The Latest From Kinney and Lange

Tag Archive: Andrew Swanson

New Shareholders Announced

Kinney & Lange is pleased to announce three new shareholders: Ian MacKinnon, Nicholas Peterka, and Andrew Swanson. Ian MacKinnon has extensive experience in IP portfolio management. He has assisted clients with monetizing their IP portfolios through licensing and sales activities. Ian has also participated in enforcement activities and providing IP litigation support. Nick Peterka’s practice has been primarily in patent preparation and prosecution, as well as clearance activities. Such clearance activities include performing offensive activities, such as patentability searches and analyses as well as defensive activities, such as freedom-to-operate searches and analyses.  Nick also has extensive experience in Trademark prosecution...

Federal Circuit Reaffirms Patent Exhaustion Doctrine

By: Andrew Swanson In Lexmark Int’l, Inc. v. Impression Prods., Inc., 16 F.3d 721 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (en banc), the Federal Circuit was asked to determine the applicability of the doctrine of patent exhaustion in two contexts.  First, the court was asked to determine whether the sale of a patented article to end users under a restriction that is otherwise lawful and within the scope of a patent grant nonetheless gives rise to patent exhaustion.  The court held that a patentee may reserve its patent rights by selling a patented article under otherwise-proper restrictions on resale and reuse that are...

K&L Present Intro to IP Law at SME Chapter Meeting

Kinney & Lange’s Larrin Bergman and Andrew Swanson will present “An Introduction to Intellectual Property Law” at the Society of Manufacturing Engineers’ Minneapolis Chapter meeting on March 16, 2016. Visit http://chapters.sme.org/011/ for more information.

SUPREME COURT RULES TRADEMARK TACKING IS A QUESTION FOR THE JURY

■ Andrew R. Swanson In Hana Financial, Inc. v. Hana Bank, 135 S.Ct. 907 (2015), a unanimous Supreme Court held that the determination of whether two trademarks may be “tacked” for the purpose of determining priority is a question for the jury.   Prior to Hana, circuit courts were split as to whether tacking was a question of law for the judge, or a question of fact for the jury. While the Court determined that the jury is in the best position to determine if the tacking doctrine applies, the Court did leave open the judge’s ability to determine the tacking...