Las disputas de propiedad intelectual pueden ser complejas e involucran asuntos riesgosos que pueden afectar el núcleo de cualquier negocio. El equipo de propiedad intelectual de Lewis Baach Kaufmann Middlemiss tiene experiencia en todas las áreas del derecho de la Propiedad Intelectual, incluyendo patentes, secretos comerciales, marcas registradas y derechos de autor. Al mismo tiempo, el equipo ha litigado en representación tanto de demandantes como de demandados.
Nuestros abogados trabajan cerca de nuestros clientes para entender toda la situación, la industria y tecnología de cada cliente y sus objetivos específicos. Le damos opciones a nuestros clientes y un asesoramiento honesto sobre los resultados potenciales, sus probabilidades y costos estimados. Trabajamos con nuestros clientes para desarrollar una estrategia para alcanzar el mejor resultado de la manera más efectiva y diligente posible.
Si bien nuestro enfoque principal es el litigio, tenemos experiencia en el desarrollo y la protección de los activos de Propiedad Intelectual, incluyendo enjuiciamiento de patentes y marcas registradas y registro de derechos de autor, junto con una vasta experiencia en la redacción de contratos y licencias y en la evaluación de portfolios de Propiedad Intelectual. Esta perspectiva general de la Propiedad Intelectual es fundamental para comprender una disputa en su totalidad y sus mejores soluciones.
Lewis Baach Kaufmann Middlemiss tiene experiencia en negociación y resolución alternativa de disputas. Sin embargo, generalmente abordamos las disputas con la posibilidad de iniciar un juicio en mente. El desarrollo apropiado del juicio, incluyendo una comprensión total de las tecnologías y hechos involucrados, la preparación con antelación de los temas del juicio que pueden resonar ante un jurado y una preparación completa de asuntos previos al juicio, hacen que los clientes de Lewis Baach Kaufmann Middlemiss tengan ventaja en cualquier proceso de negociación.
Este enfoque también significa que nuestros casos son preparados para ir a juicio si no se llegase a un acuerdo previo al mismo Lewis Baach Kaufmann Middlemiss posee una gran variedad de abogados litigantes con gran experiencia en juicios, incluyendo un equipo de ex fiscales, que se sienten como en casa en los tribunales, así como también el ex codirector del departamento de Propiedad Intelectual de una famosa firma de Nueva York. La combinación de experiencia en tribunales y la preparación rigurosa aseguran el éxito de cada caso.
- Representación del titular de una patente en una demanda por violación de patente contra Google y Waze respecto de la conducción de vehículos en tiempo real y previsión del tráfico y de procedimientos de revisión inter partes relacionados. MakorIssues&Rights Ltd. c/ Google Inc. yWaze, Inc., Caso No. 1-16-cv-00100, D. Del.
- Representación del titular de una patente en una demanda por violación de patente contra Microsoft relativa a la generación de interfaz de usuario automática para grandes bases de datos. Kaufman c/ Microsoft Corporation, Caso No. 1-16-cv-02880, S.D.N.Y.
- Representación del titular de una patente en una demanda por violación de patente contra Telerik, relativa a pruebas de componentes de software. Typemock, Ltd. c/Telerik Inc., Caso No. 1-17-cv-10274, D. Mass.
- Representación de una empresa de transmisión por Internet, WAG Acquisition, L.L.C. dbaSurferNETWORK, en nueve demandas por violación de patentes relativas a sistemas de transmisión de streaming y procedimientos de revisión inter partes Ejemplo: WAG Acquisition, L.L.C. c/Multi Media, LLC et al., Caso No. 2-14-cv-02340, D.N.J.
- Representación de titulares de derechos de autor de varios programas de televisión rusos en diferentes demandas por violación de derechos de autor relativas a la transmisión no autorizadas de los programas por parte de distribuidores en Internet, aplicaciones móviles y sistemas de distribución por suscripción IPTV. Ejemplo:Komanda LLC c/KartinaCanada Inc., et al. Caso No. 17-cv-2362, S.D.N.Y.
“We are very pleased that the Board ruled in favor of WAG in these IPRs,” Abramson told Law360 via email. “The rulings reflect that the real party-in-interest and privity provisions in 35 U.S.C. § 315(b) constitute a serious limitation on the time frame available for interrelated parties to challenge patents through inter partes review.”Law360, February 28, 2018
“We are pleased to have several claims that have survived IPR attack, such that Makor’s patent infringement case in the district court can go forward at least as to those claims,” Ron Abramson, an attorney for Makor, told Law360 on Tuesday. “As I am sure you are aware, current statistics show that the large majority of instituted IPRs result in invalidation of all challenged claims. We are pleased to be in the exception to that rule in the present cases.”
[Makor is represented by Ronald Abramson and Ari J. Jaffess ]Law360, February 13, 2018
If the patent owner can make the case that there is a factual issue about whether the invention is conventional, "that'll almost always get you out of summary judgment," said Ronald Abramson of Lewis Baach Kaufmann Middlemiss PLLC. "This opens up a big can of worms to avoid summary judgment."Law360, February 13, 2018
- 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 American Lawyer, August 16, 2017
Third-party funder Woodsford Litigation Funding said Wednesday it has reached a $20 million agreement with law firm Lewis Baach Kaufmann Middlemiss PLLC to provide it with financing to pursue litigation and arbitration worldwide on behalf of the firm's clients.
The deal, referred to as a funding facility agreement, will allow Lewis Baach to offer clients a financing arrangement to cover matters in any jurisdiction around the world in which the firm is prepared to offer contingency fee arrangements, Woodsford said. The deal will also cover situations...
“In our experience, the resources and the resolve that Woodsford brings to the equation, combined with a strong claim, a determined client, and a formidable legal team, makes the difference between justice delivered or denied,” Liston said.Law360, 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
Publicaciones, Presentaciones y Eventos
- Co-author, "Federal Circuit Applies a Reasonableness Standard to the Knowledge of Infringement Prong,"The Intellectual Property Strategist, July 2016
- Co-Author, "Apple's iPhone User Interface Held Functional for Trade Dress Infringement, But Not Design Patent Purposes,"The Intellectual Property Strategist, July 2015