Blog | Parsons & Goltry | Patent Law Blog

2019 USPTO Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance

In Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. V. CLS Bank Int’l, 134 S. Ct. 2347 (2014) (“Alice Corp.”), the Supreme Court made clear that it applies the framework set forth in Mayo Collaborative Servs. v. Prometheus Labs., Inc., 132 S. Ct. 1289 (2012) (“Mayo”) to analyze claims directed to laws of nature and abstract ideas. Alice Corp. Also… Read more

Category: Patents

Patent Application Boilerplate Language Not Sufficient to show Enabling Disclosure

Unlike early patent applications, most patent applications now include closing “boilerplate language” designed to broaden the scope of patent coverage. Here is an example: Persons having ordinary skill in the art will recognize certain modifications, permutations, additions and sub-combinations therefore. It is therefore intended that the following appended claims hereinafter introduced are interpreted to include… Read more

Category: Copyright , Non Disclosure

The Drawing Requirement for a U.S. Trademark Application

by Michael Goltry, Registered Patent Attorney (480-991-3537; mg@pgpct.com) A U.S. trademark application must include a drawing of the mark sought to be registered. The drawing must be clear, and must be filed with the original application to receive a filing date. The purpose of the drawing is to provide notice of the mark sought to… Read more

Category: Trademark

A Brutal Provisional Problem – D Three Enterprises, LLC v. SunModo Corp. (Fed. Cir. 2018) – by Patent Attorney Michael W. Goltry

A Brutal Provisional Problem – D Three Enterprises, LLC v. SunModo Corp. (Fed. Cir. 2018) by Michael Goltry, Registered Patent Attorney Writing patent applications is tricky, even for skilled and experienced patent practitioners. The crux of patent protection often turns on one word, and the D Three case is an exemplary illustration of this. Claims… Read more

Category: Patents

Client Approved

“”

"Our company has worked with a number of patent attorneys and were so pleased when we began working with Parsons & Goltry nearly a decade ago. Mike Goltry's knowledge and attention to detail has enabled us to have numerous products patented and trademarks registered. We highly recommend this Law Firm."

- Sharon K.

“”

"Michael Goltry is the most professional, honest and effective patent attorney whom I ever met in my 40 year professional engineering career. I started to work with him over 20 years ago and plan to work indefinitely."

- Zoltan Kemeny, PhD, Struct. Eng.

“”

"Mr. Goltry took a provisional patent that we'd filed ourselves, and quickly and professionally turned our innovation into U.S. and foreign applications. His [patent claims] were a thing of beauty, and I was amazed by how deftly he countered the inevitable office actions. His language held up, and the U.S. Patent just issued. He was easy and efficient to work with, and his fees were remarkably reasonable. We're not planning to go anywhere else, ever."

- Ski Milburn, CEO, Victori, LLC

“”

"I applied for a patent through Parsons & Goltry. After being on the docket for 2 years at the USPTO, I received notification that my patent request had been denied. Michael Goltry contacted me immediately to review my options. After I informed him of my decision to move forward, he filed a response to the USPTO. In his response he got the examiner to fully understand the claims in the patent application and the "denied" decision was reversed. I was able to secure and receive a "patent granted" decision. Thank you, Michael Goltry."

- Kathy H., Inventor