Rachel J. Lin is Counsel in the Intellectual Property Practice Group at Tarter Krinsky & Drogin LLP. She focuses on intellectual property strategy in conjunction with business considerations and advises on patents, trade secrets and trademarks.
Rachel handles procurement and management of patents and trademarks in the fields of cosmetics, consumer products, diagnostic imaging, pharmaceuticals, biotechnology, medical devices, chemical compositions and processes.
She also counsels and provides opinions, due diligence, strategy and intellectual property agreements in connection with mergers and acquisitions.
Rachel is an adjunct professor at Fordham University School of Law, supervising patent prosecution and client counseling in the Samuelson-Glushko Intellectual Property and Information Law Clinic.
Prior to joining the firm, Rachel was a patent attorney at Colgate-Palmolive Company, where she managed and supported the global patent portfolio for the personal care and home care divisions.
I am a fanatic about:
Reading, the art of the handwritten letter
Quote I live by:
"Well done is better than well said." - Benjamin Franklin
Favorite NY landmark:
Grand Central Station
Amy Goldsmith and Rachel Lin were quoted in “Brexit’s Impact on Intellectual Property Rights” published by Inside Counsel.
Tarter Krinsky & Drogin LLP is pleased to welcome Rachel J. Lin as a Counsel in the Intellectual Property Practice.
On October 27 Tarter Krinsky & Drogin partnered with Lawline to host “Business in a Box” – a one-day series of CLE presentations designed to address the top legal issues facing emerging companies in growing and protecting their businesses.
The PTAB (Patent Trial and Appeal Board) of the USPTO recently issued a decision that a filing of a patent infringement action by a public university waives sovereign immunity to inter partes review (IPR) proceedings in the USPTO.
For close to 30 years, patent owners have been able to strategically select the best location for a patent litigation, assuming that the defendant sold the contested product in that location. Popular courts include the Eastern District of Texas and the Eastern District of Virginia. But not anymore... Last week, in a unanimous decision, the U.S. Supreme Court narrowed the possible venues for bringing patent infringement suits, holding that a defendant can be sued only as a "resident" of its state of incorporation, not in any state where it sells products. TC Heartland LLC v. Kraft Foods.
The U.S. Supreme Court recently held in a recent decision in Life Technologies Corp v. Promega Corp. that the "supply of a single component of a multicomponent invention for manufacture abroad does not give rise to § 271(f)(1) liability."
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.
Clearly define the grant provisions of all of your IP contracts. If you want to transfer or receive "intellectual property" or "technology," ensure that these terms are well defined and unambiguous. Definitions matter! By making the contract terms clear, you can potentially reduce (or eliminate entirely) future litigation costs.