Fitch Even News Feed Feb 2021 00:00:00 -0800firmwise Alert: Knowledge Within the Art Does Not Save Means-Plus-Function Claim Term Lacking Corresponding Structure<p>On February 12, in <a href=""><i>Synchronoss Technologies, Inc. v. Dropbox, Inc.</i></a>, the Federal Circuit affirmed that certain of Synchronoss&rsquo;s claims were invalid for indefiniteness, since the claims included a means-plus-function claim term that did not have adequate structural support in the specification. The Federal Circuit held the claims invalid, despite testimony from Dropbox&rsquo;s expert indicating that one having skill in the art would have known of structure to carry out the function of the claim term.</p> <p>Synchronoss sued Dropbox, accusing it of infringing three patents on technology for synchronizing data across multiple devices. The district court&rsquo;s claim construction order held all claims of one of the patents invalid for indefiniteness, agreeing with Dropbox that the specification did not support means-plus-function claim language.</p> <p>The Federal Circuit affirmed the district court. Because the specification failed to detail what a user identifier module consists of or how it operates, the specification lacked structural support corresponding to the claim term &ldquo;user identifier module.&rdquo; The Federal Circuit further credited the testimony of Dropbox&rsquo;s expert, Dr. Freedman, who opined that the &ldquo;user identifier module&rdquo; in Synchronoss&rsquo;s claims would be understood by persons having ordinary skill in the art as a functional term that does not impart any particular structure. Dr. Freedman also testified that ordinarily skilled persons would understand &ldquo;dozens of discrete ways&rdquo; to implement the functional claim terms, and that the specification failed to describe any specific structure for carrying out the respective functions.</p> <p>Synchronoss did not offer any contrary expert testimony, but instead relied on the list of structures that Dr. Freedman provided as evidence that a person of ordinary skill would have understood structure that corresponds to the functional &ldquo;user identifier module,&rdquo; without the structure being detailed in the specification. The Federal Circuit rejected Synchronoss&rsquo;s argument, stating:</p> <p style="margin-left: 40px;">It is not enough that a means-plus-function claim term correspond to every known way of achieving the claimed function; instead, the term must correspond to &ldquo;adequate&rdquo; structure in the specification that a person of ordinary skill in the art would be able to recognize and associate with the corresponding function in the claim.</p> <p>Finding no adequate structure in the specification corresponding to the &ldquo;user identifier module,&rdquo; the Federal Circuit held the term indefinite and the associated claims invalid.</p> <p>This case illustrates the importance of providing adequate structural support for means-plus-function claim terms in the specification. Regardless of the knowledge of a person having skill in the art, a means-plus-function claim term is still indefinite if the <i>specification</i> does not include &ldquo;adequate&rdquo; corresponding structure.</p> <p>For more information on this ruling, please contact Fitch Even attorney <a href=";A=19279&amp;format=xml&amp;p=5482">Zachary Van Engen</a>, author of this alert.<br /> <br /> <b>Fitch Even IP Alert<sup>&reg;</sup></b></p>IP Alerts19 Feb 2021 00:00:00 -0800 Alert: Customer Loyalty Program Does Not Claim Patent-Eligible Subject Matter<p>On February 8, in <a href=""><i>cxLoyalty, Inc v. Maritz Holdings, Inc.</i></a>, the Federal Circuit invalidated a patent for failure to claim patentable subject matter, reversing findings of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) relating to substitute claims in a covered business method (CBM) review.</p> <p>cxLoyalty petitioned for CBM review of a Maritz patent relating to a system and method for permitting customers of a loyalty program to redeem loyalty points with third-party vendors without the need for human intervention. The PTAB concluded that the original claims were directed to an abstract idea that is not transformed through an inventive concept, making them ineligible under 35 U.S.C. &sect; 101. But proposed substitute claims, according to the PTAB, contained an inventive concept, making them patent-eligible. The PTAB focused heavily on the fact that cxLoyalty did not submit any new testimony or other evidence to support its opposition to Maritz&rsquo;s motion to amend. In contrast, Maritz filed an expert declaration to support patent eligibility of the substitute claims, which the PTAB relied upon to conclude that the substitute claims included an inventive concept.