IN THIS DAY AND AGE, NEWS TRAVELS FASTER THAN EVER BEFORE.
Dunlap Codding Listed As One Of The Fastest Firms At The U.S. Patent OfficePosted Dec 7, 2015 at 10:52 am See More
Dunlap Codding was recently identified as the second fastest patent firm at the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) for inventions falling within a broad range of technologies, including fields as diverse as organic chemistry, fuel cells, adhesives, and food (Technology Center 1700). Juristat—Moneyball for Lawyers—designated this ranking based on the average amount of time required for completing the patenting process at the USPTO. The average amount of time from filing to completion for all technology categories at the USPTO is 35.8 months; with the average time for TC 1700 being 36.6 months. Dunlap Codding’s average elapsed time was 30.5 months, more than six months faster than the average.
Other firms ranked among the top ten were Jones Day (#10), Merchant Gould (#4), Pepper Hamilton (#3), and Porter Hedges (#1). Juristat chose firms from IP Today’s top firms for 2015 which had at least 100 disposed patent applications in the technology center.
Nick Rouse, Dunlap Codding’s Managing Director, noted that Juristat’s findings underscored one of the firm’s key values: nimble, prompt, responsive service to clients. “We get results quickly because of our in-depth experience at the USPTO and understanding of the underlying technologies covered by TC 1700.”
Dunlap Codding Director Jordan Sigale Quoted in Article on “Benchslaps”Posted Dec 4, 2015 at 9:33 am See More
Bill Donahue authored an article on copyright beatdowns and benchslaps in Law360 on November 20. “No matter the area of law, frustration appears to be the common factor behind the phenomenon that has come to be known as the “benchslap.”” Donahue added: “Judges see a lot nonsensical behavior from the attorneys and clients who enter their courtrooms, and the vast majority of the time, they respond in the measured, equitable fashion that their position of power demands. But every once and a while, things bubble over.”
“Judges see a lot of questionable lawsuits,” said Jordan Sigale, an intellectual property litigator with the firm Dunlap Codding. “Their dockets are getting larger, and what we expect of these people involves a heck of a lot of work for not so much pay.”
Commenting on judges using colorful language in the face of apparently bogus lawsuits, Sigale also said, “It could have been one frivolous complaint too many that week, and she saw an opportunity to have some fun with it,” Sigale said. “It seems like a good way to not melt down.”
Dunlap Codding Director Jordan A. Sigale Quoted in Law 360 on 5 Times NOT To File An AIA PetitionPosted Nov 19, 2015 at 15:46 pm See More
On November 17, Erin Coe wrote, “5 Times NOT To File An AIA Petition.” Coe said, “The America Invents Act reviews have emerged as an effective tool for attacking patents, but they may not always be the best response when a company is targeted in an infringement suit.” Dunlap Codding Director Jordan Sigale opined on two of the five times. Discussing when the PTAB isn’t the superior forum, he said, “When the prior art and the patent claims are close to each other, defendants may have an easier time before a judge or jury than before administrative law judges at the PTAB who are usually long-time patent examiners.”
Regarding the fifth time not to file an AIA petition—when prior art can lead to amendments—Sigale noted that, “Going forward, accused infringers are going to have to look more carefully at whether their prior art references could help patent owners bolster their patents….There’s a possibility that they can amend their patent at the PTAB, and that doesn’t exist in court.”
Associate Julie Langdon’s Article on Social Media is Published by Corporate CounselPosted Nov 19, 2015 at 15:22 pm See More
Corporate Counsel ran Julie Langdon’s article, “Question No. 1 for the Lawyer on Social Media: What Not to Share?” on October 1. The full article is instructive, and her top tips in a nutshell are:
- Be Wary of Self Promotion
- Keep Your Client’s Information Confidential
- Know Your Social Media Discovery Limits
- Do Not Have Communications with Judicial Officers
- And…Think Before You Post
Jordan Sigale, Dunlap Codding Director and Co-Practice Group Leader, Quoted in Law360Posted Oct 15, 2015 at 10:22 am See More
On September 14, 2015, Erin Coe, quoted Jordan Sigale in an article entitled “6 Tips For Using An Expert Witness to Win An IP Trial.” Coe wrote, “[P] icking the right expert witness who resonates with jurors can be a critical factor for bringing home a win.”
Sigale said, “I look for expert witnesses who take a position and whatever they believe, they hold it to their core, which either works for my case and I hire them, or it doesn’t, and I either figure out a way to use that opinion or I don’t hire them,” he said. “If I only go with an expert that adopts the opinion I want to hear, opposing counsel is going to shake the crud out of the expert.”
Douglas J. Sorocco, Dunlap Codding Shareholder and Practice Group Leader, Quoted in Corporate Counsel ArticlePosted Oct 15, 2015 at 10:06 am See More
On October 13, 2015, Lisa Shuchman wrote an article for Corporate Counsel covering a 22-page legal opinion issued in September by the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board (TTAB) regarding the use of F**K. The TTAB denied the appeal of a ruling denying trademark registration to an Italian apparel company for one of its marks: “F**K Project.
