Maryland IP Jobs

  • Senior Patent Agent; MedImmune; Gaithersburg, MD (posted Jan. 23, 2012)
  • Patent Counsel; Johns Hopkins University (School of Medicine); Baltimore, MD (posted Dec. 23, 2011)
  • Legal Intern; Discovery Communications; Silver Spring, MD (posted Nov. 23, 2011; originally posted Aug. 29, 2011)
  • Intellectual Property Manager; Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine; Baltimore, MD (posted Dec. 8, 2011; originally posted Dec. 1, Nov. 23, 2011)
  • Patent Attorney; National Security Agency (NSA); Ft. Meade, MD (posted Nov. 19, 2011)
  • Sr. Patent Agent/IP Counsel (Patent Attorney); MedImmune; Gaithersburg, MD (posted Aug. 23, 2011)
  • Corporate Attorney (IP); JDS Uniphase Corp.; Germantown, MD (posted Aug. 18, 2011)
  • Sr. Intellectual Property Manager; Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine; Baltimore, MD (posted August 2, 2011)
  • Intellectual Property Manager; Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine; Baltimore, MD (posted August 2, 2011)
  • Intellectual Property Director; Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine; Baltimore, MD (posted August 2, 2011)
  • Senior Counsel I (incl. IP); Bechtel Corp; Frederick, MD (posted April 27, 2011)
  • Counsel (incl. IP Litigation); Constellation Energy Group; Baltimore, MD (posted April 21, 2011)
  • Senior Intellectual Property Legal and Docketing AssistantUnder Armour; Baltimore, MD (posted April 20, 2011)
  • Director Intellectual Asset Management (in house); Annapolis, MD; TeleCommunication Systems, Inc. (TCS); posted March 24, 2011
  • General Counsel; Pandora Group; Columbia, MD (posted April 2011)
  • Technology & IP Contracts Counsel (in house); Silver Spring, MD; Choice Hotels; posted March 22, 2011
  • SVP & Assoc General Counsel (in house); Bethesda, MD; Marriott International; posted March 14, 2011
  • Patent Attorney (in house); Aberdeen Proving Ground, MD; Department of The Army; posted February 22, 2011
  • Licensing Associate (in house); Baltimore, MD; Johns Hopkins University; posted February 9, 2011
  • Brand/Trademark Asset Protection Investigator (in house); Baltimore, MD; Under Armour; posted February 9, 2011
  • Associate/Assistant General Counsel (in house); suburban, MD; employer name undisclosed (private placement); posted January 10, 2011
  • General Counsel (in house); Columbia, MD; employer name undisclosed (private placement); posted January 10, 2011
  • Assistant/Associate General Counsel (Patents) (in house): Laurel, MD; Johns Hopkins University Applied Physics Laboratory; posted January 7, 2011
  • Associate - Patents (law firm); Rockville, MD; Edell, Shapiro & Finnan, LLC; posted January 5, 2011
  • Associate Counsel - Technology Licensing (in-house); Columbia, MD; Merkle; posted January 2011
  • Corporate Counsel/Senior Corporate Counsel, Intellectual Property (in-house); Gaithersburg, MD; MedImmune; posted November 9, 2010
  • Intellectual Property Counsel (in-house); Germantown, MD; Hughes; posted August 23, 2010
  • Patent Coordinator (in-house); Rockville, MD; Canon USA; posted August 19, 2010
  • Patent Attorney (in-house); Rockville, MD; Human Genome Sciences; posted August 3, 2010
  • Patent Attorney (in-house); Rockville, MD; Human Genome Sciences; posted July 16, 2010
  • Patent Counsel (in-house); Bethesda, MD; Micromet, Inc.; posted July 15, 2010
  • Patent Attorney (in-house); Rockville, MD; Human Genome Sciences; posted May 31, 2010
  • Project Coordinator-Intellectual Property (in-house); Columbia, MD; Martek; posted May 4, 2010 

 

Saying its Marks are Famous, Under Armour Sues to Protect Them

 Under Armour Registered Trademark        

          In separate complaints filed in the U.S. district court for the District of Maryland in March 2011, Baltimore, Maryland-based Under Armour, maker of athletic equipment and apparel, with more than a billion dollars in net revenues in 2010, contends its famous trademarks are being infringed.  According to its...          

complaints, Under Armour owns more than eighty federal trademarks and registration applications, most being formative marks having the word "Armour," with or without the UA logo, or UA logo marks with stylized characters.  Under Armour contends that its marks are famous and many are incontestable as to Under Armour's exclusive use.  Under Armour has also registered certain marks with Maryland's Secretary of State.

          In its first complaint, against Canadian defendants Armorline Marketing International, Armorsales, Inc., 54Blue, and Paul Abell, Under Armour alleges Defendants' use of ARMOR marks, logos, and domain names (e.g., armoruniverse.com) is likely to cause confusion, mistake, or deceive in violation of the Lanham Act, and infringes and dilutes Under Armour's marks.  Under Armour also alleges that Defendants' use of their domain name constitutes cybersquatting under the Lanham Act.  Under Armour's state-law claims include trademark infringement under Md. Code Bus. Reg. Sec. 1-414 et seq., fraudulent use or imitation of trade name under Md. Code Bus. Reg. Sec. 1-415 et seq., and common law trademark infringement and unfair competition.

          In its second complaint, against Real Wear (U.S.A.), Inc. (allegedly doing business as Purple Armour) and Tiffani Denise Diggs Lewis, Under Armous alleges Defendants' use of its PURPLEARMOUR mark and name and purplearmour.net domain name breach a 2009 agreement, is likely to cause confusion, mistake, or deceive in violation of the Lanham Act, constitutes trademark infringement, false advertising, dilutes Under Armour's marks, constitutes cybersquatting in violation of the Lanham Act, violates Maryland Regulations Sec. 1-414 and 1-415, and Maryland trademark common law.

Court Dismisses Suit Challenging Peterlin Appointment

     The District Court for the District of Columbia dismissed a lawsuit today brought by Gregory Aharonian and others against Carlos Gutierrez, Secretary of Commerce, in April 2007 after Margaret J.A. Peterlin was sworn in as Deputy Under Secretary of Commerce for Intellectual Property and Deputy Director of the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO).

     Aharonian's complaint asserted that Peterlin's appointment was improper because Peterlin "is not a citizen of the United States who has a professional background and experience in patent or trademark law,” citing 35 U.S.C. § 3(b).

     Judge James Robertson found that the text and the legislative history of the statute does not evince congressional intent required to establish a private cause of action – that is, intent to create both a private right and a private remedy. Robertson went on to say that there must be a presumption in this case that decisions involving high level policymaking personnel are left primarily to the executive. "In such a situation," he said, "one would expect Congress to speak in precise terms if it intended the courts to monitor the minimal qualifications for agency officers. Here, Congress has given only the broadest of instructions – that the Deputy Director should have 'a professional background and experience in patent or trademark law.' ”

     Because the statute is silent as to the terms "professional background" and "experience," the Court was not compelled to evaluate whether the Deputy Under Secretary/Deputy Director has or needs a law degree, whether the appointee took law school courses in intellectual property, whether the individual has a certification to practice before the USPTO, whether the appointee has law firm experience, and, if so, how many years of such experience. Noting that if Congress had intended the "extraordinary situation in which judicial review would reach to the very qualifications of agency officers for their policymaking positions, its statute would not be drawn 'in such broad terms that . . . there is no law to apply.'” Citing Citizens to Preserve Overton Park v. Volpe, 401 U.S. 402, 410 (1971).

     Link to Memorandum Opinion.