</p> <p>cxLoyalty appealed PTAB&rsquo;s ruling on the substitute claims and Maritz cross-appealed the patent ineligibility determination of the original claims.</p> <p>The Federal Circuit first affirmed the PTAB&rsquo;s determination that the original claims are directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The PTAB had found, and the court agreed, that the claims are directed to facilitating or brokering a commercial transaction between a purchaser using a first form of value (i.e., a rewards program participant using points in whole or in part) and a seller transacting in a second form of value (i.e., a vendor system that transacts purchases in currency). The court rejected Maritz&rsquo;s argument that the claimed invention conceals the nature of the transaction and is therefore patent-eligible, stating that loyalty intermediaries have long performed the cited function.</p> <p>The court also rejected Maritz&rsquo;s argument that the claims are directed to a technological solution to a technological problem, stating that the claims do not recite a solution to the purported problem because they apply &ldquo;an abstract idea using conventional techniques specified in functional terms and at a high degree of generality&rdquo; and &ldquo;provide no useful guidance as to how this purported function is achieved and thus cannot be directed to a technical solution.&rdquo; Maritz&rsquo;s expert testimony on this point was not accorded weight for being no more than conclusory.</p> <p>The Federal Circuit found the substitute claims patent-ineligible under section 101 for the same reasons as the original claims, reversing the PTAB&rsquo;s determination. Notably, the court commented that while the PTAB repeatedly referred to the 2<i>019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance</i>, that guidance is not binding on the court&rsquo;s patent-eligibility analysis. To the extent the guidance does not fully accord with case law, case law controls.</p> <p>Maritz had argued that the substitute claims also constitute a technological solution to a technological problem and further recite unconventional subject matter. The court rejected both arguments, stating that the substitute claims do not provide any guidance on how the purported technical solution is achieved and novelty is insufficient for patent eligibility. The court reasoned that Maritz&rsquo;s substitute claims differ from the claims in <i>CardioNet v. InfoBionic</i> because they are directed to the application of longstanding commercial practices using well-understood, routine, and conventional activities. And Maritz&rsquo;s substitute claims differ from the claims in <i>DDR Holdings, LLC v.</i> because they merely employ conventional techniques, rather than the use of a computer network operating outside its normal and expected manner.</p> <p>This case serves as a reminder to patent drafters that technical details and specificity are not only relevant to written support and enablement issues, but can also affect the outcome of patent-eligibility determinations. Identifying a technological invention is especially important for software technologies relating to commercial transactions, which &nbsp;are difficult to prosecute and defend post-<i>Alice</i>. Patent practitioners in general should avoid overreliance on any written guidance from the USPTO; it is not binding to the court as stated by the court in this case.</p> <p>For more information regarding this decision, please contact Fitch Even partner <a href=";A=3766&amp;format=xml&amp;p=5482">Karen J. Wang</a>, author of this alert.<br /> <br /> <b>Fitch Even IP Alert</b><sup><b>&reg;</b></sup></p>IP Alerts16 Feb 2021 00:00:00 -0800 Alert: Federal Circuit Affirms No Patent Term Adjustment After Examiner Repeatedly Reopened Prosecution Following Appeals<p>On February 8, in <a href=""><i>Chudik v. Hirshfeld</i></a>, the Federal Circuit upheld the USPTO&rsquo;s denial of patent term adjustment for time while four notices of appeal were pending. Because the examiner reopened prosecution after each notice of appeal, the appeals never proceeded to the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB). The delay consequently did not qualify for patent term adjustment as an appeal that overturned the rejection (&ldquo;C-delay&rdquo;). The application further did not qualify for patent term adjustment based on prosecution taking longer than three years (&ldquo;B-delay&rdquo;), because the applicant had filed a request for continued examination before filing the first notice of appeal.