New England IP Blog

Covering intellectual property developments in New England, and other developments that impact New England companies.

Patrick Niedermeier

Patrick Niedermeier

Patent Counsel

Patrick J. Niedermeier is Patent Counsel in the Litigation Department and Intellectual Property Group.

Patrick represents clients from large corporations to start-up entities before the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office. He is experienced in all phases of patent prosecution, including accelerated examination, provisional filings, continuation practice, appeal briefing, design patents and foreign patent strategy. He also has prosecuted several trademark filings to registration.

Subscribe to all posts by Patrick Niedermeier

Plaintiff Secures Sweeping Jury Verdict in Hotly-Contested Patent Fight

In a long-running patent fight involving two medical device manufacturers, a Massachusetts jury determined last week that the defendant Kaz had infringed two of plaintiff Exergen’s patents relating to temporal thermometers, and that the patents are not invalid. The jury also awarded Exergen nearly $15 million in damages.… Continue Reading

Defendant’s Argument to Exclude Damages Theory Heads in the Wrong Direction

Although courts and commentators have turned up the heat on the entire market value rule (EMVR) in recent years, it can be a useful tool for a patentee to obtain significant damages where the evidence shows that the patented feature is the basis of consumer demand for the accused product. Thus, defendants often try to … Continue Reading

Plaintiff Avoids Headache of Having Its Thermometer Patent Invalidated at Summary Judgment

In a recent District of Massachusetts case, a defendant attempted to use the crucible of summary judgment to invalidate the plaintiff’s body temperature detection patents. But, as shown in the Court’s ruling, sometimes that strategy does not produce the desired results.… Continue Reading

In Trademark Dispute, New Hampshire School Website Address Not Taken For Granite

New Hampshire is commonly referred to as the Granite State.  In one recent trademark infringement case, however, a federal court in New Hampshire did not find a likelihood of consumer confusion between website addresses for competing trade schools, where one school uses the term “NH” and the other uses the term “Granite State.”… Continue Reading

Beware the Quagmire of Personal Jurisdiction

A plaintiff in the District of New Hampshire recently found itself stuck in an unenviable and inescapable jurisdictional hole. Plaintiff Presby Patent Trust sued Infiltrator Systems, a Connecticut-based manufacturer and distributor of septic systems, in New Hampshire for allegedly infringing Presby’s patent on a method for processing effluent. Presby asserted that Infiltrator’s Advanced Treatment Leachfield … Continue Reading

Job Applicant Software Patents Not Terminated for Invalidity

Although the subject matter eligibility of software patents has come under increased scrutiny since the Supreme Court issued its opinion last year in Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank, one Massachusetts court recently declined to invalidate a trio of patents directed to job applicant software. Plaintiff Kenexa had asserted infringement claims against three defendants, and two … Continue Reading

Joint Defendants Succeed on Motion to Stay Pending Reexam

For defendants in patent infringement cases, moving to stay the case pending the outcome of a concurrent U.S. Patent Office reexamination proceeding is a fairly common building block that has the potential to streamline or even eliminate a costly and lengthy litigation. And, as one litigant that makes construction-grade joint systems recently found out, under the … Continue Reading

Mobile Medical’s Validity Experts Get To Stay Behind The Wheel

As the established gatekeepers with respect to expert testimony, district courts have broad discretion on whether to admit or exclude such evidence. The Vermont district court recently opted to deny patentee defendant Advanced Mobile’s (“AMHS”) motions to disqualify both of declaratory judgment plaintiff Mobile Medical’s (“MMIC”) expert witnesses, who had provided opinions relating to the invalidity … Continue Reading

Fraudulent Procurement Claim Dismissed: No Evidence Trademark Attorney Knew Statement Was False

It is not easy to cancel a federal trademark by way of a fraud claim. Investment services firm Navigator Investments (“NI”) found this out recently when the Rhode Island district court dismissed its fraudulent procurement counterclaim against trademark plaintiff Clark Capital Management. NI’s counterclaim had asked for cancellation of Clark’s federally-registered, “NAVIGATOR”  trademark, because of … Continue Reading

Blueprint Generation Software Not Eligible for Patenting

Speeding up a blueprint generation process that can be done by hand does not make computer software eligible for patenting. So reasoned the New Hampshire district court in another of a bevy of post-Alice district court decisions that have found certain software patents invalid under § 101 of the Patent Act. The case involved EastCoast’s … Continue Reading

The Blurred Lines of the Indefiniteness Road Map

As lower courts begin to apply the Supreme Court’s reworded standard for indefiniteness as set forth in Nautilus, Inc. v. BioSig Instruments, Inc., they have grappled with the question of where to draw the line between claims that are not indefinite and those that are.  In a recent order by Judge Landya McCafferty, the New Hampshire … Continue Reading

It’s Situation Normal As Massachusetts Court Declines To Construe Claim Term

Ask each member of a jury to define the word “normally” and you might get twelve different answers. In one recent order, Judge Saylor determined that a jury would understand the ordinary meaning of the claim term “normally clamp” in a dispute involving a patent directed to a baseball cap holder. The claim in question … Continue Reading
LexBlog