Alan Tenenbaum concentrates on intellectual property and commercial litigation and counseling. He represents commercial clients throughout the United States and before the International Trade Commission in patent, trademark, unfair competition and commercial litigation matters. He has litigation experience with a wide array of technologies such as pharmaceuticals, medical devices and hardware
Alan is also a member of our Reputation Management practice where he advises individuals and organizations in connection with disparagement claims, libel and slander, rights of publicity and other false and injurious claims.
Applying business solutions from a legal perspective, Alan works with clients to identify, protect, manage and monetize core technology, brands, images
Intellectual Property co-chair Amy Goldsmith and Intellectual Property partner Alan Tenenbaum were lauded by Lawline during Teacher Appreciation Week 2018 for their recent webinar, “Anatomy of Discovery in Patent Litigation.” In their presentation, Amy and Alan addressed contention interrogatories, discovery in Markman hearings, handling e-discovery and selecting experts. They also discussed how to guide clients through the discovery phase of a patent litigation.
This year, 28 lawyers from Tarter Krinsky & Drogin have been named to the 2017 New York Super Lawyers and Rising Stars lists as top lawyers in the state. The annual Super Lawyers list recognizes the top five percent of lawyers in New York for their professional achievements. Attorneys are selected through a process that includes independent research, peer nominations and peer evaluations.
Four Tarter Krinsky & Drogin attorneys were ranked on the Rising Stars list, which recognizes the top 2.5 percent of lawyers who either are under the age of 40 or have been in practice for 10 years or less.
New York Metro Super Lawyers has named 21 Tarter Krinsky & Drogin lawyers in 10 practices to its 2016 list.
The 2015 New York Super Lawyers recognized 22 of Tarter Krinsky & Drogin’s attorneys.
On November 29, Intellectual Property partner Alan Tenenbaum will be a featured speaker at the New York City Bar Association’s event on Blockchain IP: Innovation and the Distributed Ledger Revolution. The roundtable-style program, geared toward in-house and outside counsel, as well as non-attorneys, will address schemes to protect blockchain innovations, options for enforcement and the ways that distributed ledger technology may be used to enhance or protect intellectual property assets.
Intellectual Property practice co-chair Amy Goldsmith and Intellectual Property practice partner Alan Tenenbaum will present “Anatomy of Discovery in Patent Litigation” for Lawline. The webinar will address the anatomy of discovery in enforcement and defense of claims involving design and utility patents.
On October 26, Intellectual Property co-chair Amy Goldsmith and partner Alan Tenenbaum will present the CLE webinar, “The Anatomy of a Patent Litigation: From Start to Finish” for Lawline.
There are three types of Premarket Notification 510(k)s that may be submitted to the U.S. Food & Drug Administration (FDA): Under the recently finalized Safety and
Generally, a patent owner's rights are exhausted after an authorized sale; the patent owner cannot sue a downstream customer who purchased an authorized patented product from a third party reseller. So how can a patent owner control the resale of a patented product?
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.
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.
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.”