copyright registrations. We are skilled in drafting, negotiating, and securing IP rights through agreements, in navigating around competitor IP, and in making companies look attractive to investors by securing IP protection. We are adept in preparing for potential litigation where necessary or avoiding it all together.

At MBHB, we counsel startup companies and entrepreneurs from the initial concept stage on how best to avoid potential IP-related missteps that can jeopardize their viability as a profitable business and limit their appeal as an acquisition or funding target. By helping companies avoid such missteps and protect their IP assets, MBHB enables companies to bring their products to market, raise capital, and resolve IP litigation and disputes that may arise in the course of business.

P: 312.913.3342
F: 312.913.0002
P: 312.913.2104
F: 312.913.0002
P: 312.913.3361
F: 312.913.0002
P: 312.913.2109
F: 312.913.0002
P: 312.913.3333
F: 312.913.0002
P: 312.913.3360
F: 312.913.0002
P: 312.913.3366
F: 312.913.0002
P: 312.935.2372
F: 312.913.0002
P: 312.913.3304
F: 312.913.0002
P: 312.913.2125
F: 312.913.0002
P: 312.913.2112
F: 312.913.0002
P: 312.913.3372
F: 312.913.0002
P: 312.913.3344
F: 312.913.0002
P: 312.913.2126
F: 312.913.0002
P: 312.913.3302
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: 312.913.3336
F: 312.913.0002
Of Counsel
P: 312.913.3384
F: 312.913.0002
P: 312.913.3329
F: 312.913.0002
P: 312.913.3300
F: 312.913.0002
P: 312.913.3390
F: 312.913.0002
P: 312.913.2142
F: 312.913.0002

Past Event

November 14, 2017
MBHB Partners Eric Moran and Nicole Reifman Are Featured Presenters
October 27, 2017
MBHB Partners Anthoula Pomrening and Marcus Thymian Are the Featured Speakers for this Program
October 20, 2017
MBHB Partner Alison Baldwin Is a Featured Speaker
October 17, 2017
MBHB Attorneys Grant Drutchas and Aaron Gin, Ph.D. Are Featured Presenters
October 15-17, 2017
MBHB Partner Bradley Hulbert Is a Featured Co-Speaker for this PRG-Sponsored Program


October 5, 2017
MBHB snippets Alert - October 5, 2017

In Aqua Products Inc. v. Matal, a highly fractured en banc Federal Circuit determined that the PTAB, in ruling whether to allow claim amendments in an IPR proceeding, can no longer place the burden to establish the patentability of the amended claims on the patent owner. This should result in more claim amendments being allowed in such proceedings, and it also opens the possibility that more motions to amend will be filed. However, this decision is unlikely to be the panacea hoped for by patent owners.
September 22,2017 (snippets Alert)
In In re: Cray, Inc, No. 2017-129, the CAFC issued a writ of mandamus vacating Judge Gilstrap’s decision involving venue under 28 U.S.C. §1400(b) in Raytheon Co. v. Cray Inc., Case No. 15-cv-1554 (E.D. Texas). That earlier decision raised concerns over whether the Supreme Court’s venue holding in TC Heartland LLC v. Kraft Foods Group Brands LLC, 137 S. Ct. 1514 (2017), would be given full effect. Judge Gilstrap had applied a broad 4-factor test for finding whether a defendant such as Cray had a “regular and established place of business” in the Eastern District of Texas under §1400(b). Judge Gilstrap’s test had attracted significant attention, and posited the Eastern District of Texas against most other district courts in applying § 1400(b).
Summer 2017 (snippets)
With cannabis policy reform and legalization continuing to gain momentum nationwide and internationally, the “Green Rush” is well underway. For companies and entrepreneurs entering this industry, comprehensive intellectual property (“IP”) protection is vital for their developing cannabis brands and inventions.
Summer 2017 (snippets)
On May 22, 2017, in TC Heartland LLC v. Kraft Foods Group Brands LLC, the Supreme Court reversed decades of expansive patent venue interpretation by the Federal Circuit. The ruling in TC Heartland immediately overturns long-standing “forum-shopping” practices and introduces a longer-term issue of defining “a regular and established place of business.”
June 19, 2017 (snippets Alert)

This morning, in Matal v. Tam, previously Lee v. Tam, the Supreme Court handed down its most impactful interpretation of the disparagement clause of the Lanham Act to date by holding that at its intersection with the First Amendment, the disparagement clause violates the First Amendment’s Free Speech Clause.  

June 12, 2017 (snippets Alert)
The Supreme Court handed down its opinion in Sandoz Inc. v. Amgen Inc., marking the first time the Court has interpreted the Biologics Price Competition and Innovation Act (“BPCIA”) for the approval of biosimilar drugs. On the first question considered, the Court held that a biologic reference product sponsor (“RPS”) cannot seek enforcement of 42 U.S.C. §262(l)(2)(A) by injunction under federal law. The Court’s analysis of the second question, regarding the 180-day notice provisions of the statute, was more straightforward. The Court held that the Federal Circuit had misinterpreted the statutory language by imposing a requirement for FDA approval before proper notice could be given.
Generate a PDF of your page(s)
Page has been queued
An error has occurred
Added to queue
Confirm Delete All Message
No Items in Packet Message
To add a page, select Add. To view the package, select View.