January 2020

31 Jan

Harrity Named a “Best Place to Work” in 2020

Firm News, General awards, best place to work, careers, harrity, recruiting

FAIRFAX, VA (January 31, 2020) Harrity & Harrity, LLP, a nationally recognized patent law firm, has been named one of the 2020 Best Places to Work in Virginia by Virginia Business Magazine and Best Companies Group.

The 2020 Best Places to Work in Virginia list is part of a statewide survey and awards program which identifies the 100 best places of employment in Virginia. The list is determined by evaluating each nominated company’s workplace policies, practices, philosophy, systems and demographics, as well as the results of employee experience surveys measuring the overall employee satisfaction. Only companies with the highest combined scores receive recognition as a Best Places to Work in Virginia winner.

“It is an honor to have been named one of Virginia’s Best Places to Work in 2020. Since our inception 20 years ago, the partners at Harrity have always focused on fostering a positive, exciting, and rewarding firm culture. Our people are the core of our business and our success comes from recruiting and retaining the best talent. This means constantly learning and evolving to improve the type of environment we provide and ensuring that our employees have the resources and support they need to succeed,” said John Harrity, Managing Partner at Harrity, LLP. “This award is a fantastic recognition of that.”

As a boutique IP firm specializing in the preparation and prosecution of electrical and mechanical patent applications, Harrity maintains a robust and prestigious client base, consisting of a number of Patent 300® companies and some of the leading technology companies in the world. In addition to high-quality work, experienced practitioners, and outstanding service, Harrity employees highlighted the firm’s cutting-edge innovation, dedication to charity, progressive diversity initiatives, generous benefits, and flexible remote policy as factors that set Harrity aside from typical workplaces.

Harrity will join other top ranked companies at an awards luncheon on January 31, 2020, at the Boar’s Head Inn in Charlottesville, where the official 2020 Best Places to Work in Virginia announcement will be made.

To learn more about what makes Harrity a great place to work and to view current career opportunities, visit the Harrity Careers Page.

About Harrity & Harrity, LLP

Harrity & Harrity is a patent preparation and prosecution firm specializing in the electrical and mechanical technology areas and is considered a Go-To Firm for the Patent 300®. Our clients have come to trust in our high-quality work, experienced people, industry leading innovation, and outstanding service. For more information, visit harrityllp.com.

28 Jan

Elaine Spector Named First Female Partner at Harrity, LLP

Harrity & Harrity

Diversity, Firm News, General AIPLA, corporate ip institute, diversity, Elaine Spector, harrity, intellectual property, IPO, law, partner, USPTO, women in law

WASHINGTON, DC (January 28, 2020) Harrity & Harrity, LLP is pleased to announce Elaine Spector as one of three newly named partners at the firm. Already a driving force in legal innovation, diversity initiatives, and charity involvement, Elaine’s new role is sure to implement even more progressive ideas at Harrity.

“Truly, something extraordinary is happening here at Harrity; where a woman, or any other lawyer for that matter, can have the opportunity to be a partner, but not at the sacrifice of their family. I am unaware of any other firms that provide the flexibility that Harrity offers; that can allow a mom like myself (who likes to cook for her family and be involved) an opportunity to work reduced hours, while still caring for my family in a way that feels good to me,” said Elaine. “I am very excited for the opportunity I’ve been given and for what the future holds for this awesome firm. The best is yet to come.”

Elaine is a patent attorney with over 20 years of experience in intellectual property law. Her current practice consists primarily of prosecuting patent applications with a focus on electromechanical technologies. She is Harrity’s first female partner.

Prior to joining Harrity & Harrity, Elaine worked in private practice for over 15 years handling various intellectual property matters, including patent application drafting and prosecution, trademark prosecution and enforcement, as well as litigating complex patent cases in federal courts. Elaine’s extensive litigation experience provides her with a unique perspective in prosecuting patent applications.

Most recently, Elaine worked in-house for 6 years at Johns Hopkins Technology Ventures, where she managed over 500 matters in medical and software related technologies before moving to Harrity, LLP in May, 2017.

Elaine serves as Chair of the Harrity Diversity Committee and Chair of the AIPLA Women in IP Law Committee’s Global Networking Event and Outreach Subcommittees. She is also on the IPO Diversity Committee’s Management Team and is a Board Member at the non-profit No More Stolen Childhoods.

To learn more about Elaine’s background and leadership involvement, please visit her Harrity Bio Page.

About Harrity & Harrity, LLP

28 Jan

Clause 8’s Eli Mazour Named Partner

Harrity & Harrity

Clause 8, Firm News, General Clause 8, corporate ip institute, Eli Mazour, harrity, intellectual property, IPO, law, partner, USPTO

WASHINGTON, DC (January 28, 2020) Harrity & Harrity, LLP is excited to announce that Eli Mazour has been named partner of the firm. Mazour’s expert knowledge of the patent field, creativity and efficiency in patent prosecution, strong business acumen, and large network within the patent community will be crucial factors in the growth and advancement of the firm. He is one of three new partners at Harrity, as announced by the firm last week.

