Tags: Intellectual Property, Life Sciences, task force
add a comment
On September 19th, MBBP announced that Intellectual Property Attorneys Stan Chalvire and Tom Dunn will be assuming the role of co-chairs of MBBP’s Life Sciences Task Force Committee, effective immediately. Stan and Tom had this to say of their appointment:
We would like to thank the former Chair of the MBBP’s Life Sciences Task Force, Lisa Treannie, Esq., for all of her valuable guidance, leadership and contributions to the Life Sciences Task Force over the past four years. We look forward to picking up where Lisa left off by helping to further deepen MBBP’s role as trusted counselors and strategic advisors to companies in the life sciences industry.
MBBP Welcomes Attorney Andrew M. Bunin 01/22/2013Posted by Morse, Barnes-Brown Pendleton in Attorney News, MBBP news.
Tags: Intellectual Property, patent attorney, patent preparation and prosecution
add a comment
MBBP is pleased to announce that Attorney Andrew M. Bunin has joined the firm as an associate. Andrew is a registered patent attorney practicing in all areas of intellectual property law including patent preparation and prosecution, trademark prosecution, and intellectual property portfolio management. Andrew specializes in a range of technologies including communication devices, nanotechnology, computer software and hardware, optics, medical devices, mechanical devices, electronics, and diagnostics. He has experience performing intellectual property analysis regarding patentability, freedom to operate, and infringement.
Prior to joining MBBP, Andrew practiced at an intellectual property specialty law firm in the Boston area. Andrew has in-house experience in the legal departments of a large corporation in the surgical field, a mid-size government contract company, and a biotech start-up company. Prior to his law career, Andrew worked as a Patent Examiner at the United States Patent and Trademark Office.
Andrew holds a B.S. in Biological Resources Engineering from the University of Maryland and a J.D. from Franklin Pierce Law Center (now University of New Hampshire School of Law). Currently, Andrew is pursuing certificates in Computer Engineering Technology and Electronics Technology as well as a degree in Electronic Engineering Technology from the University of Massachusetts-Lowell.
Please contact Andrew with any IP law questions.
Tags: bba, digital games, game publishing, Intellectual Property
add a comment
On Friday, November 16th the Boston Bar Association is hosting an event on Game Publishing 2.0 featuring MBBP Attorney Mike Cavaretta. Mike, co-chair of the Arts, Entertainment and Sports Law Committee of the Intellectual Property Section within the BBA, will discuss how the distribution and publishing of digital games has changed and how those changes influence agreements between game developers and publishers.
To learn more or to register for the event, please visit the BBA.
Tags: bba, entertainment law, Intellectual Property
add a comment
Mike represents information and technology businesses, including Internet, videogame and other interactive media companies, software companies, and entertainment and publishing companies. He is experienced in strategic alliances, intellectual property licenses, videogame development and publishing deals, technology development and distribution transactions, and trademark and copyright protection and registration.
For more information, please visit the Boston Bar Association.
Tags: Intellectual Property, IP Licensing, MCLE
add a comment
On June 16th, Massachusetts Continuing Legal Education (MCLE) is hosting the 14th Annual New England Intellectual Property Law Conference 2011, where attendees can get up-to-speed on trends and new developments that business lawyers and litigators need to know in the ever-changing field of intellectual property law. MBBP IP Licensing and Trademark Attorneys Howard Zaharoff and Faith Kasparian will be attending the conference as faculty members. Howard is a program Co-Chair, while Faith will present an overview and update to the FTC’s New Privacy Framework.
For more information and to register for the conference, please visit MCLE.
Sheri Mason to be Panelist in CLE Session 04/28/2011Posted by Morse, Barnes-Brown Pendleton in Attorney News, Events.
Tags: artists, cle, Intellectual Property
add a comment
On Wednesday, May 11, MBBP IP Attorney Sheri Mason will sit as a panelist for a Boston Bar Association CLE seminar titled “In-Depth Planning for Artists and Art Collectors:A Foundation for Intellectual Property andTrusts & Estates Attorneys“. This program will provide helpful information for both trusts and estates lawyers and intellectual property lawyers who advise artists and art collectors. The panel will explore the commercial aspects of the art world and provide a foundation in the specific intellectual property and estate planning issues that affect artists and collectors.
