Thanks so much for helping to make All About Inventing Everything You Need to Know About Patents From a Former USPTO Patent Examiner & Patent Attorney a NUMBER ONE BEST SELLER.
This book will empower you to understand the USPTO patent system. Don’t bury your invention in your backyard! Protect it!!
WOW! Were you able to tune into Season 2, Episode 1 of Make48? Kudos to all contestants who took on the challenge to invent and solve a problem in only 48 hours. Many of you know, it can take years to invent the next big thing, but what would you invent in only 48 hours?
The day started with 12 teams from across the country being given the challenge – OUTDOOR ENTERTAINMENT! In fact, as a patent attorney on the show, I learned about the topic when I arrived at the show for taping. With the pressure of the clock ticking and the excitement of other teams in the room, teams hit the ground running and brainstormed their inventions. I sat down with teams on the show and researched their inventions to determine if their inventions would be infringing on existing patents and also to determine if their inventions were patentable.
I received a great question from a viewer about my discussion with Team Believe. After researching their invention, I found prior art that appeared to read on their invention. Prior art is “anything” prior to your invention being filed. For example, a publication, a pending patent application or even an expired patent may be considered prior art. I found an expired patent that appeared to have the same features and functions. First, even if the contestants proceeded with that identical invention, they would not be infringing on the patent because it was expired and you cannot infringe on an expired patent. It’s fair game for anyone to make an invention disclosed in an expired patent. However, for patentablity purposes the team needed to have a feature that was useful, novel and non-obvious. As you saw, they created a new mounting system for the light structure and that feature distinguished their invention from the prior art.
Ready to learn more about what to do with your great invention and how to protect it? Check out www.evansiplaw.com/book to order your copy of All About Inventing!
It’s the Firm’s 11th anniversary! WOW! Thank you for your continued support and trust of your intellectual property with The Law Firm of Andrea Hence Evans, LLC!  Times flies!
We’ve accomplished so many things in these 11 years from awards, tv appearances, speeches, legal victories and more! I’m most proud that my clients trust my Firm with their patents, trademarks and copyrights! You have a choice of your legal counsel and I’m thankful that you all continue to choose my Firm. Cheers to many more years of IP success to The Law Firm of Andrea Hence Evans, LLC and to YOU! – Andrea
Opposer, Trans-High Corporation filed a Notice of Opposition against Applicant, JFC Tobacco Corp., owner of the mark HIGH HEMP for cigar wraps made from hemp, cigarette papers made from hemp, Tobacco, Flavored tobacco, hookah tobacco and leaf tobacco. Opposer has used the mark HIGH TIMES for its magazine covering marijuana and hemp related topics. Applicant, JFC Tobacco Corp. is represented by The Law Firm of Andrea Hence Evans, LLC.
Discovery was set to close on January 22, 2018. Opposer served discovery on December 22, 2018. Applicant filed its discovery requests on January 10, 2018, where responses would be due on February 9, 2018, after the close of discovery. Opposer noted that the requests were untimely since responses would be due after the close of the discovery. Applicant sought an extension of time from Opposer but received no response from opposing counsel. Applicant filed a Motion To Extend The Deadline to Close of Discovery and Extend Deadline for Applicant to Respond to Discovery, noting that Applicant had delays due to the hurricane in Puerto Rico and that it was difficult to reach Applicant during the Winter holidays.
The TTAB noted that the appropriate standard for allowing an extension of a specified time prior to the expiration of that period is “good cause” and not “excusable neglect.” Opposer argued in its motion that the standard should be excusable neglect and not good cause.
The TTAB GRANTED Applicant’s motion since Applicant demonstrated the requisite good cause to warrant the extension of time to respond and to extend discovery.
For people who need help navigating the patent office, All About Inventing Everything You Need To Know About Patents From a Former USPTO Patent Examiner & Patent Attorney is invaluable. Andrea Hence Evans, former patent examiner at the USPTO and current patent attorney, has written this book to explain different types of patents, patent prosecution, how to avoid and correct rejections, and more! This book will help you understand your options to protect your invention and help you navigate your patent application through the USPTO.
Invention-Con 2018 is a free, two-day independent inventors’ conference to inform and equip inventors and small businesses with intellectual property know-how! The conference will be held at the USPTO headquarters on August 17-18, 2018 in Alexandria, VA!
Andrea H. Evans, Esq. is scheduled to teach you all about the PERFECT PITCH on 8/18/2018 at 12:30-1:30pm. REGISTRATION IS FREE AND REQUIRED!