</p> <p>The applicant, Dr. Chudik, filed the patent application in 2006. After receiving a final rejection, Dr. Chudik filed a request for continued examination (RCE), though an appeal was available. Almost three years later, the examiner issued a non-final rejection. Upon receiving another final rejection, Dr. Chudik filed a notice of appeal, followed by an appeal brief. In response, the examiner reopened prosecution and issued another claim rejection. Dr. Chudik continued prosecuting the case, filing three more appeals. In response to each of these appeals, the examiner reopened prosecution rather than allowing the appeal to continue to the PTAB. Finally, after the fourth notice of appeal had been filed, the examiner withdrew the rejections and the application ultimately issued after pending at the USPTO for 11&frac12; years.</p> <p>In light of the lengthy pendency, Dr. Chudik petitioned for additional patent term, which the USPTO denied. After that effort failed, Dr. Chudik filed a complaint against the USPTO director in the district court. But the district court held that the USPTO&rsquo;s approach was reasonable, leading Dr. Chudik to file his Federal Circuit appeal. Dr. Chudik&rsquo;s appeal challenged the USPTO&rsquo;s patent term adjustment calculation, arguing that he was entitled to an additional 655 days for the time his four notices of appeal were pending. Under 35 U.S.C. &sect; 154(b)(1)(C) patent owners may seek an adjustment for &ldquo;delays due to . . . appeals,&rdquo; including &ldquo;appellate review by the [PTAB] . . . in a case in which the patent was issued under a decision in the review reversing an adverse determination of patentability.&rdquo; This is known as &ldquo;C-delay.&rdquo;</p> <p>Applying its regulations, the USPTO had determined that C-delay was not applicable because, in each of the four appeals filed by Dr. Chudik, jurisdiction never passed to the PTAB because the examiner reopened prosecution. The USPTO further reasoned that in each of the four appeals, there was no PTAB or court decision reversing an adverse determination of patentability.</p> <p>Dr. Chudik argued that &ldquo;appellate review&rdquo; in the statute refers to the entire process of review by the PTAB beginning with filing the notice of appeal. He further argued that the statutory language regarding &ldquo;a decision in the review reversing an adverse determination of patentability&rdquo; includes an examiner&rsquo;s own decision through reopening of prosecution to undo a final rejection.</p> <p>The Federal Circuit concluded that regardless of the degree of deference applied to the USPTO regulations, the best interpretation of the statutory language is the interpretation that the USPTO adopted and applied. The court ultimately agreed with the USPTO&rsquo;s decision to deny Dr. Chudik the requested C-delay.</p> <p>The court noted, and the parties agreed, that B-delay under 35 U.S.C. 154(b)(1)(B) would have been available for the time from when the notice of appeal was filed until the examiner reopened prosecution, except Dr. Chudik had filed an RCE rather than appealing the final rejection. Filing the RCE triggered a statutory exclusion to B-delay under 35 U.S.C. 154(b)(1)(B)(i).</p> <p>The Federal Circuit, recognizing the implications of this decision, concluded their opinion with the following cautionary notice to patent applicants: &ldquo;The unavailability of B-delay for nearly two years (655 days) of delay in the PTO illustrates what applicants should understand when deciding whether to request a continued examination rather than take an immediate appeal. The potential benefit of immediate re-engagement with the examiner through such continued examination comes with a potential cost.&rdquo;</p> <p>As the Federal Circuit decision highlights, applicants should consider the potential costs associated with filing a RCE rather than filing an appeal in response to a final rejection. As illustrated in this case, filing an RCE may result in the loss of patent term for delays by the USPTO that the applicant will not be able to recover.</p> <p>For more information on this ruling, please contact Fitch Even attorneys <a href=";A=2599&amp;format=xml&amp;p=5482">Amanda L. O&rsquo;Donnell</a> or <a href=";A=19279&amp;format=xml&amp;p=5482">Zachary Van Engen</a>, authors of this alert.<br /> <b><br /> Fitch Even IP Alert<sup>&reg;<br /> <br type="_moz" /> </sup></b></p>IP Alerts12 Feb 2021 00:00:00 -0800 Alert: Federal Circuit Holds Papers Published Online by Prominent Standard-Setting Organization Are "Printed Publications"<p>On February 1, in <a href="">M &amp; K Holdings, Inc. v. Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd.</a>, the Federal Circuit affirmed a Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) decision finding that references published online by a standard-setting organization were printed publications under 35 U.S.C &sect; 102. This case provides insight regarding when a reference presented at a conference and published online is publicly accessible and, accordingly, constitutes a printed publication.