Intellectual Property Attorneys - IP Lawyers

March 2010 Archives

The online retailer Amazon.com obtained Patent #5,960,411 for its 1-Click online ordering system in September 1999. The patent is directed towards a method of placing a purchase order online, wherein the customer enters account information once so that subsequent purchases on the website may be made by a single click on a button. Amazon subsequently licensed the patent to Apple and sued competing bookseller Barnes and Noble to keep them from using a similar purchasing method on their own site. However, in 2006, ex parte reexamination proceedings commenced, and the USPTO rejected all but five of Amazon's claims.

In 2007, Amazon made amendments to the claims of the patent that limited the claim scope to a "shopping cart model." The claim limitations overcame the prior art references according to the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, and four years after reexamination began, the USPTO issued a notice of intent to issue a reexamination certificate for the '411 patent. Yet, as some consider the patent to still be overly broad and the shopping cart limitation to be trivial, the confirmation of Amazon's patent may serve as a catalyst for reform to post-grant opposition procedures.
The monthly magazine Intellectual Property Today has again released its
annual list of the top patent law firms. The 2010 list includes a total of
256 firms, and this complete list may be downloaded in PDF format for $25 or
by obtaining a copy of the March 2010 IP Today magazine. However, the
IPtoday website shows the 25 firms at the top of that list, as well as
information on the number of patents obtained during by these firms in 2007,
2008 and 2009, along with a percent increase in 2009 over 2008.

Heading the list is Oblon, Spivak, McClelland, Maier & Neustadt, LLP, with
4043 utility patents, 72 design patents, which represents an increase of
6.5% in 2009 over 2008. 

According to IP Today, the Top 25 according to IPToday are:

Pages

Disclaimer

This blog and the information contained in this blog are provided for general informational purposes only, are not intended to be legal advice, should not be construed as legal advice, and do not provide specific legal advice on any subject matter. No recipients of content from this blog, clients or otherwise, should act or refrain from acting on the basis of any content included in the blog without seeking the appropriate legal or other professional advice on the particular facts and circumstances at issue from an attorney licensed in the recipient’s state. This blog should not be used as a substitute for competent legal advice from a licensed professional attorney in your state or jurisdiction who is familiar with the specific facts of your situation. If you require legal advice, please consult with a competent attorney licensed to practice in your jurisdiction.