Home

Mission

About the Principal

Services

Testimonials

Key

Links

BENEFITS

Publications

SITE MAP

IMG_2168

Legal Services that are an Investment in Your Futuresm

IP and business Law Offices of

Howard L.

Hoffenberg, Esq.

11601 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 541

Los Angeles, California 90025

Phone 310-670-5825 ~ Fax 310-670-6737

mail@ipcounselor.com

 

Tomorrows Finest Todaysm

 

GUIDES

Responding to an Office Action in a Patent Case, Part I

Examination Practice in a Patent Case, Part II

A Tour of US Supreme Court patent cases from 1961 to 1999

 

PUBLICATIONS

Computer Implemented Business Method Patent Eligibility: H. Hoffenberg, Patent Eligibility Computerized Business Methods, IP Today, AUG 2012.pdf

EDITORS NOTE: The US Supreme Court built on the decision discussed in the article; however, the article is still good reading.

Domain Names: H. Hoffenberg, Trademark Use in Domain Names, Los Angeles and San Francisco Daily Journal, (July 21, 2010)

Injunction Contempt: Hoffenberg, Howard, Federal Circuit Revamps the Law on Contempt of an Injunction Prohibiting Patent Infringement, IP Today (June 2011)

Intellectual Property: H. Hoffenberg, Pointers on Trying Intellectual Property Cases, New Matter (Official Publication of the State Bar of California Intellectual Property Section)

*** Insurance Coverage: H. Hoffenberg, Bypassing An Insurance Exclusion For Trademark Infringement, Los Angeles and San Francisco Daily Journal (January 6, 2010)

***This article could provide insights to certain defendants in getting insurance coverage.

Patents: H Hoffenberg, Federal Circuit Rules Affirmative on the Patentability of Diagnostic Methods After Bilski, IP Today (February, 2011)

Patents: H. Hoffenberg, Will the patentability of genes survive, Nature Biotechnology, Nature Publishing Group (September, 2010)

Patents: H. Hoffenberg, Public Empowered to Claim False Marking, Daily Journal Los Angeles, vol. 123, No. 8 (January 8, 2010) p. 6

Patents: H. Hoffenberg, The Federal Circuit Strikes Again in EnzoBiochem: The Latest on the Written Description Requirement for Valid BioTech Patents, IP Today, vol. 9, No. 6 (June, 2002) p. 6 (Decision reversed; nonetheless, the article is still instructive)

EDITORS NOTE: On October 5, 2017, the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit made its latest pronouncement on the requirements for claiming in a patent a genus in a case styled Amgen v. Sanofi. More particular, the Amgen court addressed claiming a genus of monoclonal antibodies. This latest decision revives written description law from Enzo Biochem I and makes the foregoing article a valuable read, bearing in mind that in Enzo Biochem II the court held that depositing a sample of a monoclonal antibody with a repository could satisfy the written description requirement for that species of antibody.

Patents: he Lancing Blow to Patent Infringement Litigation in the ED Texas (published on social media)

A Trademarks: A Primer on What Incontestability is Good For, Eligibility and How to Get It (published on social media)

Trademarks: H. Hoffenberg, Victorias Secret Wins Trademark Anti-Dilution Case, Daily Journal Los Angeles, vol. 123, No. 105 (June 2, 2010) p. 5

Trademarks: Howard Hoffenberg, Cost Conscious Procedures for Challenging a Competitors Trademark Registration or Patent

 

 

Copyright 2017 IP and Business Law Offices of Howard L. Hoffenberg, Esq.

All Rights Reserved.

USER AGREEMENT and PRIVACY POLICY