</p> <p>Samsung filed a petition for <i>inter partes</i> review (IPR) challenging M &amp; K Holdings&rsquo; patent directed to an efficient method for compressing video files. The PTAB held all the claims unpatentable in a final written decision, and M &amp; K appealed.</p> <p>Samsung relied on three prior art references, two of which were at issue in the appeal: a paper by Park and one by Zhou. Park and Zhou were generated in connection with a joint task force established to create industry standards for the field of high-efficiency video coding (HEVC). The task force included representatives from technology companies, universities, and research institutions that met quarterly to propose changes to HEVC standards.</p> <p>M &amp; K argued that the references did not constitute printed publications under section 102 because interested persons of ordinary skill could not have accessed any of the references by exercising reasonable diligence. The PTAB disagreed, finding that the joint task force was a prominent standards-setting organization and that the references were discussed at task force meetings and published on the task force&rsquo;s public website prior to the priority date of the challenged patent.</p> <p>The Federal Circuit agreed the references were printed publications.</p> <p>The Federal Circuit found a number of factors in combination favored a finding of public accessibility. First, the references were presented and discussed at task force development meetings attended by 200&ndash;300 interested persons without any expectation of confidentiality. Second, the references were made available at the time of the development meetings through the task force website to ensure the references were available for review by meeting participants. Third, the task force website had title-search functionality and the references had descriptive titles, enabling routine searching of those references by subject matter.</p> <p>The court also found the prominence of the task force within the field of video-coding favored that the references were publicly accessible, even if the references themselves were not shown to be prominent in the field. In particular, the record supported that the task force website would have been known by skilled artisans in the field and that those artisans would have been motivated to keep track of the website to ensure that their products and services would be consistent with new HEVC standards.</p> <p>Given the prominence of the task force in the field, the Federal Circuit agreed that users of the task force website could have found the Park and Zhou references exercising reasonable diligence, despite the website&rsquo;s limited search capacity. In particular, to access task force documents, users had to click on a link titled &ldquo;All meetings&rdquo; and navigate to a particular meeting. Once a user navigated to a meeting, documents were not searchable by content but, rather, were searchable by date, title, and number. The Federal Circuit noted that to be publicly accessible, a website&rsquo;s landing page is not required to have search functionality. Although the &ldquo;All meetings&rdquo; label did not expressly describe a document repository, the court agreed a skilled artisan who was browsing would understand the documents are hosted under meeting pages and would have known to navigate to the most recent meeting and to search backward in time until the user&rsquo;s search was satisfied. Finally, although one factor relevant to public accessibility is whether a repository is indexed or categorized by subject matter, the PTAB found that the two references were effectively indexed by subject matter because the meeting pages provided title-search functionality and the references had descriptive titles.</p> <p>It was also not necessary to show interested artisans actually discussed the subject matter pertinent to the challenged claims at task force meetings or accessed the references via the website in view of the PTAB&rsquo;s finding that skilled artisans attending the meetings would have been motivated to visit the task force website to access the references to supplement the brief oral presentations of those papers.</p> <p>In view of the above, the Federal Circuit affirmed the PTAB&rsquo;s finding that the references were printed publications.