Blake R. Hartz

Blake R. Hartz Selected to the Indiana State Bar Association’s Leadership Development Academy Class 9

December 10, 2019

Woodard Emhardt is pleased to announce Blake R. Hartz’s membership in the Indiana State Bar Association’s Leadership Development Academy Class 9.  Mr. Hartz is one of 25 attorneys selected to participate in the statewide leadership program established to empower and develop lawyers to be informed, committed and involved so that they may fill significant leadership roles in local and state bar associations.

Mr. Hartz focuses his practice on intellectual property litigation in both federal court and administrative proceedings at the USPTO, having represented clients in patent, trademark, and trade secret cases in courts across the country, various trademark opposition/cancellation actions, and more than a dozen patent Inter Partes Review proceedings. He has worked on all stages of disputes, from pre-filing investigations through appeal, and also maintains active patent and trademark prosecution dockets, including serving as U.S. counsel for overseas companies and attorneys.

The Firm congratulates Mr. Hartz and all members of LDA Class 9.

About the Indiana State Bar Association:

Founded in 1896, the Indiana State Bar Association is the single largest legal organization in the state. The ISBA serves and advocates on behalf of its members, their clients and the public interest as the independent voice of the legal profession. The ISBA’s office is located in downtown Indianapolis. For more information about the Indiana State Bar Association, visit www.inbar.org.


Attorneys Celebrate May in Indy

June 3, 2019

On Thursday, May 30, 2019, Firm attorneys celebrate May in Indy racing at Speedway Indoor Karting.


Firm attorneys show their support of the USO of Indiana

May 21, 2019

Firm attorneys, Andrew Nevill, Blake Hartz, Chuck Reeves and Bill McKenna, participate in the Third Annual USO of Indiana Golf Outing on May 17th, 2019 at The Legends Golf Club in Franklin, Indiana. The annual event helps the USO of Indiana provide programs at no cost to military service men and women.

 


Firm Team Crowned IBF Trivia Night Champions

April 29, 2019

Congratulations to the team from Woodard, Emhardt, Henry, Reeves & Wagner who were crowned the Indianapolis Bar Foundation (IBF) Trivia Night Champions and took home the coveted IBF Trivia Trophy! The money raised at this annual IBF Trivia Night event supports the Foundation’s crucial role in helping to solve the legal-related problems in the Indianapolis community.

The victors, Christopher Brown, Chuck Schmal, Josh Astin, Andrew Nevill, Blake Hartz, Mark Burroughs, and Bob Jalaie, are pictured here with Trivia emcee, Adam Christensen (bottom row, center).


Woodard, Emhardt, Henry, Reeves & Wagner, LLP Announces Name Change and Promotes Three to Partnership

January 7, 2019

The Firm is pleased to announce that Charles Reeves and Vincent Wagner have been recognized as named partners of the firm, which has changed its name to Woodard, Emhardt, Henry, Reeves & Wagner, LLP.  Woodard Emhardt also congratulates Matthew Gardlik, Ph.D., Joshua Astin and Blake Hartz who have been elected to the firm’s partnership and is pleased to share that John McNett will continue with the firm as Senior Counsel.

The firm name change recognizes Mr. Reeves’ and Mr. Wagner’s significant contributions to the firm and outstanding service and results they have achieved for our clients over the years. Their leadership will help ensure the continued success of the firm which celebrates its 140thAnniversary this year.

Mr. Reeves joined the firm in 1976 and has represented a broad range of clients from individuals and start-up businesses to national and international corporations. His experience includes litigation, domestic and international prosecution, strategic planning and managing IP portfolios, and evaluating validity, coverage and right-to-use issues in connection with opinion, transactional and other business-related work.

Mr. Wagner joined the firm in 1978 and has represented clients in a wide range of matters, including patent, trademark, copyright, and trade secret litigation, patent interference and trademark oppositions, foreign and domestic patent and trademark prosecution, counseling and opinions, mediations and settlement negotiations, and licensing.

Dr. Gardlik is extensively involved in all aspects of patent prosecution and litigation.  He has successfully prepared and prosecuted inventions in a wide variety of technologies including chemical, pharmaceutical, medical device, and diagnostic technologies. His litigation experience includes the successful defense of a retaliatory trade secret misappropriation claim and he continues to represent the plaintiff in the earlier-filed patent infringement suit including in the successful defense of thirteen associated Inter Partes Review proceedings at the USPTO.

Mr. Astin specializes in U.S. and foreign patent preparation and prosecution for a variety of technologies including: tissue engineering, stem cells, implantable medical devices, and genetic sequence listings. His patent experience includes patentability analysis, freedom to operate analysis, as well as licensing and agreement work.

Mr. Hartz focuses his practice on intellectual property litigation in both federal court and administrative proceedings at the USPTO, having represented clients in patent, trademark, and trade secret cases in courts across the country, various trademark opposition/cancellation actions, and more than a dozen patent Inter Partes Review proceedings. He has worked on all stages of disputes, from pre-filing investigations through appeal, and also maintains active patent and trademark prosecution dockets, including serving as U.S. counsel for overseas companies and attorneys.

The firm congratulates our new named partners and our newest partners and looks forward to building on Woodard Emhardt’s 140 years of protecting and defending client’s creative and intellectual assets.


IPR Is Here to Stay, With Even Greater Stakes

April 25, 2018

On April 24, the Supreme Court issued two important decisions on the availability and scope of post-grant Inter Partes Review (IPR) by the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office. The IPR process allows the PTO to review and potentially cancel claims of a previously-granted patent based on prior art.