“I’m excited to now be a partner at America’s most innovative patent preparation and prosecution boutique,” commented Mazour. “This will allow me to continue to provide the greatest possible value to technology companies that are interested in growing high-quality patent portfolios that best fit their business needs.”

Mazour leads the firm’s patent prosecution team with a focus on helping Patent 300® companies build valuable, high-quality patent portfolios in an efficient manner. He has extensive experience in all aspects of patent prosecution, including preparing and prosecuting hundreds of patent applications related to computer software, Internet and e-commerce, telecommunications, networking devices, electronic consumer products, and medical devices.

Mazour has specific expertise in developing and implementing innovative patent prosecution strategies for reaching favorable results at the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office. He assists clients in evaluating existing patent portfolios, identifying strategic areas for patenting, and creating processes for harvesting disclosures of patentable inventions.

Mazour began his patent law career at the law firm of Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett, & Dunner and has been with Harrity, LLP since 2010. Throughout his tenure, Mazour has been helping clients resolve complex patent assertion and licensing issues. As a result, he is keenly aware of the pitfalls to avoid and opportunities to grasp during patent prosecution.

In addition to providing outstanding prosecution support, Mazour is the creator and host of the Clause 8 podcast, which was recently picked up by the IP field’s largest online publication, IPWatchdog.com. Clause 8 features interviews with prominent members of the IP community in which the most interesting and influential topics of today’s patent world are discussed. As a result, Mazour is sought out by clients and professionals for his insight on various patent policy developments, including legislative proposals and changes at the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO). Mazour has also partaken in several speaking engagements focused on patentability and authored a number of articles on patent strategy.

To learn more about Mazour’s background, and to view all of his speaking engagements and publications, please visit his Harrity Bio Page.

About Harrity & Harrity, LLP

Harrity & Harrity is a patent preparation and prosecution firm specializing in the electrical and mechanical technology areas and is considered a Go-To Firm for the Patent 300™ Our clients have come to trust in our high-quality work, experienced people, industry leading innovation, and outstanding service. For more information, visit harrityllp.com.

28 Jan

Senior Associate Neil Kardos Promoted to Partner

Harrity & Harrity

Diversity, Firm News, General AIPLA, Clause 8, corporate ip institute, diversity, harrity, intellectual property, IPO, law, Neil Kardos, partner, USPTO

WASHINGTON, DC (January 28, 2020) Harrity & Harrity, LLP is pleased to announce that senior associate Neil Kardos has recently been named partner. As the firm continues to expand, Neil will play a key role in its ability to stay current with new technologies, provide excellent service to the firm’s clients, become increasingly efficient, develop patent automation tools, and drive forward-thinking business development. Neil is one of three new partners at Harrity, as announced by the firm last week.

“I’m excited and thankful to be part of an innovative firm that’s blazing a trail toward what a patent law firm should look like,” Neil said of the announcement.

Neil is a patent attorney specializing in preparing and prosecuting patent applications. His practice focuses on electrical, computer, and mechanical technologies, including telecommunications, 5G, vehicle-to-everything (V2X) systems, financial technologies, computer hardware and software systems, computer networking, search engines, optical systems, internet hardware and software systems, machinery, sensors, control systems, e-commerce, and business methods.

Neil is actively involved with the Intellectual Property Owner’s Association (IPO) and has spoken at the IPO annual meeting on several occasions, most recently about diversity and gender disparity among inventors. He has partaken in several speaking engagements regarding innovation and the IP field, including presentations at IPO and the Corporate IP Institute as a panel member to analyze and discuss trends in corporate IP management, as well as to share strategies for using patent analytics to manage IP portfolios and IP teams. As part of his work on the IPO’s Corporate IP Management Committee, for which he has served as Vice Chair, Neil helped develop a benchmarking survey that assists in-house counsel in the management of their IP departments and patent portfolios.

Prior to joining Harrity, Neil worked as a Primary Patent Examiner at the United States Patent and Trademark Office, where he examined patent applications directed to computer-related technologies, operations research, e-commerce, computer software, complex network analysis, internet applications, and business methods. While working at the USPTO, Neil attended The George Washington University National Law Center and served as a member of The George Washington Law Review. He has been with Harrity, LLP since April of 2012.

To learn more about Neil’s background, and to view all of his speaking engagements and publications, please visit his Harrity Bio Page.