</p> <p>Separately, the Federal Circuit vacated the PTAB&rsquo;s decision that one of the challenged claims was anticipated because Samsung only alleged that the claim was obvious in view of a combination of three references and admitted that one limitation of the claim was not disclosed by the sole reference found by the PTAB to anticipate the claim. This violated the Administrative Procedure Act&rsquo;s notice requirement and accordingly required remand to the PTAB to address obviousness of the claim.</p> <p>This decision is pertinent to parties involved in patentability disputes involving prior art published by an industry organization because it provides guidance regarding the question of public availability of papers presented in industry meetings and published online. In view of this decision, even if a reference is not prominent, the prominence of the channel through which the reference is publicized can weigh in favor of public accessibility. Additionally, even when a website is not searchable by content, title search capability may be sufficient to show public accessibility, since the relevant inquiry is whether interested users could have located the references through reasonable diligence.</p> <p>For more information on this holding, please contact Fitch Even partner <a href=";A=2587&amp;format=xml&amp;p=5482">Paul B. Henkelmann</a>.</p> <p><i>Fitch Even associate <a href=";A=19278&amp;format=xml&amp;p=5482">Jacqueline L. Thompson</a> contributed to this alert.<br /> <br /> </i><b>Fitch Even IP Alert<sup>&reg;<br type="_moz" /> </sup></b></p>IP Alerts12 Feb 2021 00:00:00 -0800 Persuasion Techniques to Achieve Litigation Success: Part One<p>Please join Fitch Even for a free webinar, &ldquo;<a href="">Using Persuasion Techniques to Achieve Litigation Success: Part One</a>,&rdquo; on March 10 at 9:00 a.m. PST / 10:00 a.m. MST / 11:00 a.m. CST / 12 noon EST.</p> <p>In the fourth century B.C., Greek philosopher Aristotle described three key methods of persuasion that can be used to influence your audience&mdash;ethos, pathos, and logos. These persuasion techniques are used in all types of communication in our everyday lives. And when complex issues are involved, such as in intellectual property litigation, effectively applying these principles becomes even more important.</p> <p>During this webinar, we&rsquo;ll explore the ways these modes of persuasion can be used to effectively communicate throughout the life of a case, covering the following:</p> <ul type="disc"> <li>An introduction to the concepts of ethos, pathos, and logos</li> <li>How to integrate persuasion techniques when developing case themes</li> <li>The importance of building a team that can communicate and persuade</li> <li>How to select and prepare effective fact witnesses</li> </ul> <p>In April we will present Part Two, which will cover additional aspects of a case, including expert witnesses, communications with the court, and trial.</p> <p>Our speakers will be Fitch Even litigators <a href=";A=2581&amp;format=xml&amp;p=5482">Karl R. Fink</a>, <a href=";A=2598&amp;format=xml&amp;p=5482">Nikki Little</a>, and <a href=";A=2601&amp;format=xml&amp;p=5482">Timothy P. Maloney</a>.</p> <p>Karl has been a trial lawyer since 1981, handling hundreds of lawsuits in state and federal courts across the U.S., with positive results as first chair in all stages of litigation, including trial and appeal. His practice includes all aspects of IP litigation, creation, management, enforcement, and licensing, with a particular emphasis on complex patent litigation.</p> <p>Nikki is an IP litigator who represents clients in cases across a broad spectrum of technologies. She has participated in numerous jury and bench trials on behalf of clients ranging from individual inventors to multinational corporations. Nikki also represents clients in patent post-issuance proceedings in the USPTO in parallel with ongoing district court proceedings.</p> <p>Tim is a nationally recognized trial lawyer active in all aspects of IP enforcement and defense, with an emphasis on patent, trade secret, and other technology-related litigation. He is an established first-chair trial lawyer with a strong track record in numerous jury and bench trials and in various appeals before the Federal Circuit. Tim has handled over 100 litigation-related patent post-issuance proceedings in the USPTO, consistently achieving favorable outcomes.</p> <p>CLE credit has been approved for California, Illinois, and Nebraska. Other states may also award CLE credit upon attendee request. There is no fee to attend, but please note that registration is required.<br /> <br /> To reserve your place, please <a href="">REGISTER HERE</a>.<br /> &nbsp;</p>Upcoming Webinars12 Feb 2021 00:00:00 -0800 Even Attorney Kerianne Strachan Published in ABA <i>Business Law Today</i><p>An article written by Fitch Even attorney <a href=";A=16851&amp;format=xml&amp;p=5482">Kerianne A. Strachan</a> is featured in <i>Business Law Today</i>, published by the ABA Business Law Section. In the article, &ldquo;<a href="">Filing Patent Lawsuits as an Anonymous Plaintiff in the N.D. Ill.