Blog

I would like to congratulate my Shelton, CT client on receiving his design patent on May 3, 2016. Congratulations Robert Fox! His patent can be seen here
.

My client Steward Walton and Esheaves of Groton, Connecticut received a new patent on August 30, 2016. Congratulations Stew! His patent can be seen here.

My client at the UCONN IP CLINIC had his patent for a Harmonica automatic positioner and method issued today. Congratulations Joseph Paresi of Madison, CT! His patent can be seen here.

I am happy to announce that I have rededicated myself to the Law Offices of Michael A. Blake, LLC and providing excellent, reasonably priced legal services to my clients. I enjoyed my two years of teaching the next generation of patent lawyers and trademark lawyers at the University of Connecticut School of Law. I was able to teach at UCONN Law half-time, while maintaining my private law practice. However, when UCONN Law asked me to consider a full time position–which would have meant giving up the Law Offices of Michael A. Blake, LLC, I had to politely decline. I love providing legal services to my wonderful clients, and plan on continuing to do so for many years to come!

The next Inventor’s Association of Connecticut (IACT) meeting will be at Fairfield University on August 30, 2016 at 7 pm. The presenter will be inventor Kevin S. Garrity. He is the founder of Squeeze Pod – a revolutionary line of single-use, travel-size, natural toiletries. Kevin will discuss the product concept, design, manufacturing and marketing challenges he experienced bringing Squeeze Pod to market. Every failure he faced presented a new and better opportunity. This is a great opportunity for other inventor’s to see how an inventor can go from the idea stage to a successful product! More information can be found here.

At the end of July, 2016 I will once again be attending the National Association of Patent Practitioners (NAPP) annual conference in Alexandria, VA at the United States Patent and Trademark (USPTO) Headquarters. I will be conferring with patent attorneys and patent agents on Patent Quality, and best patent practices. More information can be found here.

I attended a meeting of the Inventors Association of Connecticut last night at Fairfield University. Edward Goodwin, an angel investor, gave a wonderful talk on how to (and not to) approach an angel investor to raise money. He gave some very good advice, such as be able to talk about your management team, the market, and then the product/invention, all in that order of importance–from greater to lesser. More information is here.

I would like to congratulate my Milford, CT client Jay Jaser for getting a registered trademark for “SENIOR HELP DESK GUIDANCE, STRENGTH AND SAFE HARBOR FOR OUR SENIORS”. The mark can be seen here.

I would like to congratulate my Branford, CT client NEW ENGLAND COMPUTER SERVICES, INC. for obtaining a registered trademark for Entrée with respect to computer software for food inventory tracking; and Computer software for enterprise resource planning in the food distribution industry. The mark can be seen here.

In a memo dated May 19, 2016, the Deputy Commissioner for Patent Examination Policy,Robert Bahr, said the following:

“The Federal Circuit in Enfish stated that certain claims directed to improvements in computer related technology, including claims directed to software, are not necessarily abstract (Step 2A). The court specifically noted that some improvements in computer-related technology, such as chip architecture or an LED display, when appropriately claimed, are undoubtedly not abstract. Explaining that software can make non-abstract improvements to computer technology just as hardware can, the court noted that claims directed to software, as opposed to hardware, also are not inherently abstract. Therefore, an examiner may determine that a claim directed to improvements in computer-related technology is not directed to an abstract idea under Step 2A of the subject matter eligibility examination guidelines (and is thus patent eligible), without the need to analyze the additional elements under Step 2B. In particular, a claim directed to an improvement to computer-related technology (e.g., computer functionality) is likely not similar to claims that have previously been identified as abstract by the courts.” Emphasis this author’s.

The memo can be found here.