About Harrity & Harrity, LLP

24 Jan

Harrity Promotes Three Attorneys to Partner, Including First Female Partner

Harrity & Harrity

Diversity, Firm News, General AIPLA, Clause 8, corporate ip institute, diversity, Elaine Spector, Eli Mazour, harrity, intellectual property, IPO, law, Neil Kardos, partner, USPTO, women in law

WASHINGTON, DC (January 24, 2020) Harrity & Harrity, a leading patent law firm based in the Washington, DC metro area, is pleased to announce the promotion of three top patent attorneys into partner roles, effective January 1, 2020.

Neil Kardos, Eli Mazour, and Elaine Spector have consistently demonstrated excellence in their practices while going above and beyond to contribute to the firm’s accomplishments in the intellectual property sector. The announcement comes at a time when Harrity is on track to be national leaders in innovation, automation, analytics, charity, and diversity initiatives in the legal field. The transition of Neil, Eli, and Elaine into partnership roles will be a driving force in the continued growth and advancement of the firm.

“Neil, Elaine and Eli are an exceptional group of talent. During their collective time at Harrity, each has demonstrated a tremendous amount of leadership, innovation, efficiency, and progression, both within the firm and the IP community as a whole- all while providing top quality services to our clients. We are thrilled to have these three attorneys begin a new chapter with us as partners and know they will play an instrumental role in furthering Harrity’s accomplishments into the new decade,” said the firm’s Managing Partner, John Harrity.

Neil Kardos, a former Primary Patent Examiner at the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) and active member of the Intellectual Property Owner’s Association (IPO) and Corporate IP Institute, specializes in preparing and prosecuting patent applications. His practice focuses on electrical, computer, and mechanical technologies, including telecommunications, 5G, vehicle-to-everything (V2X) systems, financial technologies, computer hardware and software systems, computer networking, search engines, optical systems, internet hardware and software systems, machinery, sensors, control systems, e-commerce, and business methods. Neil is a graduate of The George Washington University National Law Center and has been with Harrity since April of 2012.

Eli Mazour joined Harrity in 2010 and currently leads the firm’s patent prosecution team with a focus on helping Patent 300® companies build valuable, high-quality patent portfolios in an efficient manner. In this role, he develops and implements best practices for managing workflow and innovative patent prosecution strategies for reaching favorable results at the USPTO. Eli is also the creator and host of the Clause 8 podcast, which features interviews with prominent members of the IP community, and has written and presented about various patent-related trends. As a result, he is sought out by clients and other professionals for his insights on various patent policy developments, including legislative proposals and changes at the USPTO.

Elaine Spector has over 20 years of experience in intellectual property law. Her extensive experience in the IP field includes patent application drafting and prosecution, trademark prosecution and enforcement, as well as litigating complex patent cases in federal courts. Elaine’s current practice consists primarily of prosecuting patent applications with a focus on electromechanical technologies. Elaine is a driving force in legal service quality, diversity programs, and charity involvement at the firm, and currently serves as Chair of the Harrity Diversity Committee and Chair of the AIPLA Women in IP Law Committee’s Global Networking Event and Outreach Subcommittees. She is also on the IPO Diversity Committee’s Management Team and is a Board Member at the non-profit No More Stolen Childhoods. Elaine has been with Harrity since 2017 and is the firm’s first female partner.

About Harrity & Harrity, LLP

21 Jan

Kevin Jakel of Unified Patents Pt. 2 – Clause 8 – Episode 15

Harrity & Harrity

Articles, Clause 8 Clause 8, Eli Mazour, ip news, IPWatchdog.com

Tune into Eli Mazour‘s Clause 8 Podcast for the second and final part of our interview with Kevin Jakel, the founder and CEO of Unified Patents. On this episode, we continue the conversation with Kevin about how Unified Patents operates, discuss Unified Patents’ new program for targeting Standard Essential Patents (SEPs), debate whether the patent troll narrative has been overblown, talk about the patent quality problem, and delve into some other patent policy issues related to IPRs and the PTAB. We also find out what Kevin has in common with George Costanza!

Listen and subscribe on IPwatchdog.com.

14 Jan

2019 Top Patent Firms List Announced

Harrity & Harrity

Firm News, Patent Analytics analytics, dashboard, harrity, Patent 300, patent firms, Rocky Berndsen, top patent firms

WASHINGTON (January 14, 2020) – Harrity Patent Analytics is pleased to announce the publication of its annual list of top patent law firms. The “2019 Top Patent Firms” list ranks industry leading patent law firms based on the total number of U.S. utility patents issued in 2019.

