Aasheesh Shravah is counsel in the Intellectual Property practice. He has more than 15 years of experience in helping clients with domestic and international patent and trademark protection, product clearance, licensing and litigation.
Understanding that IP is critical to business success, he reviews and analyzes products to determine potential patent protection and provides critical guidance on how to modify products to avoid IP infringement. His work includes patent and trademark prosecution, patentability and clearance searches, patent design-around guidance, freedom to operate opinions and drafting and negotiating licensing agreements. Aasheesh has worked on matters involving products in diverse technologies, including medical devices, mechanical and electro-mechanical devices, power tools, hand tools, hardware, consumer products, exercise devices, alternative energy systems, software, e-commerce and business methods. He has litigated patent cases involving several of these technologies in federal district and appellate courts throughout the United States.
Aasheesh has developed a specialty in representing direct response marketing companies in the “As Seen on TV” industry. He works side by side with companies and factories that develop and manufacture products in China and counsels them early on to help them avoid patent and trademark infringement. He also advises domestic clients on how to protect their IP when working with factories in China and assists them in avoiding issues related to dual sourcing with factories in China.
Representative matters include:
What I do when not practicing law
Charitable events related to sports
Favorite sport team
San Francisco 49ers
Favorite vacation spot
What began as a rivalry and a billboard led to something much meaningful to Seattle Seahawks and San Francisco 49ers fans. It all started when a group of 49ers fans, led by Tarter Krinsky & Drogin IP Counsel Aasheesh Shravah, raised enough money to purchase a tongue-in-cheek billboard in the Seattle area. His idea has led to over $400,000 raised for both hospitals with matching contributions from the San Francisco 49ers and Seattle Seahawks organizations.
On July 31, Intellectual Property counsel Aasheesh Shravah will once again be a featured speaker on two panels at the 2018 Affordable Shopping Destination Market Week in Las Vegas.
TKD once again proudly supports the 2nd Annual MetaBash on May 23. All proceeds from this event will go to METAvivor, an organization that exclusively raises awareness, funds research and provides support to those living with metastatic breast cancer. The event is organized by TKD Intellectual Property counsel Aasheesh Shravah and his wife Dee Lakhani Shravah, who is battling stage IV metastatic breast cancer, in celebration of Dee's birthday. 150 people attended last year’s event, which raised more than $30,000.
Intellectual Property counsel Aasheesh Shravah will be hosting a panel at the 2018 ASD Market Week in Las Vegas, “Intellectual Property Issues For Small/Middle Market Businesses.” Aasheesh will be discussing IP issues relating to businesses that sell consumer products in the U.S. and manufacture products in China or the United States, how to prevent your products from being copied, what copying the law permits and issues related to IP indemnification coverage.
Amy Goldsmith, Philip Braginsky and Aasheesh Shravah will present the Lawline Webinar “To Be or Not To Be: That is the Abstract Question, Naturally.”
I recently had the opportunity to speak about intellectual property (IP) issues at ASD Market Week, a twice-yearly B2B trade show featuring a wide range of retail merchandise, and SourceDirect, a wholesale trade show for global sourcing professionals such as importers, distributors, wholesale manufacturers and product development companies. Topics covered included domestic and international IP filings, clearing products to avoid IP infringement, IP litigation
For decades, companies have been subject to patent infringement lawsuits almost anywhere that they had sales, whether through a physical store or online. Often, based on online sales, the defendant corporation could be brought into any location where the end customer was located, even if only one product was sold in that state. Based on a new Federal Circuit decision (In re Cray Inc.), that is no longer true.
In the recent decision Trading Technologies International, Inc., v. CQG, Inc. et al., the Federal Circuit affirmed a district court's ruling that a software patent on a graphical user interface was patentable subject matter, and not directed to an abstract idea under Alice.
With the goal of fostering public commentary, the new domain name .SUCKS was approved by ICANN. Despite objections from some in the IP community, the sunrise period for .SUCKS is now open; it runs until May 29th.
Design patents continue to grow in importance for many industries. If your company designs tangible products or packages, there is a new, efficient way to seek international protection for design features.
The patent landscape has changed regarding business method patents.
In the summer of 2014, the Supreme Court issued a decision in Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank which invalidated certain business method patents related to finance. The basis for the invalidation was that the patents covered an abstract idea not eligible for patent protection.
Many agreements include an indemnification clause typically using language like this: “Party A will defend, indemnify and hold harmless all claims, losses and damages against Party B related to its use of the Technology.”
In Non-Disclosure Agreements, there is often boilerplate language that includes trade secrets in the definition of “Confidential Information.” This seemingly innocuous language can lead to problems for the owner of the trade secrets.
Be wary of giving up your rights for "lost profits." In most jurisdictions, there are two types of "lost profits": (1) those arising from general damages (recovery of money that a party agreed to pay under a contract); and (2) those arising from consequential damages (recovery of money lost based on other business arrangements). The first is generally easier to prove, but often a party in breach can be reasonably expected to pay the second.