Click here to print
RatnerPrestia has earned a solid reputation for performing patent procurement with the highest quality standards for its clients. Our clients range from individual inventors to Fortune 50 Companies. We obtain patent protection in every technology imaginable including nanotechnology, biotechnology, chemistry, electronics and complex mechanical technologies just to name a few.
RatnerPrestia understands that a patent does not provide value to a client unless it meets the client’s business objectives. Whether these objectives include developing an exclusive marketing position, building a licensing portfolio, obtaining a negotiating chip or a combination of these goals, they have a common theme: creating a competitive advantage.
Prior to undertaking preparation of a patent application, our professionals work with the client to learn the client’s commercial environment and develop a tailored procurement strategy. RatnerPrestia attorneys often participate in client patent review meetings to maintain perspective of the client’s overall business and ensure the tailored strategy remains consistent with corporate objectives.
Our attorneys remain versed in the evolving US and foreign procedures, for example, reissues interferences, ex parte reexaminations, inter parte reexamination and oppositions, and advise clients on how such procedures can be incorporated into a comprehensive strategy.
Each developed strategy is used to guide all phases of patent procurement, from searching strategy, specification and claim drafting, and negotiation with the patent office. During prosecution of the patent application, we maintain a dialog with the client to confirm that the claims continue to have value in view of the ever-changing business environment.
With such cooperative efforts, RatnerPrestia strives to help clients protect their innovations through patents that can be used to create market barriers for competitors, establish royalty streams or provide the client with negotiating leverage.
Ashery, Lawrence E.
Bradley, Christine E.
Cohen, Joshua L.
Dervishian, Christopher
Donnelly, Rex A.
Esposito, Ph.D., Robert A.
Etkowicz, Jacques L.
Fansler, Zachary J.
Grove, Ph.D., Deborah M.
Harper, Ph.D., Stephen D.
Jankovitz, Jack J.
Koopman, Andrew J.
Leace, Benjamin E.
Lewis, Christopher R.
Massina, Glenn M.
Murphy, Glenn E. J.
Nigon, Kenneth N.
O'Rourke, Gerard M.
Prestia, Paul F.
Rosen, Brett J.
Rothe, Christopher A.
Rudman, Gilbert W.
Schmidt, Lauren
Shah, Jaimin B.
Spadt, Jonathan H.
Tise, Ph.D., Frank P.
Weed, Stephen J.
Related Articles and Press Releases:
Patent Reform Still a Hot Topic
Open Source Software: It’s Free, So What’s the Risk?
One for the Patent Owner: District of Columbia Drug Pricing Law Preempted by Federal Patent Laws
Samuel Morse Could Patent Signals, But You Can’t
Proposed Patent-Reform Bills Don't Address Elephant In the Room
Bipartisan Patent Reform Bill Introduced
Patentability: The Supreme Court May Be Taking Us Back To the Future
Lemelson Patents Ruled Unenforceable under Prosecution Laches
The Continuing Story of Festo: Festo IX
The New Written Description Requirement