Harness Dickey Blog

Harness Dickey’s team of trademark and patent attorneys serve clients in all areas of intellectual property law, including patents, trademarks, IP litigation, PTAB Proceedings, trade secrets, due diligence investigations, and global IP management.

In response to Detroit’s growing automotive industry, J. King Harness established Harness Dickey in 1921. Serving as the head of the patent department for the Ford Motor Company, Harness understood the value of expertise in intellectual property and set out to open a firm that would focus exclusively on intellectual property law.

Today, we are one of the top IP law firms in the U.S. measured by both the number of attorneys and by objective rankings of results. Our trademark and patent attorneys represent world leaders in business and technology, and our collective experience spans practically every practice area and niche specialty within intellectual property law.

Latest from Harness Dickey Blog

In Warner Chappel Music, Inc., v. Sherman Nealy, [22–1078] (May 9, 2024), the Supreme Court finally clarified copyright’s 3-year statute of limitations (17 U. S. C. §507(b)), holding that a copyright plaintiff who timely brings a copyright infringement claim, can recover damages for the entire period of infringement, and not limited to the three year period

We’ve all seen it.  Patent attorneys love making up words.  For example, instead of claiming a pipe, a hose, or a tube, we draft patent claims reciting “a fluid delivery system” or “a fluid conduit.” 
Why do we do it?  Because it is our job to secure the broadest patent protection available for our

The results-effective variable doctrine is a caselaw principle where prior art disclosing the “general conditions of a claim” invokes a presumption of obviousness if the particular workable ranges are identifiable through routine experimentation. The presumption can be rebutted with evidence that the given parameter was not recognized as being result-effective. Sanofi Pasteur, Inc. and SK

In Allgenesis Biotherapeutics Inc., v. Cloudbreak Therapeutics, LLC, [2022-1706] (November 7, 2023), the Federal Circuit dismissed the appeal of the PTAB’s final written decision that claims 4 and 5 of U.S. Patent No. 10,149,820 had not been shown to be unpatentable, because Allgenesis has failed to establish an injury in fact sufficient to confer standing to

Actelion Pharmaceuticals Ltd, v. Mylan Pharmaceuticals Inc., [2022-1889] (November 6, 2023), the Federal Circuit vacated the district court’s claim construction order with respect to the term “a pH of 13 or higher” in U.S. Patent Nos. 8,318,802 and 8,598,227 and the judgment of infringement, and remand for the district court to consider the extrinsic evidence

In Malvern Panalytical Inc., v. TA Instruments-Waters LLC, [2022-1439] (November 1, 2023), because the district court erred in construing “pipette guiding mechanism,” the Federal Circuit vacated the stipulated judgment of non-infringement of U.S. Patent Nos. 8,827,549 (“the ’549 patent”) and 8,449,175 and remanded for further proceedings. These patents both disclose microcalorimeters, which are machines that

Starting July 17, 2023, to ensure an efficient avoidance of a negative PTA, in certain instances, revised 37 CFR 1.704(d) will include a new paragraph (d)(3) requiring the use of Office form PTO/SB/133 and the appropriate document code (PTA.IDS). The use of the document code PTA.IDS specifically for form PTO/SB/133 is a representation that the