Klintworth & Rozenblat IP is an innovative intellectual property law firm comprising a team of top-notch attorneys representing some of the largest and most sophisticated clients in the world. The firm utilizes a reduced overhead structure and an all-star team of experienced, partner-level attorneys, hailing from some of the largest and most well-known law firms in the country, to provide clients with exceptional work product at reasonable rates. While the firm has a small firm feel providing its clients with close, personal attention, the firm has a national footprint with attorneys and staff located in cities around the country. That's what we call Law Firm Reinvented!
We just opened a new office in Silicon Valley! Klintworth & Rozenblat IP is proud to announce the opening of a new office in San Jose, California. Joining us in this new office will be Maryam Imam and Michael Bosworth, two seasoned IP professionals. Maryam and Michael bring a combined 60 years of experience in Intellectual Property Law and have extensive expertise in both Trademark and Patent Law. Maryam has a Masters in Electrical Engineering and Michael has a Bachelors in Chemical Engineering. We are all excited to have them join our All-Star Team of attorneys. [January 18, 2017]
We moved to a new office. In 2016 Klintworth & Rozenblat IP moved its Chicago office to an exciting new location in the West Loop at 19 North Green Street. This newly remodeled 5,000 square foot office contains twelve lawyer’s offices and provides room for further expansion. Feel free to contact us if you are ever in town and would like to visit. [July 1, 2016]
Apple loses patent lawsuit to University of Wisconsin. Apple Inc could be facing up to $862 million in damages after a U.S. jury on Tuesday found the iPhone maker used technology owned by the University of Wisconsin-Madison's licensing arm without permission in chips found in many of its most popular devices. [October 13, 2015]
Obviousness: Despite KSR, Still Tough to Win in Court.In Ivera Medical v. Hospira (Fed. Cir. 2015), on summary judgment, the district court found Ivera’s asserted patent claims invalid as obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103. On appeal, the Federal Circuit has reversed – finding that Ivera’s submitted expert testimony raised genuine issues of material fact, showing that it may be tough to win obviousness claims in court. [September 10, 2015]