Aasheesh Shravah is Counsel at Tarter Krinsky & Drogin LLP in the Intellectual Property Group. He helps and guides clients on all aspects of intellectual property, including domestic and international patent and trademark protection, counseling and litigation.
Understanding that IP due diligence is critical to business success, he reviews and analyzes products to determine potential patent protection, provides critical guidance on creating/designing products that avoid potential infringement issues, and performs comprehensive studies of intellectual property portfolios. His work includes patentability searches, freedom to operate opinions, design around guidance (including working directly with factories in modification of products), and drafting/negotiating licensing and settlement agreements.
Aasheesh prosecutes domestic and international patent applications for diverse technologies, including mechanical and electro-mechanical devices, power tools, hardware, exercise devices, consumer products including As Seen on TV products, medical devices, alternative energy systems, Internet technology, software and business methods.
From pre-suit investigation through appeals, Aasheesh is skilled in patent and trademark litigation in federal district and appellate courts. He provides litigation counseling and has litigated patent cases in the fields of medical devices, consumer products, power tools, exercise fitness devices, software and business methods.
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.
Amy Goldsmith, Philip Braginsky and Aasheesh Shravah will present the Lawline Webinar “To Be or Not To Be: That is the Abstract Question, Naturally.”
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.