A Houston Patent Attorney’s Review of PLAS-PAK INDUSTRIES, INC. v. Sulzer Mixpac AG.

Intended purposes arguments are alive and well!   In this case Sulzer Mixpac Ag owns patent number 7,815, 384, which is directed towards a device for mixing and dispensing Multi-components paints. A representative independent claim is reproduced below. 1. A device for applying a coating, comprising at least two cylindrical cartridges, a static mixing nozzle [...]

By |2015-01-28T11:12:31-06:00January 28th, 2015|Blog, Patent Basics|Comments Off on A Houston Patent Attorney’s Review of PLAS-PAK INDUSTRIES, INC. v. Sulzer Mixpac AG.

A Texas Patent Attorney’s Overview of Patent Damages

The main reason why people obtain patents (other than being inspired by Shark Tank) is to stop someone else from making the same product, and if someone else makes the same product to be able to recover damages. Patent laws require that the damages awarded in patent infringement actions must be “adequate to compensate for [...]

By |2015-01-22T17:34:53-06:00January 22nd, 2015|Blog, Patent Basics|Comments Off on A Texas Patent Attorney’s Overview of Patent Damages

IN RE THE NEWBRIDGE CUTLERY COMPANY

IN RE THE NEWBRIDGE CUTLERY COMPANY A new look at geographically descriptive marks. In this case, Irish Company Newbridge was trying to trademark the name “NEWBRIDGE HOME”, where products were designed out of Newbridge, Ireland. Brief History Regarding Geographically descriptive trademarks: The Lanham Act instructed the PTO to refuse to register a trademark if “when [...]

By |2015-01-22T15:12:36-06:00January 22nd, 2015|Blog, Trademark Basics|Comments Off on IN RE THE NEWBRIDGE CUTLERY COMPANY
Go to Top