This event is being sponsored by Arts, Entertainment, and Sports Law Committee of the Intellectual Property Law Section, the Trusts & Estates Section, and Volunteer Lawyers for the Arts.
For more information and to register for the seminar, please visit the Boston Bar Association.
Basic Considerations for Determining Whether to Rely on Patents or Trade Secrets to Protect Your Intellectual Property 01/31/2011Posted by Morse, Barnes-Brown Pendleton in New Resources.
Tags: Intellectual Property, IP Licensing, trade secrets
add a comment
Patents and trade secrets both protect valuable information and technology, though each has distinct advantages and disadvantages. A patent grants the owner the right to exclude others from practicing the claimed invention for a limited time (in the U.S., 20 years from filing), in exchange for teaching the public how to make and use the claimed invention. Trade secret laws, on the other hand, protect information that derives value from not being generally known to the public. A decision of whether to rely on patents or trade secrecy must be made carefully, strategically and in consideration of business objectives. The decision will dictate enforcement rights and remedies, and may be scrutinized by business partners, investors and competitors. Several important factors should be considered.
One obvious consideration is whether the technology or information represents patentable subject matter and, if so, whether the likely scope of any patents that may issue will afford meaningful protection. This analysis may be informed by evaluating the closest prior art or by surveying the types of patent claims which competitors are relying upon to protect their intellectual property. To the extent that the anticipated scope of patent protection will be very narrow or allow competitors to easily design around the patent, patent protection may not be ideal.
Timing is also a critical consideration, especially for rapidly evolving technologies. Patent applications are formally examined and, although the time to issuance varies with the jurisdiction, the pendency of a patent application may approach four years or more in the United States depending on the technology. In contrast, no formal approval or examination is required for trade secret protection; rather, the owner need only maintain the secrecy of the information. Although there are mechanisms by which the prosecution of a patent application may be expedited, if the technology may become obsolete within a short period of time, patent protection may not be the best protection.
A fundamental premise of trade secret protection is that the information is not publicly known and that the information remains subject to reasonable efforts to maintain it in confidence. Trade secret laws will not prevent a third-party from independently developing the information or from reverse engineering publicly available products to learn the underlying information, nor will trade secret laws prevent the subsequent exploitation of information which was properly discovered. Accordingly, to determine whether trade secret protection is useful, one should consider the ease with which the information can be kept secret, as well as of the resources that must be devoted to maintaining its secrecy. Generally, reasonable efforts to maintain the secrecy of trade secret information includes restricting access to only those individuals who need to know the information to perform their duties, implementing appropriate employment agreements and security measures, and avoiding disclosures of the information except under appropriate non-disclosure agreements. To the extent that it is impractical or difficult to maintain the secrecy of the information, trade secret protection alone may not suffice.
The above factors (and others that your IP counsel can explain) should be considered in developing a comprehensive strategy to protect your company’s valuable technologies, processes and information. Often, a successful strategy will integrate both patents and trade secrets, as well as copyrights and trademarks. The early development of an intellectual property strategy and the periodic reassessment of that strategy in light of changing business objectives are key to protecting the valuable intellectual property assets of any company.
For more information on this topic, please contact Stan Chalvire.
Tags: Intellectual Property, IP Licensing, Writer's Digest Guides
add a comment
Writer’s Digest Guides has recently released its newest guide, Get An Agent, which covers such topics as the basics of publishing, how to submit your work and how to attract an agent. The 2010 Get An Agent includes an article written by MBBP Attorney Howard Zaharoff titled “Before You Sign With an Agent…”. The article advises writers on “how to negotiate terms that will benefit your writing — and make your agent work for you.”
To view the full article, please visit our Technology and IP Resources page.
For more information on IP and Technology Licensing, please contact Howard Zaharoff.