Doug Sorocco was quoted as saying, “Five to ten years ago, this would have been a slam dunk case,” says Douglas Sorocco, a partner at the Intellectual Property law firm Dunlap Codding. “The panel would have ruled unanimously that this mark was scandalous or immoral and could not be registered.”
Emily E. Campbell, Dunlap Codding Shareholder and Practice Group Leader Quoted in LifeZettePosted Oct 15, 2015 at 9:55 am See More
Toto wrote, “In recent years, as pop music became entrenched in our lives, candidates began choosing Billboard hits to boost their electoral chances. Emily Campbell, an attorney with Dunlap Codding, said in most situations the candidates in question backed down if they were challenged with legal action by the corresponding artists.
Politicians would stand on firmer ground if they didn’t play the songs in question repeatedly, and obtained the proper license in the first place, Campbell said. But campaign songs are like jingles, she said, and to work best they need to resonate and be remembered by potential voters. That demands repetition.”
Dunlap Codding Shareholder Emily E. Campbell Named an Oklahoma Rising Star 2015Posted Oct 8, 2015 at 10:45 am See More
OKLAHOMA CITY, OKLAHOMA—October 8, 2015— Dunlap Codding is pleased to announce that Emily E. Campbell has been named to the Oklahoma Rising Stars 2015 list for Intellectual Property as one of the top up-and-coming attorneys in Oklahoma. Campbell was previously listed as a Rising Star in 2010 and in 2013-2014. Each year, no more than 2.5 percent of the lawyers in a state receive this honor.
Campbell is a shareholder and practice group leader at Dunlap Codding, providing strategic counsel to clients on trademarks, copyrights, Internet law, and licensing. She was recently named to the University of Oklahoma’s College of Engineering Industrial & Systems Engineering Advisory Board and the Oklahoma City Geological Society Board of Directors. She received her J.D. from the Oklahoma City University School of Law and received her B.S. in Industrial Engineering from the University of Oklahoma. Campbell is registered to practice before the United States Patent and Trademark Office.
Dunlap Codding, with offices in Austin, Chicago, Oklahoma City, and Washington, D.C., serves sophisticated international, national, and regional clients. Established in 1957 as Oklahoma’s original intellectual property firm, Dunlap Codding remains the region’s largest and most versatile IP boutique providing counsel in the areas of patent, trademark, copyright, and entertainment law as well as related litigation and licensing services.
Dunlap Codding is a member of Primerus, an International Society of Law Firms.
Dunlap Codding Sponsors the 2015 Women in Law ConferencePosted Sep 23, 2015 at 11:28 am See More
The Oklahoma Bar Association’s Women in Law Committee held its annual Women in Law Conference on September 18, 2015, in Oklahoma City. Dunlap Codding was a proud sponsor of the event. The conference topic this year was Fearless Leadership and featured keynote speaker, Carey Lohrenz, the first female Tomcat F-14 Fighter pilot. The conference also included discussions by panels of leading female attorneys from the community, the Oklahoma Bar Association, the Oklahoma legislature, and the Oklahoma judiciary.
Jordan Sigale Quoted in Bloomberg BNA Article re Apple v. SamsungPosted Sep 23, 2015 at 9:16 am See More
Bloomberg BNA reported on September 18, 2015, that “Samsung must remove or replace Apple-patented features from its smartphones and tablets, according to a Sept. 17 decision by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (Apple Inc. v. Samsung Elecs. Co., Fed. Cir., 2014-1802, 9/17/15).” The court was divided in this ruling, offering three separate opinions. The majority, however, held that Apple had shown a connection between the patented feature and downstream sales, noting that the patent features were important to consumers. In a concurring view, Judge Jimmie V. Reyna “said that a patentee’s reputational harm will “certainly” occur “when customers find the patentee’s innovations appearing in a competitor’s products.””
Jordan Sigale said, “The real crux of the majority’s opinion is its holding that to prove irreparable harm the patentee need not prove in a multi-featured product that the infringing feature was the sole feature driving consumer demand for the product.”
Disputes between Apple and Samsung include two cases tried in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California on different sets of patents, according to Bloomberg. “The U.S. Supreme Courot in eBay, Inc. v. MercExchange LLC, 547 U.S. 388, 78 U.S.P.Q. 2d 1577 (2006) (72 PTCJ 50, 5/19/06), chastised the appeals court for defaulting to an injunction for patent infringement, absent a “sound” reason for denying it.” In the case at hand, “[u]nderlying the three opinions is a dispute in the Federal Circuit about injunctions generally.”
Sigale put the differing views in perspective, as to how eBay addresses the circumstances of cases like this specifically. “As much as the Supreme Court made clear in eBay that injunctive relief should not automatically follow every finding of patent infringement, the Federal Circuit made clear today in Apple IV that not every infringing feature in a multi-feature product should receive an automatic pass on irreparable harm either.”
Bloomberg noted that the Federal Circuit, should it decide to take the case en banc, “may have more to resolve than what to do with injunctions on multi-featured products specifically. The court’s decision vacates the denial of a permanent injunction and remands for further proceedings.”