Edmund J. Sease Conceives and Coordinates Important Drake Law Review Spring 2021 Intellectual Property Special Edition Issue

By Richard Marsolais

MVS is pleased to announce that Edmund J. Sease, intellectual property attorney and named partner, conceived and coordinated the Drake Law Review Spring 2021 Intellectual Property Special Edition Issue dedicated to controversial and timely patent law topics. This publication includes articles that are authored by several prominent people in this field of law including: Honorable […]

Continue Reading →


By Kirk M. Hartung

The U.S. Trademark Trial and Appeal Board will referee the thriller action between two giants over the rights to the trademark/name ALI.  In case number 91269471, Alibaba Group Holding Limited has challenged application serial number 90/203382 filed by Mohammad Ali Enterprises, LLC. Alibab’s opposition filing is 419 pages long, including a 20 page brief and […]

Continue Reading →

Aevum UAV’s Ravn X to Deliver Cargo AND Launch Rockets

By Gregory Lars Gunnerson

The Ravn X (Aevum) unmanned aircraft will be used to both deliver cargo and launch rockets, pending approval from the Federal Aviation Administration. For its intellectual efforts in this space, the company was awarded U.S. Patent No. 10,994,842. The heart of the invention concerns a payload delivery system for an aircraft. Aevum is the first […]

Continue Reading →


By Charles P. Romano, Ph.D.

The recent announcement by US Trade Representative Katherine Tai that the “US supports the waiver of IP protections on COVID-19 vaccines to help end the pandemic” has led to concern over the potential scope and effect of such waivers. Forced disclosure of trade secrets related to vaccine manufacturing processes has generated the most concern since […]

Continue Reading →

Walmart “Tryin’ to Break Me Down”: Retail Giant Opposing Kanye West’s Yeezy Trademark 

By Nicholas J. Krob

As Kanye West once rapped, “We at war with terrorism, racism, but most of all, we at war with ourselves.” Well, now he can add Walmart to that list. Last December, Kanye West’s apparel brand Yeezy, LLC filed a trademark application for a logo “consist[ing] of eight dotted lines . . . arranged at equal […]

Continue Reading →

Who is on the IP naughty list this year?

By Oliver P. Couture, Ph.D.

Every year the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative (USTR) releases two lists of countries that have concerns surrounding their intellectual property (IP) laws and enforcement and may provide insight if considering filing an application in a certain country. These two lists are the Special 301 Report and the Notorious Markets List, available here. The […]

Continue Reading →

Clearly using “clear” for Non-Transparent Goods is Deceptively Misdescriptive.

By Julie L. Spieker

Dolce Vita Footware, Inc. sought registration of the mark CLEAR for various bags, purses, wallets, and card cases – excluding transparent goods. The Examiner refused registration on the grounds that it is deceptively misdescriptive and on April 29, 2021 the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board (the “TTAB”) affirmed. In its original registration, Dolce Vita identified […]

Continue Reading →

MVS Supports World Intellectual Property Day 2021

By Richard Marsolais

McKee, Voorhees & Sease, PLC is proud to support World Intellectual Property Day on April 26, 2021. This day celebrates the role intellectual property rights play in encouraging innovation and creativity and the many inspiring inventors and creators around the world who are working to provide for a better tomorrow. The event was established by […]

Continue Reading →

Federal Circuit reiterates the principle that when a § 103 rejection is based on a single prior art reference, the reference must be self-enabling in order to render the claimed invention obvious

By Joseph M. Hallman

On April 16, 2021, in Raytheon Technologies Corp. v. General Electric Co., the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (“Federal Circuit”) reversed a decision by the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“PTAB”) regarding unpatentability due to obviousness under 35 U.S.C. § 103. In its decision, the Federal Circuit made clear that when […]

Continue Reading →

Inherent anticipation – Is the phenotype exhibited by a transgenic plant an inherent feature?

By Brian D. Keppler, Ph.D.

A claim is anticipated only if each and every element as set forth in the claim is found, either expressly or inherently described, in a single prior art reference. If a prior art reference expressly sets forth each of the elements of a claim, then there is typically little question of whether or not the […]

Continue Reading →

Stay in Touch

Receive the latest news and updates from us and our attorneys.

Sign Up