Intellectual property rights are vital assets for every business. From startups to global corporations, we help you protect and enhance the value of these assets. We advance your goals by offering comprehensive IP solutions from a practical business perspective.
Tarter Krinsky & Drogin’s Intellectual Property Practice assists clients in protecting and exploiting their intellectual property. With our full service platform, our attorneys collaborate across practice areas to address your most critical business matters. Through strong relationships with a network of associates, we offer protection for the global interests of companies in a variety of industries, including tech, life sciences, luxury goods and consumer products.
Patent, Trademark and Copyright
Armed with deep technical and legal expertise, we advise clients on all intellectual property matters, including patent, trademark and copyright prosecution, IP-related transactions, due diligence, conducting product clearances, negotiating license agreements, protecting our clients under the Digital Millennium Copyright Act and preparing opinions on infringement, validity and enforceability issues. We represent you in US Patent and Trademark Office interference, reexamination, post-grant, opposition and cancellation proceedings.
Our attorneys have decades of practical experience litigating patent infringement cases involving diverse technologies ranging from pharmaceuticals to consumer products to telecommunications. Our experience in copyright cases is equally diverse including music rights, advertising copy and motion picture rights. Our trademark litigation practice has involved enforcement of the trademark for a blockbuster quality of life drug, enforcement
of restaurant names and trade dress and defense of retailers’ names and trade dress.
We help pharmaceutical companies navigate the Hatch-Waxman process from early development to sales. Our team of pharma counselors and litigators provide seasoned advice on patent certification and regulatory issues including market opportunities,
searches, opinions, settlements and litigation.
From asserting your rights against potential infringers to defending you against charges of alleged infringement, our lawyers litigate in bench and jury trials and appeals courts
throughout the United States.
With attorneys who have founded several tech companies, we bring unique insight to the industry. We advise on CAN-SPAM and Communications Decency Act compliance,
Tarter Krinsky & Drogin’s China practice assists U.S. and Chinese companies and investors entering or operating in the United States and in China. From emerging businesses to global corporations, our clients do business in a variety of industries including pharma, chemical, products, food and beverage.
Pharmaceutical and Biologics
We represent a broad range of pharmaceutical and biologics companies on patent issues, the complex Hatch-Waxman process, trademark and trade dress, and litigation. Read more about our Pharmaceutical and Biologics experience.
|Braginsky, Philip Partner||Partner||212.216.8065|
|Dennehy, Matthew T. Associate||Associate||212.216.1128|
|Douglas, Rosemary Paralegal||Paralegal||212.216.1137|
|Formicola, Susan Paralegal||Paralegal||212.216.1149|
|Goldsmith, Amy B. Partner||Partner||212.216.1135|
|Lin, Rachel J. Counsel||Counsel||212.216.1152|
|Lippert, Nels T. Counsel||Counsel||212.216.1157|
|Rosenberg, Mark J. Partner||Partner||212.216.1127|
|Shravah, Aasheesh Counsel||Counsel||212.216.1132|
|Tenenbaum, Alan Partner||Partner||212.216.1166|
|Xia, Jing Partner||Partner||212.216.1158|
Driven by her lifelong commitment to education, Dr. Marie Amoruso decided to explore the impact of the controversial “Common Core” standardized curricula and tests that are used to assess K-12 student achievement. She filmed interviews with an array of parents, administrators, teachers and professors to create the documentary “More…than a score.” Dr. Amoruso needed assistance to make her film project take flight and reach her audiences.
The Hartz Mountain Corporation is one of the world’s largest manufacturers and sellers of pet products, sold through over 40,000 brick and mortar retailers in the US and Canada as well as online. With over 1,500 pet care products, its business success significantly depends on creating differentiated product lines, immediately recognizable brands and a strategic plan to minimize conflicts with competitors.
I LOVE SUGAR is much more than a candy store. The high-end retailer takes the candy we all love and delivers a magical experience. State of the art design, including custom fixtures and attention to details, is what the experiential retailer believes makes shoppers often refer to I LOVE SUGAR as "the Apple store of candy". In a trade dress and trademark infringement case brought by their competitor, It’Sugar claimed that I LOVE SUGAR infringed their trademark and the overall look and feel of It’Sugar retail stores.
As the world’s premier gathering of marketing and communications leaders, Advertising Week is a hybrid of inspiring thought leadership and highly entertaining and engaging special events, featuring the industry’s best and brightest. Drawing from the brand, agency, technology, startup, media and broader cultural communities, Advertising Week is designed to move the needle on key industry challenges and influence the global industry.
Intellectual Property counsel Nels Lippert has been reappointed for a two-year term on the International Trade Association’s Trademark Reporter Committee.
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.
Learn more about Intellectual Property partner and co-chair Amy Goldsmith as part of our series to recognize the outstanding women at Tarter Krinsky & Drogin in honor of Women's History Month
Intellectual Property partner Amy Goldsmith and Construction partner Laurie Stanziale wrote, “Whose Line, Drawing Or Plan Is It Anyway?" which was part 2 of a two-part article for Law360. The article addresses owner-architect agreements and instruments of service for the parties to set forth rights and obligations.
Intellectual Property partner Amy Goldsmith and Construction partner Laurie Stanziale wrote “Whose Line, Drawing Or Plan Is It Anyway?”, which is part 1 of a two-part article, for Law360.
Laurie Stanziale and Amy Goldsmith authored “Classic or chaotic, copyrighting architectural works is an art form” for Real Estate Weekly.
An interesting decision was recently issued by the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board rejecting a trademark application for pizza in connection with a single location restaurant.
