Ron Abramson es un abogado litigante con muchos años de experiencia en las industrias de software, telecomunicaciones e internet. El Sr. Abramson es reconocido por “Super Lawyers” como uno de los mejores abogados en litigios de propiedad intelectual en Nueva York. Su práctica se centra principalmente en litigios de patentes, derechos de autor, marcas registradas y secretos comerciales y asesoramiento, negociaciones y transacciones estratégicas relacionadas. La mayor parte del tiempo se encuentra en su hogar analizando problemas legales complejos de tecnología y elaborando soluciones creativas. Los casos en los que participó están relacionados con litigios de propiedad intelectual y de derechos de propiedad en medios de comunicación audiovisual por internet, lenguajes y algoritmos de la informática, protocolos de telecomunicaciones y tecnología y también han incluido protección de marcas, antipiratería, seguridad informática, obras literarias, música y artes escénicas. Está habilitado para ejercer ante la Oficina de Patentes y Marcas de los Estados Unidos de América y posee experiencia en la tramitación de solicitudes ante esa oficina, así como también en la reexaminación, remisión y otros procedimientos administrativos similares de Derecho de Propiedad Intelectual. El Sr. Abramson también posee experiencia en arbitraje y resolución alternativa de disputas y ha actuado como árbitro y mediador comercial para la American Arbitration Association.
El Sr. Abramson posee además una importante experiencia en litigios generales, así como también en la participación pro bono en casos de derecho de familia, derechos penales y civiles, incluyendo una demanda colectiva en representación de mujeres inmigrantes víctimas de maltrato denunciando las constantes negativas improcedentes de Medicaid, de beneficios de asistencia social y vales de comida de la Ciudad y el Estado de Nueva York debido a errores en sus sistemas informáticos. Trabaja en la Junta Directiva del Grupo de Asistencia Legal de Nueva York, una organización sin fines de lucro que brinda servicios legales a personas carenciadas y de bajos recursos.
Las representaciones del Sr. Abramson incluyen Amdocs (litigio por incumplimiento de patentes- software de telecomunicaciones); Hasbro (juegos electrónicos); JPMorgan Chase (patentes en software para procesar derivados); Michael Philip Kaufman (litigio por incumplimiento de patentes – software de interfaz de usuario de base de datos); Merck (licencias farmacéuticas y empresas conjuntas); Mindscape (editor de software); Makor Issues & Rights Ltd. (litigio por incumplimiento de patentes- mapeo del tráfico en tiempo real); National League for Nursing (prevención de falsificación – pruebas estandarizadas de enfermería); Nectar Services Corp. (litigios por robo de secretos comerciales – software de telecomunicaciones); Nortel (titularidad de los derechos de propiedad intelectual en procedimientos de insolvencia internacional); Pfizer (licencias farmacéuticas); Syncsort Incorporated (litigios por incumplimiento de patentes y robo de secretos comerciales y licencias – software informático); SurferNETWORK (litigios por incumplimiento de patentes – medios de comunicación audiovisual por internet) y Viacom (securitización de regalías por derechos de autor).
Antes de unirse a Lewis Baach Kaufmann Middlemiss, el Sr. Abramson fue socio en un destacado estudio de abogados de Nueva York, donde se desempeñó como co-presidente de la práctica de Propiedad Intelectual.
- 1998-2001, Presidente del Comité de Derecho de Patentes de la Association of the Bar de la Ciudad de Nueva York
- 1991-1994, Presidente del Comité de Derecho Informático de la Association of the Bar de la Ciudad de Nueva York
- Miembro del Association of the Bar de la Ciudad de Nueva York
- Miembro del Comité de Propiedad Intelectual y del Consejo de Estados Unidos para el Comercio Internacional.
Publicaciones y Eventos
En las noticias
- Press Release: Woodsford Litigation Funding to provide international litigation boutique Lewis Baach Kaufmann Middlemiss PLLC with innovative $20m global portfolio financing facility
Woodsford Litigation Funding, one of the leading global third party funders, has announced a funding facility agreement with Lewis Baach which ensures the firm can offer clients an expedited, one-stop arrangement for the financing of high value litigation and arbitration.August 16, 2017
The U.S. Supreme Court on Monday decided in Matal v. Tam that the federal government’s ban on offensive-trademark registrations violates the First Amendment. Here, attorneys tell Law360 why the decision is significant.