The 2019 Top Patent Firms list comes with some significant changes from years prior, including an interactive dashboard and exclusive metrics. “We have collected and analyzed data on more than 300,000 patents obtained by over 3000 different law firms, which we have turned into an interactive online dashboard that allows users to filter data by firm, technology area, and USPTO technology center. This gives both patent law firms and Patent 300™ companies a better understanding of who is obtaining the most patents in the U.S.,” explains Rocky Berndsen, Head of Patent Analytics at Harrity. “We are also offering premium analytics that delve deeper into detailed patent prosecution metrics, giving law firms and Patent 300™ companies more insights into the robust analytics of specific law firms.”

The Top Patent Firms dashboard includes patent firms that have obtained at least 50 U.S. utility patents where the patent firms are listed on the front of the utility patents. Company legal departments have not been eliminated from the list. The full list is available here.

About Harrity Patent Analytics

Harrity Patent Analytics, an analytical team within the boutique IP law firm of Harrity & Harrity, LLP, uses cutting-edge capabilities to analyze patent data and extract insights for clients to use when making strategic decisions regarding patent portfolios. Patent 300™ companies rely on Harrity Patent Analytics services to understand their patent portfolios, the patent portfolios of their competitors, and patent office trends around the world.  For more information, visit harrityllp.com/services/patent-analytics/.

7 Jan

$750 Million Dollar Patent Infringement Award May Hinge on Whether a Certificate of Correction was Properly Issued to Fix a “Typo”

Harrity & Harrity

Articles, Case Summary, USPTO application, infringement, patents, RCE, Steven Underwood, typo

By Steven Underwood, Counsel

On December 15, 2019, a Los Angeles jury found that Kite Pharma Inc. (“Kite”) had willfully infringed a cancer-treatment patent licensed by Juno Therapeutics Inc. from Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center and Sloan Kettering Institute for Cancer Research (collectively, “MSKCC”), and held that Kite should pay MSKCC $752 million. The litigation (Juno Therapeutics Inc. et al. v. Kite Pharma Inc., case number 2:17-cv-07639, C.D. Cal.) was widely reported in the press as potentially hinging on whether the patent-in-suit (U.S. Pat. No. 7,446,190) contained a simple “typo.”

During the litigation, Kite argued that the U.S. Patent & Trademark Office (PTO) had erroneously issued a Certificate of Correction (CoC) because the “[t]he mistake corrected by the certificate of correction . . . was not of a clerical or typographical nature and was not of minor character,” as required under 35 U.S.C. § 255. Kite’s position was that the CoC should not have been granted, and that if the CoC had not been granted, Kite clearly would not infringe the claims of the patent.

In order to understand the nature of the mistake corrected by the CoC, we must briefly consider the claims. Claim 1 of the patent requires a “nucleic acid polymer encoding a chimeric T cell receptor comprising . . . a costimulatory signaling region [that] comprises the amino acid sequence encoded by SEQ ID NO:6.” Therefore, infringement of claim 1 can be determined only by reference to the definition of SEQ ID NO:6 (which is provided in the specification of the patent) – and that definition was modified by the CoC (seven bases, out of 328, were deleted).

When the application was filed on May 28, 2003, the SEQ ID NO:6 listing was, as explained by MSKCC to the PTO, incorrect. On September 4, 2007, after receiving a Notice of Allowance, MSKCC submitted a Request for Continued Examination (RCE) with an Amendment that requested the same changes to the specification that were subsequently requested by the CoC. In the Amendment, MSKCC argued that the changes were not new matter, since one skilled in the art would have recognized, as clerical errors, the errors being corrected. As required, a copy of the revised sequence listing on a computer-readable disk was submitted with the Amendment. However, on November 2, 2007, the Amendment was rejected by the PTO, on the ground that the sequence listing disk submitted with the Amendment was “flawed technically.” After two attempts, in April 2008 MSKCC submitted, along with a corrected paper copy of the sequence listing, a copy of the disk that was accepted, and on November 4, 2008, the patent issued.

However, while the April 2008 submission made corrections that were requested by the PTO, those corrections were made to the original, not the amended, specification. Consequently, the changes requested in the September 2007 Amendment/RCE were undone by the April 2008 submission. As summarized in MSKCC’s Request of Correction: “Sequence ID Nos. 4 and 6 in the printed patent therefore contain the same errors that the RCE was filed to address.” Thus, MSKCC argued, “The resubmission of the incorrect Sequence listing occurred through clerical error . . . and was not made in bad faith. The correction requested does not involve such changes in the patent as would constitute new matter . . . as it was the change that was presented to the Examiner in the initial amendment and arguments filed with the RCE.”

Regardless of the ultimate outcome of this case (an appeal seems likely), the clear takeaway for clients and practitioners is that a second pair of eyes should carefully review each filing with the PTO, including patent applications and responses. Such a review will substantially reduce the risk of a patent application being filed with the wrong information, and better ensure that any mistakes are properly corrected. As this case demonstrates, whether errors are properly (and promptly) corrected during prosecution may affect the validity or enforceability of a corresponding patent.