Amy Goldsmith, Co-chair of the Intellectual Property Practice, was featured in the American Bar Association’s book "Marketing Success: How Did She Do That?"
Following her May 12, 2015 presentation on rights of publicity, Amy Goldsmith, Co-chair of the Intellectual Property Practice, posted a blog entry on Lawline Today.
The firm represented The Reader’s Guild LLC in securing a long-term, exclusive licensing agreement with Reader’s Digest.
Our client, designer Tim Coppens is one of 15 designers chosen for the year-long Swarovski Collective created to mark the program’s 15th anniversary. This group of exceptional designers will partner with Swarovski for their Spring/Summer 2015 and Autumn/Winter 2015 collections.
Tarter Krinsky & Drogin LLP is pleased to welcome Dr. Jing Xia as a Counsel in the Intellectual Property Group. For over ten years, she has concentrated her practice on the representation and counselling of mid to large size generic pharmaceutical clients, especially litigations arising under the Drug Price Competition and Patent Term Restoration Act (Hatch Waxman).
Tarter Krinsky & Drogin LLP is pleased to welcome Nels T. Lippert as a Counsel in the Intellectual Property Group. With a focus on trademark and patent counseling and litigation, he administers trademarks and registrations globally for leading consumer product manufacturers, pharmaceutical companies and service companies.
Tarter Krinsky & Drogin successfully defended I love Sugar, a locally owned high-end candy retailer based in Myrtle Beach, South Carolina in a trade dress infringement case brought by their competitor It’Sugar.
Tarter Krinsky & Drogin represented Hackermeter, a coding challenge website, in the negotiation and closing of an acquisition with Pinterest. The start-up was launched at Y Combinator’s Demo Day in August and matched developers with companies through code challenges.
Tarter Krinsky & Drogin represented Veeco Instruments Inc., a global leader in Process Equipment technology, on IP diligence work in the acquisition of Synos Technology, Inc. Synos designs and manufactures the equipment used in making flexible OLED displays for mobile devices.
We are representing Fitbug in suit against health gadget maker Fitbit, alleging trademark infringement, as well as unfair competition and unfair business practices, arguing that Fitbit's name is confusingly similar to Fitbug.
Tarter Krinsky & Drogin LLP is pleased to welcome Rachel J. Lin as a Counsel in the Intellectual Property Practice.
Tarter Krinsky & Drogin LLP is pleased to announce that Douglas J. Gilbert has joined the firm as a Partner in the firm’s newly formed Intellectual Property Practice Group.
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.
Over the past few years, owners of U.S. patents and trademarks have used the appearance of Chinese companies at a trade show as infringement "traps." These patent owners have commenced infringement cases against Chinese companies based on those companies' activities at the trade show.
Mark Rosenberg, Intellectual Property partner and Reputation Management practice co-chair, recently authored an article for Modern Aesthetics magazine titled, "Handling Negative Reviews in the Internet Age." In the article, Mark explores how physicians can protect themselves against negative reviews posted to Internet sites such as Healthgrades, Vitals or Yelp, noting that these reviews "can damage a doctor’s reputation and can have significant ramifications for his or her practice."
The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) recently updated the Orange Book to include patent submission dates. A patent submission date is the date the FDA receives patent information from the NDA holder. For each patent that claims a drug substance (active ingredient), drug product (formulation and composition), or method of use, the FDA requires all NDA applicants to submit the detailed patent information provided for under on 21CFR314.53. Now, the dates of these submissions are being recorded and published by the FDA.
The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) recently published a draft guidance summarizing the differences between abbreviated new drug applications (ANDA) and 505(b)(2) applications. Both sections were added to the FD&C Act to provide new routes for obtaining approvals for drug applications. The guidance focuses on ANDA submissions under Section 505(j) of the FD&C Act, petitioned ANDAs under Section 505(j)(2)(C), and NDAs pursuant to Section 505(b)(2) and discusses the regulatory and scientific considerations for determining whether to file an ANDA or 505(b)(2) application.
The European Patent Office recently revised its Examination Guidelines. These Guidelines are primarily directed to the patent examiners and formalities officers of the EPO, but they are also helpful to anyone practicing before the EPO. This year the update contains a few important changes.
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?
Intellectual Property co-chair Amy Goldsmith wrote “IPoems: Lessons from the World of Intellectual Property” for Inside, a publication of the corporate counsel section of the New York State Bar Association.
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.
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.
An article on right of publicity issues by Intellectual Property partner and Reputation Management co-chair Mark Rosenberg was featured in the Luxury Daily. The article delves into the implications of a California woman’s $2.2 billion lawsuit against restaurant chain Chipotle, which used her photograph in its promotional materials without her consent.
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."
The Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) established a safe harbor for online service providers (OSPs) which benefits any website that contains content from third parties.
An increasing number of our clients have received letters from companies that appear to be government agencies with names such as "U.S. Trademark Registry," "U.S. Trademark Registration Office" and "Registration & Monitoring Division."
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.
In December 2016, the FDA published an industry guidance related to the Biologics Price Competition and Innovation Act. This guidance offers suggestions to sponsors on the design and use of clinical pharmacology studies to support a claim of biosimilarity to a reference product.
This month, a California woman sued Chipotle for $2.2 billion based on the burrito chain's unauthorized use of her photograph in its promotional materials.
Branded companies make millions of dollars each day that a generic version of a drug is held from the market.
Over the past two years, owners of U.S. patents have used Chinese companies' appearances at a trade show as a patent infringement "trap."
On June 23rd, the UK voted to leave the European Union (Brexit).
An interesting decision was recently issued by the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board rejecting a trademark application for pizza in connection with a single location restaurant.
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.