Home

Mission

About the Principal

Services

Testimonials

Key

Links

BENEFITs/ROI

Publications

FIND US and SITE MAP

Legal Services that are an Investment in Your FutureRSM

IP AND business Law Offices of

Howard L. Hoffenberg, Esq.

(Since 1999)

 

 

LOS ANGELES

10940 Wilshire Blvd.

Suite 1600

Los Angeles, CA 90024

310-670-5825

mail@ipcounselor.com

HLHinFrontOfOfficeClose-up

 

RIVERSIDE

74-710 Highway 111

Suite 102

Palm Desert, CA

92260

760-347-3470

mail@ipcounselor.com

 

Tomorrows Finest TodayRSM

 

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 Federal Circuit decision discussed in the article; however, the article is still good reading to get an historical perspective of the law.

 

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

Copyright Infringement: Fair Use Carve Out to Infringement published in the Los Angeles Lawyer (2016)

 

 

 

 

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)

 

EDITORS NOTE: 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)

EDITORS NOTE: The US Supreme Court has issued its decision on the topic, so as the court of last resort in Australia issues its decision on the topic and the law around the world is not uniform. Further, law is always in flux and even the US Supreme Court can revisit an issue and change its pronouncement of the law. The article is still a worthwhile read.

 

 

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

EDITORS NOTE: Congress changed the statute; however, the article is still a good read to get an historical perspective on the law.

 

 

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

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Hoffenberg, Howard, Federal Circuit [on] Divided Patent Infringement, Daily Journal Los Angeles, vol. vvv, No. nnn (January 2, 2020) p. ppp

 

EDITORS NOTE:

Email dated 2020-01-10 from Jeremy Ellis at ReprintPros to Howard Hoffenberg regarding that [t]hese prices apply All reuse of Daily Journal content must go through ReprintPros

Email dated 2020-01-10 from Ben Armistead at the Daily Journal to Howard Hoffenberg regarding that I [Armistead] cannot send an electronic copy to post to your website

In furtherance of the admirable cause of the flow of information anyone is invited to start a Go Fund Me page to pay ReprintPros prices

Please note that the Daily Journal paid no money for the article and there is no budget to fees to ReprintPros.

Letter dated 2020-01-17 from Howard Hoffenberg to Christopher Poole (JAMS CEO) regarding a clarification of rules

 

Letter dated 2020-01-19 from Hoffenberg to the Electronic Frontier Foundation regarding amending Labor Code Section 2750.3 to protect the flow on the Internet of content that is provided for free

 

Letter dated 2020-01-09 from Hoffenberg to California Senator Jerry Hill and the Standing Committee on Labor, Committee Assistant Public Employment and Retirement regarding fixing California Labor Code Section 2750.3 to the satisfaction of journalist and authors

 

Letter dated 2020-01-09 from Hoffenberg to Assembly Member Ash Kalra and the Committee on Labor and Employment regarding fixing California Labor Code Section 2750.3 to the satisfaction of journalist and authors

 

Letter dated 2020-01-28 from Hoffenberg to Senator Bates regarding making SB867,8 passable with a provision for open internet access to public service content by freelancers

The article pertained to the decision of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in Syngenta Crop Prot., LLC v. Willowood, LLC, 2019 U.S. App. LEXIS 37411 (Dec. 18, 2019). Typically, patent infringement is prosecuted under 35 USC Section 271(a). In an issue of first impression, the Syngenta court held that patent infringement prosecuted as a violation of 35 USC Section 271(g) was applicable to both imported and domestic goods, that Section 271(g) focused upon a product made by a process (i.e., not the process) and accordingly, divided infringement was inapplicable. Hence, an end run around the obstacle of divided patent infringement.

 

 

 

 

 

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 2019 IP and Business Law Offices of Howard L. Hoffenberg, Esq.

All Rights Reserved.

USER AGREEMENT and PRIVACY POLICY