Milton Springut

February 14, 2005 | New York Law Journal

David A. Kalow and Milton Springut, partners at Kalow & Springut, write that when an inventor receives federal funding, in order to avail himself of potential patent rights, he must agree to abide by a number of strict requirements. These requirements are designed to protect the public's investment in the research. Unfortunately, historically, recipients have not fulfilled their obligations, and the funding agencies have not mandated compliance.

By David A. Kalow and Milton Springut

11 minute read

April 19, 2006 | New York Law Journal

David A. Kalow and Milton Springut, partners at Kalow & Springut LLP, write that while a charge of inequitable conduct before the United States Patent and Trademark Office may sound like a threat that would only be of concern to patent lawyers and their high technology clients, all attorneys should be aware of the increasingly common, and thanks to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, increasingly broad defense of inequitable conduct before the PTO.

By David A. Kalow and Milton Springut

11 minute read

December 23, 2004 | New York Law Journal

David A. Kalow and Milton Springut, partners at Kalow & Springut, write that design patents constitute a relatively small part of most patent lawyers' practices; however, they are among the most valuable forms of intellectual property protection that many clients can obtain. Particularly in the fashion, jewelry and furniture industry, design patents offer a very cost-effective means to protect against look-alikes, whether the result of independent creation or copying.

By David A. Kalow and Milton Springut

10 minute read

March 07, 2011 | Legaltech News

Elements common to a computer system include processors, input and output devices, and memory. A patent claim on such a system may follow the movement of information among the parts, where physical control of the components may be vested in two or more different people. This presents a unique challenge to claim enforcement in the Federal Circuit, say attorneys David A. Kalow and Milton Springut.

By David A. Kalow and Milton Springut

10 minute read

October 01, 2010 | New York Law Journal

David A. Kalow and Milton Springut, partners at Kalow & Springut, review a Federal Circuit decision that serves as a warning to patent and other intellectual property owners and their counsel that once one contacts a putative infringer, there must be follow-through in some fashion or the IP owner risks losing all rights with respect to that infringer.

By David A. Kalow and Milton Springut

12 minute read

March 22, 2005 | New York Law Journal

David A. Kalow and Milton Springut, partners at Kalow & Springut, write that technology disclosure and licensing arrangements are common arm's-length business deals, usually thought to involve no fiduciary relationship, i.e., one having special trust and confidence and heightened duties of fairness toward the other.

By David A. Kalow And Milton Springut

10 minute read

November 13, 2009 | Corporate Counsel

While we eagerly wait to see how the landscape of patent law will shift after the Supreme Court decides Bilski, attorneys David A. Kalow and Milton Springut compare Bilski with a recent Federal Circuit decision to address just what is patentable subject matter.

By David A. Kalow and Milton Springut

11 minute read

May 06, 2010 | New York Law Journal

David A. Kalow and Milton Springut, partners at Kalow & Springut, review two recent decision in which the Federal Circuit delved further into the thicket of design patent issues in attempting to clarify how one is to determine whether a design patent has been infringed.

By David A. Kalow and Milton Springut

12 minute read

July 26, 2011 | New York Law Journal

David A. Kalow and Milton Springut of Kalow & Springut write: Recently, in a decision which addressed the issue of when prior art is sufficiently relevant to a claimed invention to be considered in a non-obviousness inquiry, the Federal Circuit reminded the community of inventors and patent professionals that both it and the Supreme Court have a broad view as to what art would be obvious for an inventor to consider when tackling an unsolved problem.

By David A. Kalow and Milton Springut

10 minute read

August 19, 2009 | New York Law Journal

David A. Kalow and Milton Springut, partners at Kalow & Springut, write that while Medinol Ltd. v. Neuro Vasx, Inc. remains good law, recent opinions from the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board show that the application of the fraud doctrine is not boundless. Nevertheless, Medinol can have a devastating affect on registrations. A registrant who inadvertently allows extra goods in the same class to be listed in a Statement of Use in an application or in a renewal risks losing the registration, at least as to an entire class of goods.

By David A. Kalow and Milton Springut

13 minute read