In Oil States Energy Services, LLC v. Greene’s Energy Group, LLC, the Court determined that the IPR process is constitutional. In earlier proceedings, a patent’s claims had been revoked in an IPR proceeding. The patentee challenged the IPR process as violating Article III or the Seventh Amendment right to a jury trial by transferring an adjudication of private property rights to an administrative tribunal. The Court held that IPR violates neither provision, analogizing the grant of a patent to a government-granted right to build bridges or railways that can be revisited in an administrative proceeding.

In SAS Institute Inc. v. Iancu, the Court interpreted Section 318 of the Patent Act to determine that, if an IPR is to be instituted, it has to be instituted to decide the patentability of all of the claims challenged in the IPR petition. In the PTO proceedings, the IPR was only instituted on a subset of the claims that were originally challenged in the opening IPR petition. The Court held that a PTO regulation authorizing partial institution was inconsistent with the plain meaning of the statutory text.

The decision in SAS Institute is an important change in IPR practice. Previously, the PTO was frequently picking-and-choosing claims and theories from the initial petition on which to proceed to a full administrative trial. But the PTO still has substantial discretion in instituting or denying the proceedings on the whole, subject to review under the Administrative Procedures Act. Thus, while crafting the initial petition (as a petitioner) or attacking it (as a patent owner) was always important, this new requirement that the challenged claims are addressed in an all-or-nothing decision makes the preliminary, pre-institution stages of an IPR even more critical.


Review of Recent IP Supreme Court Cases

August 15, 2016

The Supreme Court recently decided three different cases related to intellectual property issues. The Court reviewed the process of instituting an inter partes review (IPR) in In re Cuozzo Speed Techs., finding that a decision of whether to institute an IPR is nonappealable. Additionally, it was held that it is reasonable for the USPTO to use a broadest reasonable interpretation standard for claim construction in IPRs is reasonable.

In Halo v. Pulse; Stryker v. Zimmer, the Supreme Court reviewed the Federal Circuit’s Seagate test for enhanced damages in patent infringement cases. It was found that the Seagate test is too rigid and not consistent with Section 284. The Supreme Court leaves to the discretion of the court the right to enhance damages for egregious behavior.

The final intellectual property case heard by the Supreme Court, Kirtsaeng v. John Wiley & Sons, reviewed the standard for awarding attorney’s fees to a defendant in a copyright case. The Court held that a district court may give substantial weight to the objective reasonableness of the position of the losing party, yet should also account for other relevant circumstances for awarding attorney’s fees.

The Supreme Court has already granted petitions to hear several more intellectual property cases in the upcoming October term. Issues to be decided include calculation of damages in design patent infringement cases, infringement based on supply of a single component of a multi-component invention, protectability of features of a useful article under the Copyright Act, and the application of laches for claims brought within a statutory limitations period. The full presentation may be viewed by visiting:  Review of Recent IP Supreme Court Cases from Woodard, Emhardt, Moriarty, McNett and Henry LLP


New Rules May Alter Patent Litigation

March 31, 2016

On December 1, 2015, new amendment to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure went into effect. For intellectual property practice, the most significant change may be the elimination of the “Forms” section of the rules and Rule 84. Previously, pleadings similar to Form 18 for direct patent infringement were sufficient to satisfy the pleading standards in federal court. Now, based on previous decisions of the Federal Circuit regarding indirect infringement, commentators suggest that patent complaints will need to provide more specific factual information in order to survive early motion practice. The Federal Circuit has not yet addressed this question, but early district court decisions appear to be applying the amendments inconsistently. Some decisions have ruled that more specific fact-based allegations are required, while others have noted that the Advisory Committee comments state that the amendments were not intended to alter existing pleading standards and therefore continue to use Form 18 as the benchmark.

Although an initial complaint is one of the first steps in a patent lawsuit, it has significant procedural and substantive consequences depending on how it is drafted. Pending bills in the current Congress, the Innovation Act (H.R. 9) and the PATENT Act (S. 1137), would change patent infringement pleading requirements by amending the patent statutes in Title 35 of the United States Code.

Additional changes to the Rules relate to the scope of discovery (Rule 26), timing and objections relating to requests for production or inspection (Rule 34), and sanctions relating to electronically-stored information or “ESI” (Rule 37). To view the presentation, visit: Federal Rules Update from Woodard, Emhardt, Moriarty, McNett and Henry LLP


July 2015 Patent Case Update

July 31, 2015

The Supreme Court addressed a number of patent law topics this year, including the standard of review for patent claim construction (Teva Pharmaceuticals v. Sandoz), royalties on expired patents (Kimble v. Marvel Enterprises), and defenses to claims of induced infringement (Commil v. Cisco). The initial wave of appeals in post-issuance proceedings provided by the America Invents Act are now being decided by the Federal Circuit. These include cases involving whether the decision to institute is reviewable (In re Cuozzo Speed Technologies) and discussion of the claim construction standards that apply (Microsoft v. Proxyconn). The relationship between administrative challenges and related litigation is also an evolving area (ePlus v. Lawson Software). To view the presentation, visit: Recent Patent Cases from Woodard, Enhardt, Henry, Reeves & Wagner, LLP 


May 2015 Administrative Estoppel Presentation

June 24, 2015

The following presentation provides an overview of administrative estoppel and its preclusive effects in relation to intellectual property cases. To view the presentation, visit: Administrative Estoppel from Woodard, Emhardt, Henry, Reeves & Wagner, LLP

Older Posts »