In the patent arena, ARC IP Law practices compact prosecution.
Generally, we initially pursue detailed claims to get inventions allowed efficiently instead of spending time probing for extremely broad claims. We build large portfolios more efficiently in this manner by starting with claim sets that are detailed and moving to broader claims with continuations.
We interview patent examiners to avoid office actions and get patents allowed faster than many firms by determining what issues exist from the viewpoint of the patent examiners and taking that into account when responding to office actions.
ARC generated a portfolio of over 20 patents worldwide for a client that showed their products on Shark Tank. When a competitor filed an IPR against our client’s patent, ARC defended the patent and forced a settlement that resulted in our client’s patent still in force. The competitor was forced to change their design resulting in an inferior product in the market place. Our client ended up selling the product in over 30 countries and was acquired by a large private company.
Other Case Studies
A local nonprofit senior low-income housing living facility property owner had problems with a reroof performed and warranted by an out-of-state contractor licensed in California but headquartered in Minnesota.
Among other things, misrepresentations had been made regarding materials upgrades and the roof leaked. Breach of contract and warranty notices were sent to the contractor who did not respond given that it had left California, allowed its California contractor’s license to lapse, and the Franchise Tax Board also suspended its corporate privileges for nonpayment of taxes. The property owner sued in state court, served defendant out-of-state, and obtained a default against the contractor. The property owner obtained a judgment against the contractor by default after a prove-up and gave notice of the judgment to the contractor. The California judgment was domesticated in Minnesota by local counsel under the Uniform Sister-State Judgment Act and collection activities ensued.
The contractor now with counsel (who was also endeavoring to obtain coverage from an insurer) attempted to have the California judgment set aside by motion, but the property owner countered via a motion to strike that the corporation’s suspended status prevented the filing of the motion to have the judgment set aside until its corporate status had been revived. The matter was continued to allow for a revivor, but the corporation was not timely revived, and the trial court eventually denied the motion to set aside the judgment and granted the motion to strike the set aside motion which became final as to the contractor.
The insurer then attempted to intervene in the action to have the judgment set aside given that it was liable for the judgment under the Insurance Code (subject to coverage defenses). The property owner opposed the attempt to intervene as improper and untimely since a judgment had been entered and the insurance carrier was on notice of the entry of judgment preventing it from having the judgment set aside. The property owner and insurer agreed to mediation and the matter was settled and a satisfaction of judgment filed.
Plaintiffs sued developer and related entities for rehabilitating residences prior to sale without pulling permits on the basis of fraud and nondisclosure. Separate successful mediations resolved the cases subject to confidentiality and the developer repurchased one of the properties. The developer then sought a variance for his illegal construction from the planning commission and both Plaintiffs testified against granting the developer a variance. When the variance was denied, the developer sued Plaintiffs and then appealed to the city council. Plaintiffs again testified against the variance on appeal (and one Plaintiff was served with the lawsuit while testifying at the city council hearing) which was again denied.
Plaintiffs filed anti-Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation (“SLAPP”) motions to strike the developers’ complaints under Code of Civil Procedure § 425.16. In both cases, anti-SLAPP motions were granted, and attorney’s fees were awarded by statute—one with a multiplier enhancement of 1.5. The developer appealed and the granting of the anti-SLAPP motions and the awards of attorney’s fees were all affirmed in full.
Case Information: SCJ, INC., et al. v. Davis (SDSC Case No. GIN011226; 4th DCA, Div. 1, Case No. D038673 [unpublished]); & Dirty Work Construction v. McCarroll (SDSC Case No. GIN011227; 4th DCA, Div. 1, Case No. D038578 [unpublished])
A carefully edited consulting agreement ensured the client remains the owner of their IP while delivering a customized program to their customer. Previous to the edits, the client would have given all their IP to the customer.
Provided us with an unparalleled level of service.
As a global company, we require the best legal advise possible in the areas of general business law, patent and trademark protection, and unfortunately, sometimes litigation expertise. In the many years that we have been doing business with ARC IP Law, Danna Cotman and Joe Mayo have provided us with an unparalleled level of service in all of these areas, and we consider them to be not just a vendor but a valuable partner in allowing our company to be successful.