Excellence. Integrity. Success.

“I highly recommend Barry, Reid and team if you have a bet the company intellectual property litigation. You can count on them to prepare thorough briefs quickly and efficiently.”

"Working with Barry, Ifti, and the rest of the team has been absolutely fantastic. They have demonstrated their ability to be creative and effective at handling both offensive and defense litigation tactics, with a work ethic that is second to none."

"The excellent team at Irwin IP including Adam Reis and Barry Irwin has helped my company during critical times within such as scaling, contracts, negotiations and defending my contracts. Being in a creative field, I need attorney's that understand the law within the creative and entertainment fields and Irwin has always exceeded my expectations and helped me grow my business with their proper legal counsel."

"It has been an absolute pleasure to work with Irwin IP. For my company’s contract negotiations, there’s no one I would trust more than Barry. His vigilance meant that those same contracts would be promptly enforced if needed. When it comes to intellectual property, his team will stand up for you - no matter if the opponent is a small studio or a giant corporation. He is fearless in his pursuits on your behalf."

Irwin IP Case Of The Week

USPTO May Not Collect Attorney Fees in § 145 Actions to Issue a Patent

Peter v. NantKwest, Case No. 18-801, 589 U.S. --- (Supreme Court 2019)

Emily Sample & Reid Huefner

December 16, 2019

Professor Dennis Crouch did a great job of summarizing the Supreme Court’s ruling last week in Peter v. NantKwest, wherein the Court found that the Patent and Trademark Office could not shift its litigation costs to applicants who choose to challenge the PTO’s decisions in district court. We recommend everyone read his summary, posted on the Patently-O Blog, here.

Download PDF

Contact the Authors

Name: Emily Sample Phone: (312) 667-6284 Email: esample@irwinip.com

Name: Reid Huefner Phone: (312) 667-6083 Email: rhuefner@irwinip.com

Recent Posts

Product Development Standing and Lessons on Teaching Away

The Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (“CAFC”) recently affirmed standing to challenge a competitor’s patent based on significant investment into and likely use

Alice/Mayo and the Printed Matter Doctrine

The Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (“CAFC”) recently issued a decision providing guidance for analyzing patent eligibility under 35 U.S.C. § 101 when

Copyright and Trademark Owner Obtains Biting Injunctive Relief

The Eastern District of Michigan granted a preliminary injunction against dental instrument supplier UL Amins Industries and Hammad Ashiq (“Defendants”) for allegedly selling counterfeit dental

222 South Riverside Plaza Suite 2350
Chicago, IL 60606
312.667.6080

Attorney Advertising. The material and information contained on these pages and on any pages linked from these pages are intended to provide general information only and not legal advice. You should consult with an attorney licensed to practice in your jurisdiction before relying upon any of the information presented here. The acts of sending email to this website or viewing information from this website do not create an attorney-client relationship. The listing of verdicts, settlements, and other case results is not a guarantee or prediction of the outcome of any other claims.