Ron Abramson, Lewis Baach PLLC. “In today’s decision, there was no dissent from any side of the spectrum. The differences in the bases for the separate opinions of the justices
were nuanced, going to whether it was necessary to address additional questions such as whether registered trademarks represent government of private speech. One group said it was private speech — and thus highly protected — and a second group said it didn’t matter because this type of censorship would be prohibited under either standard. There will surely be a rash of fringe, and truly offensive, trademark filings as a result of this decision. However, none of them will likely ever be major brands, thus the issue should not have great practical significance.”Law360, June 19, 2017
"There will surely be a rash of fringe (and truly offensive) trademark filings as a result of this decision," Ron Abramson, an IP attorney with Lewis Baach, told Ars in an e-mailed comment. "However, none of them will likely ever be major brands, thus the issue should not have great practical significance."Ars Technica, June 19, 2017
“This ruling will affect industries across the board,” said Ronald Abramson, a partner in the law firm of Lewis Baach Kaufmann Middlemiss PLLC. The decision is important not just for its economic impact, but because of its effects on patent law. “This is the first time in a long time that an authoritative court has distinguished patent rights from contract rights and said that you can’t make up your own contract rights to affect patent rights,” said Abramson. “This breathes some new life into restraints on alienation, which have been ignored by the Federal Circuit for the last 25 years. It also opens up the door to antitrust and patent misuse, [two other legal limits on patentees] which have withered under the Federal Circuit.”Intellectual Property Watch, June 8, 2017
Lewis Baach’s Ron Abramson said the verdict represents a “complete and harsh slapdown” for the CAFC. “At long-last”, the court rejected the CAFC’s “long questioned 1992 decision in Mallinckrodt v Medipart, which held that a contractual reservation of rights could overcome the rule of exhaustion by prior sale that applies to the patent property right,” he explained. “The holding will loosen manufacturers’ control over ‘refillable’ products, as well as the ability to control importation of products sold abroad by threat of patent infringement.” He added, “It also removes a large cloud on commercial freedom of sale perpetuated by the Federal Circuit since its controversial Mallinckrodt decision 25 years ago.”Intellectual Property Magazine, May 31, 2017
Ron Abramson, partner at law firm Lewis Baach, said the decision represents “a complete and harsh slap down for the Federal Circuit, at long-last rejecting the Federal Circuit’s long questioned 1992 decision in Mallinckrodt v Medipart, which held that a contractual reservation of rights could overcome the rule of exhaustion by prior sale that applies to the patent property right.”
He added: “I am a bit surprised to see that the court also went eight to nothing for ‘full monte’ exhaustion—upholding not only domestic patent exhaustion as widely expected, but applying the same rule to foreign sales as well, despite the fact that foreign patents under which the latter sales occurred are entirely separate from any corresponding US patents.”IP Pro Patents, May 31, 2017
Ron Abramson, partner at Lewis Baach, explained its meaning: “Under this ruling, the controlling statute on patent venue is the narrower provision of Section 1400(b), whose meaning is not impacted by the broader provision in the general venue provisions of 35 USC 1391(c). “There will now be fewer places to bring a patent infringement lawsuit, to be sure.”IP Pro Patents, May 23, 2017
"The federal courts are pretty jealous about their jurisdiction, and Article III standing is a brick
wall," said Ronald Abramson of Lewis Baach PLLC.Law360, April 7, 2017
However, Lewis Baach’s Ronald Abramson called the ruling ‘concerning’. "In my view, by extending copyright protection to these designs, the court has broken a key limitation on copyright protection, and this will come back to haunt the courts in very troublesome
ways, not only in the fashion industry, but in other areas, such as architecture and computer
software, where design and functionality are often intertwined and the designs can be highly 'free form'.” He added, “Businesses in those fields will now start asserting these ‘copyrights’ very aggressively, in ways that were never intended by the Copyright Act. Note also that the law also provides for design patents, a form of IP specifically created for designs of useful articles. However, design patents have a relatively short term of 15 years. Copyrights, by contrast, typically have a 100-year term. The result here is very concerning.”Intellectual Property Magazine, March 23, 2017