&mdash;Is it Possible?</a>,&rdquo; Kerianne discusses a case in which the Northern District of Illinois held that plaintiffs could not file patent infringement suits under pseudonyms to avoid tipping off defendants and allowing them to evade the claims. She goes on to describe potential alternative methods that might be used to thwart a defendant&rsquo;s evasion.</p> <p>To access the article and other content, please visit the <a href=""><i>Business Law Today</i> website.</a></p> <p>&nbsp;</p>Professional Activities10 Feb 2021 00:00:00 -0800 Even Attorneys Amanda O'Donnell and Jackie Thompson Published in ABA <i>Landslide</i> Magazine<p>An article written by Fitch Even partner <a href=";A=2599&amp;format=xml&amp;p=5482">Amanda Lowerre O&rsquo;Donnell</a> and associate <a href=";A=19278&amp;format=xml&amp;p=5482">Jacqueline L. Thompson</a> is featured in the January/February 2021 issue of <a href=""><i>Landslide</i> magazine</a>, published by the ABA Section of Intellectual Property Law.</p> <p>In their article, &ldquo;<a href="">Toy Meets World: IP Strategies for the Toy Industry</a>,&rdquo; Amanda and Jackie discuss the industry-specific factors toy designers and their counsel should consider to create an effective IP strategy and better leverage their IP budget.&nbsp;</p>Professional Activities09 Feb 2021 00:00:00 -0800 Even Partners Named Illinois Leading Lawyers and Emerging Lawyer for 2021<p>We&rsquo;re pleased to announce that 13 Fitch Even partners have been named &ldquo;Leading Lawyers&rdquo; and one partner has been named an &ldquo;Emerging Lawyer&rdquo; in Illinois for 2021.</p> <p><i>Leading Lawyers:&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;</i></p> <ul> <li><a href=";A=2580&amp;format=xml&amp;p=5482">Stephen S. Favakeh</a>&mdash;Intellectual Property Law, International Business &amp; Trade Law, Patent Law</li> <li><a href=";A=2581&amp;format=xml&amp;p=3130">Karl R. Fink</a>&mdash;Intellectual Property Law, Patent Law</li> <li><a href=";A=2588&amp;format=xml&amp;p=5482">Mark W. Hetzler</a>&mdash;Intellectual Property Law, Trade Secrets/Unfair Competition Law, Copyright &amp; Trademark Law</li> <li><a href=";A=2589&amp;format=xml&amp;p=5482">Allen E. Hoover</a>&mdash;Intellectual Property Law, Patent Law</li> <li><a href=";A=2600&amp;format=xml&amp;p=5482">John E. Lyhus</a>&mdash;Advertising &amp; Media Law, Copyright &amp; Trademark Law, Intellectual Property Law, International Business &amp; Trade Law, Trade Secrets/Unfair Competition Law</li> <li><a href=";A=2601&amp;format=xml&amp;p=3130">Timothy P. Maloney</a>&mdash; Intellectual Property Law, Patent Law, Trade Secrets/Unfair Competition Law, Copyright &amp; Trademark Law</li> <li><a href=";A=2609&amp;format=xml&amp;p=5482">Joseph T. Nabor</a>&mdash;Advertising &amp; Media Law, Copyright &amp; Trademark Law, Intellectual Property Law</li> <li><a href=";A=2610&amp;format=xml&amp;p=5482">Steven G. Parmelee</a>&mdash;Intellectual Property Law, Patent Law</li> <li><a href=";A=2611&amp;format=xml&amp;p=5482">Nicholas T. Peters</a>&mdash;Intellectual Property Law, Patent Law</li> <li><a href=";A=18289&amp;format=xml&amp;p=5482">Stanley A. Schlitter</a>&mdash;Intellectual Property Law, Patent Law</li> <li><a href=";A=2616&amp;format=xml&amp;p=3130">Joseph E. Shipley</a>&mdash;Intellectual Property Law, Patent Law, Trade Secrets/Unfair Competition Law, Copyright &amp; Trademark Law</li> <li><a href=";A=2617&amp;format=xml&amp;p=5482">Alisa C. Simmons</a>&mdash;Copyright &amp; Trademark Law, Intellectual Property Law</li> <li><a href=";A=18527&amp;format=xml&amp;p=5482">Maureen R. Smith</a>&mdash;Copyright &amp; Trademark Law, Intellectual Property Law&nbsp;</li> </ul> <p><i>Emerging Lawyer:</i></p> <ul> <li><a href=";A=2598&amp;format=xml&amp;p=5482">Nikki Little</a>&mdash;Intellectual Property Law, Patent Law, Biotechnology &amp; Pharmaceutical Law.</li> </ul> <p>Attorneys designated as Leading Lawyers were recommended by their peers throughout the state to be among the top lawyers in Illinois. Less than 5 percent of all lawyers licensed to practice in Illinois have received the distinction of being so named.</p> <p>Emerging Lawyers have been identified by Leading Lawyers throughout Illinois to be among the top lawyers who are age 40 or younger or have been admitted to the practice of law no longer than 10 years. Less than 2 percent of all lawyers licensed in Illinois have received the distinction of being named an Emerging Lawyer.