Bejin Bieneman PLC is an intellectual property boutique serving clients nationally and internationally.  Our mission is to maximize client return on investment by understanding client business objectives to deliver long term returns.  We base our services on a foundation of timely and responsive communications in addition to high-level execution.

Headquartered in Detroit, Michigan, our office is adjacent to the United States Patent and Trademark Office’s Detroit office, and a stone’s throw from the beautiful Detroit Riverwalk.  Our location proximate to the Detroit Patent Office allows us to provide our clients with extra value in patent matters.

We are a full-service IP law firm.  Our attorneys are seasoned patent and trademark prosecutors and litigators.  We have a wealth of experience in all aspects of intellectual property law, including licensing and intellectual property due diligence.

Intellectual Property Blog

Case:  Zimmers v. Eaton Corp., No. 2:15-CV-2398) (S.D. Ohio August 2, 2016). Result: Rule 12(c) motion for judgment on the pleadings of invalidity under 35 U.S.C. § 101 granted. Patent: U.S. Patent No. 9,015,256 (“Alert notification system”).  Claim 1, available in full at the foregoing link, recites “[a] system for providing a message to a […]
Posted: August 21, 2016, 4:37 am
Patent claims directed to “storage container tracking and delivery” are patent-ineligible under 35 U.S.C. § 101, the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) has held in a Final Written Decision in a Post-grant Review proceeding.  Netsirv and Local Motion MN v. Boxbee, Inc., PGR2015-00009 (Patent 8,756,166 B2) (PTAB Aug. 2, 2016).  I would not be […]
Posted: August 17, 2016, 4:32 am
Case:  Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Erie Indemnity Co., No. 2:14-cv-220 (W.D. Pa. Aug 4, 2016) Result: Rule 12 motion to dismiss granted based on invalidity of claims of U.S. Patent 7,757,298 under 35 U.S.C. § 101. Patent: U.S. Patent 7,757,298, entitled “Method and Apparatus for Identifying and Characterizing Errant Electronic Files.”  Representative claim 1 […]
Posted: August 14, 2016, 4:09 am
Case:  Iron Gate Security, Inc. v. Lowe’s Companies, Inc., No. 15-cv-8814 (KBF) (S.D.N.Y. August 3, 2016). Result: Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss based on invalidity under 35 U.S.C. § 101 denied, but defendant may bring a Section 101 motion again when there is a more “fulsome record.” Patent: U.S. Patent 7,203,693, entitled “Instantly indexed databases […]
Posted: August 11, 2016, 4:47 am
Here is an example of how the abnegation of Form 18 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure is changing patent litigation.  In Mike Murphy’s Enters. v. Fineline Indus., LLC, No. 1:16-cv-784-LJO-SAB (E.D. Cal. Aug. 4 2016), the court granted a Rule12(b)(6) motion and dismissed the plaintiff’s complaint alleging infringement of United States Patent No. […]
Posted: August 10, 2016, 12:26 am

Back to Top