PIERCE IP LAW PLLC                                               Protecting Creativity & Innovation

Areas of Practice

Patent Law

​

Trademark Law​

​

Copyright Law​

​

Trade Secret Law​​​​​

​

Internet Law

Licensing

Related Litigation

The Firm

At Pierce IP Law, PLLC, we are registered patent attorneys specializing in intellectual property law, including intellectual property litigation, preparation and prosecution of applications for patents, trademarks, and copyrights, trade secret law, as well as intellectual property licensing. To fully serve our clients, we are licensed to practice law before state and federal courts, and administrative tribunals such as the U.S. Patent and Tradmark Office.

While located in Salt Lake City, Utah, we serve clients from throughout the United States and the world. We maintain working relationships with patent attorneys and agents in virtually every commercially significant country. Through these relationships, we routinely represent clients in obtaining both domestic and foreign intellectual property protection.

We invite you to put to use our experience in technology, business, and the law in strategically converting your creativity, innovation, and good will into property that can be owned and protected.

Cutting Edge IP Services/Strategies

By navigating technology, business, and the law, we convert our clients' ideas, creativity, innovations, and good will into property that can be owned and protected. Once owned, this intellectual property may be leveraged for the clients' benefit and financial gain.

Whether an entrepreneurial start-up, a joint venture, or an industry veteran, each client depends on our firm to help them create, protect, maintain, and/or expand their respective market share, while bolstering return on investment.

News & Publications

02-28-2017

Icon Health and Fitness v. Strava (Fed. Cir. 2017) (Reexamination of U.S. Patent No. 7,789,800)

In the inter partes reexamination case here, the issue arose with the patent challenger (Strava) used an expert witness to testify to the legal conclusion that the claims at issue were obvious.  This is problematic because in ordinary circumstances it is improper for an expert witness to testify as to a question of law. Rather, the ordinary use of expert testimony is solely to “help the trier of fact to understand the evidence or to determine a fact in issue." On appeal here, the Federal Circuit appears to agree with the challenger – that an expert can make conclusions of obviousness/non-obviousness and that the PTO can rely upon those statements. 

​​