Nashville Patent Lawyer, Tennessee

Sponsored Law Firm


William Ovid Collins

Estate Planning, Litigation, Patent, Wills & Probate
Status:  In Good Standing           

Divyesh R. Gopal

Corporate, Patent, Contract, Bankruptcy
Status:  In Good Standing           

FREE CONSULTATION 

CONTACT

Mark J. Patterson

Trademark, Patent, Intellectual Property, Internet
Status:  In Good Standing           Licensed:  42 Years

Ann Louise Vix

Intellectual Property, Patent, Business & Trade
Status:  Inactive           Licensed:  39 Years
Speak with Lawyer.com

Mason Boswell

Copyright, Patent, Trademark, Intellectual Property
Status:  In Good Standing           Licensed:  16 Years

Free Help: Use This Form or Call 800-620-0900

Member Representative

Call me for fastest results!
800-620-0900

Free Help: Use This Form or Call 800-620-0900

By submitting this lawyer request, I confirm I have read and agree to the Consent to Receive Email, Phone, Text Messages, Terms of Use, and Privacy Policy. Information provided is not privileged or confidential.


Free Help: Use This Form or Call 800-943-8690

Member Representative

Call me for fastest results!
800-943-8690

Free Help: Use This Form or Call 800-943-8690

By submitting this lawyer request, I confirm I have read and agree to the Consent to Receive Email, Phone, Text Messages, Terms of Use, and Privacy Policy. Information provided is not privileged or confidential.

TIPS

Easily find Nashville Patent Lawyers and Nashville Patent Law Firms. For more attorneys, search all Intellectual Property areas including Copyright, International Intellectual Property and Trademark attorneys.

SAMPLE LEGAL CASES

Davidson v. BAYDOUN

... v. Hill, 617 SW2d 876 (Tenn. 1981). The dispute in that matter arose out of the defendant attorney's representation of Ameraccount in its efforts to file a patent application. Id. at 876. ... Further, the attorney failed to conduct a search of the Patent Office records. ...

MINOR MIRACLE PRODUCTIONS, LLC v. Starkey

... where an action is brought on a contract of which a patent [4] is the subject matter, either to enforce the contract or to annul it, the case arises on the contract and not under patent laws, and the state court has jurisdiction." 195 SW2d at 21 (citing Briggs v. Shoe Mach. ...

Richardson v. JAMES BROWN CONTRACTING, INC.

... JBT argues against the consideration of any extrinsic evidence, claiming that "[t]he ambiguity described by the trial court, if any, is a patent ambiguity, which "[p]arol[] evidence cannot be used to cure." [8] We decline JBT's invitation to classify the ambiguities in the third contract ...