Ronald Abramson, an IP litigator with Lewis Baach PLLC, New York, was critical of the ruling,
saying the “Supreme Court just did what Congress would not: extend copyright protection to clothing designs.” Abramson told Bloomberg BNA in an email message that the ruling “has broken a key limitation on copyright protection, and this will come back to haunt the courts” in areas like architecture and computer software, “where design and functionality are often intertwined and the designs can be highly ‘free form.’”Bloomberg BNA, March 23, 2017
Lewis Baach's Ron Abramson said the verdict illustrates SCOTUS’ “disinclination to have ‘special rules’ for patent law that widely diverge from the resolution of analogous questions in related legal fields.” He added, “What the decision does do is cut way back on a defence that occasionally allows a patent infringement defendant to escape liability for damages. Due to the infrequency that this defence prevailed, I would say this decision will not have a monumental impact.”Intellectual Property Magazine, March 22, 2017
The impact of the decision will be limited because laches was rarely asserted in patent cases and was even more rarely successful, said Ron Abramson, a partner with Lewis Baach. "The decision was widely expected and again illustrates the Supreme Court’s disinclination to have `special rules' for patent law that widely diverge from the resolution of analogous questions in related legal fields," Abramson said in an e-mailed analysis.Forbes, March 21, 2017
- The Supreme Court’s ruling yesterday in Life Technologies v Promega will curb the extraterritorial reach of US patent law, according to experts, but its failure to define “substantial portion” is another example of increasing uncertainty.
Critical of the judgement, Ron Abramson, partner at Lewis Baach, was unsure whether he “buys the fine points of the court’s statutory construction reasoning” and sees “many open questions raised by this decision.” [...]IPPRO Patents, February 23, 2017
Ron Abramson, partner at Lewis Baach, agreed with Dragseth that the ruling raises questions. “I’m not sure I buy the fine points of the court’s statutory construction reasoning, and I see many open questions raised by this decision. However, the big point here is that the Supreme Court has, quite properly in my view, cut off an argument that could have expanded US patent jurisdiction beyond reason by an exporter who did nothing more with respect to the US than supply a commodity component that is later used in making some further product abroad, where only the final product would have infringed had it
been made in the US.”Life Sciences Intellectual Property Review, February 23, 2017
Lewis Baach’s Ron Abramson said SCOTUS had “cut off” an argument that could have expand US patent jurisdiction beyond reason. “Everyone on the court agrees that there has to be more than one US component under the provision in question [to infringe]… the decision does straighten out an area where the lower court had pushed US law too far,” Abramson said.Intellectual Property Magazine, February 23, 2017
- Law360, February 22, 2016
- Wired, May 15, 2012
- Wired, May 12, 2012
- Patentability of Computer-Related Inventions: ‘Signature’ Decision Imposes LimitsNew York Law Journal, September 23, 1996
- PTO Supports Software InventionsApril 1996
- Protecting Privilege in E-Mail SystemsLegal Times, August 15, 1994
- Bulletproof Your Software ContractsDatamation, December 1, 1991
- Feist Decision is Far-Reaching8 Computer Law Strategist, May 1991
- Why Lotus-Paperback Uses the Wrong Test and What the New Software Protection Legislation Should Look Like7 The Computer Lawyer 6, August 1990
- Look and Feel of Computer Software: What the Controversy is AboutCase and Comment, January 1990
Áreas de Práctica
- Rutgers University School of Law (J.D., Diploma de Honor, 1976); Law Review: Rutgers Law Journal (Editor de Notas y Comentarios, 1975-1976)
- Massachusetts Institute of Technology (B.S., Química, 1970)
- Nueva York
- Nueva Jersey
- Oficina de Marcas y Patentes de Estados Unidos de América
- Corte Suprema de los Estados Unidos de América
- Tribunal de Apelaciones de Estados Unidos para el Circuito Federal
- Tribunal de Apelaciones de Estados Unidos para el Segundo Circuito
- Tribunal de Distrito de Estados Unidos para el Distrito Sur de Nueva York
- Tribunal de Distrito de Estados Unidos para el Distrito Este de Nueva York
- Tribunal de Distrito de Estados Unidos para el Distrito de Nueva Jersey