Matthew T. Dennehy is an associate in the Intellectual Property Group at Tarter Krinsky & Drogin LLP. His primary areas of practice are U.S. and foreign patent prosecution and clearances, and validity studies. He has prepared and prosecuted patent applications for inventions in a wide variety of technical disciplines, including:
In addition, Matthew is experienced in the field of patent litigation, with a specific focus on the electrical, mechanical and pharmaceutical fields.
Prior to joining Tarter Krinsky & Drogin, Mr. Dennehy was an Associate at Sills, Cummis and Gross P.C.
Favorite Sports Team:
Favorite Vacation Spot:
What I Do When Not Practicing Law:
Scuba Diving and Spearfishing
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.