</p> The entity Leading Lawyers is a division of Law Bulletin Media. Law Bulletin Media is a diversified print and electronic information company that has been serving the Chicago legal and business communities since 1854. For more information, please visit <a href=""></a>.<br /> <br /> <br />Firm News05 Feb 2021 00:00:00 -0800 Even Elects New Partner and Equity Partners<p>Fitch Even is pleased to announce that <a href=";A=8909&amp;format=xml&amp;p=5482">Giles N. Turner</a> has been elected partner and <a href=";A=2617&amp;format=xml&amp;p=5482">Alisa C. Simmons</a> and <a href=";A=18527&amp;format=xml&amp;p=5482">Maureen R. Smith</a> have been made equity partners of the firm, effective January 1, 2021.</p> <p><a href=";A=8909&amp;format=xml&amp;p=5482">Giles N. Turner</a> has notable experience in the preparation and prosecution of U.S. and foreign patent applications. He also conducts invalidity, infringement, and freedom-to-operate analyses in addition to providing counsel on other IP-related issues. His overseas clients include large Japanese corporations as well as companies based in France and Germany. Giles works with diverse technologies that include material science, semiconductors, chemical engineering, energy, biotechnology, food science, and mechanical arts, among others. He holds a J.D. from the University of New Hampshire School of Law and earned a B.S. in Chemical Engineering with Highest Honors from Montana State University.</p> <p><a href=";A=2617&amp;format=xml&amp;p=5482">Alisa C. Simmons</a> safeguards brands and copyrighted works throughout the world. She advances and protects the interests of clients ranging from hotels, universities, retailers, and charitable organizations to product manufacturers in the consumer, fashion and cosmetics, electronics, and food and healthcare industries. Alisa manages worldwide portfolios including prosecution of applications, enforcement, oppositions, and cancellations, as well as licensing. In addition, she advises clients on advertising review and claims and product packaging and has extensive experience handling matters involving unfair competition, domain name counseling, and dispute resolution. Alisa participates in many professional and service organizations and currently serves as the national project team leader for the Saul Lefkowitz Moot Court Competition hosted by the International Trademark Association and as president of the Educational Foundation of the Intellectual Property Law Association of Chicago. She earned her J.D. from Northwestern University School of Law and holds a B.A. in Biology from Indiana University.</p> <p><a href=";A=18527&amp;format=xml&amp;p=5482">Maureen R. Smith</a> has over 25 years of experience in all aspects of trademark law, helping clients in myriad industries choose, protect, build, and enforce brands in the U.S. and abroad. She has cared for some of the most valuable brands in the world, overseeing the development and enforcement of those brands in nearly every existing jurisdiction. She has served as global trademark counsel for major multinational brand owners, often advising at the C-level.&nbsp;Her in-house experience enables her to assist brand owners and lawyers, providing them with a practical and business-driven perspective. Maureen has advised on intellectual property aspects in many acquisitions, including several eight-figure deals. She has practiced extensively in the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, including before the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board, and before federal district courts. She is a graduate of Notre Dame Law School and earned a B.A. in News-Editorial Journalism, <i>cum laude</i>, from Drake University.<br /> &nbsp;</p>Firm News04 Feb 2021 00:00:00 -0800 Even Partner Karl Fink to Copresent AIPLA Webinar on IP Damages<p>Fitch Even partner <a href=";A=2581&amp;format=xml&amp;p=5482">Karl R. Fink</a> will copresent the AIPLA CLE webinar <a href="">&ldquo;Damages 2020 Year-in-Review: Lessons and Litigation Strategies&rdquo;</a> on February 24 from 11:30 a.m. to 1:00 p.m. CST.</p> <p>During this webinar, the panelists will share their insights on several of 2020&rsquo;s most interesting and important IP damages cases, focusing on key takeaways from these cases. In particular, they will discuss the latest developments in apportionment, willful infringement and enhanced damages, indirect infringement, comparable license analysis, and injunctive relief. In addition to Karl, the featured panelists will be Philip Petti of USG Corporation and David Harkavy of Delta Consulting Group, with Eric Faragi of Baker Botts LLP as moderator.</p> <p>CLE credit will be available for multiple states. For more information and to register, please visit the <a href="">AIPLA website.</a></p> <p>&nbsp;</p>Professional Activities04 Feb 2021 00:00:00 -0800