Haynes and Boone Intellectual Property Practice Recognized in Chambers USA National Rankings

DALLAS – The Haynes and Boone, LLP Intellectual Property Practice broke into the national rankings in the recently published Chambers USA: America’s Leading Lawyers for Business 2011 annual law firm rankings.

The group was acknowledged for “its increasing presence in all aspects of IP” and for “receiving an abundance of praise for its patent work in an array of technologies, including medical devices, semiconductors, nanotechnology, oil well technology, wireless technology, software and telecom networking equipment.” Partner David McCombs was singled out for being highly regarded at the firm. >>



BNA Patent, Trademark & Copyright Journal Guest Article: Patenting Anything Under the Sun vs. Bilski

The definition of what is patentable[1] with regard to software and business methods continues to be problematic despite the Supreme Court's attempt in Bilski v. Kappos[2] to bring clarity to this issue. >>

Orange County Business Journal Guest Column: Promising Case Law Trends for Patent Law

Patent case law has gone through some roller coaster changes lately. In particular, the 2007 KSR decision by the U.S. Supreme Court – which made it easier to invalidate patents on obviousness grounds – has been tempered by recent decisions. >>



Jonathan Hallman

Partner

Orange County


18100 Von Karman Avenue
Suite 750
Irvine, California 92612
T +1 949.202.3015
F +1 949.202.3115

Areas of Practice

Education

  • J.D., University of California, Los Angeles School of Law
  • M.S., Electrical Engineering, University of Illinois at Chicago
  • B.S., Chemistry, Illinois State University

Bar Admissions

  • California
  • U.S. Patent and Trademark Office

Jonathan Hallman is a partner in the Intellectual Property Practice Group in the Orange County office of Haynes and Boone. His practice is focused in the electrical and chemical arts. Jonathan has been involved in a substantial number of patent litigation, ITC investigations, and interference matters. He has drafted and prosecuted hundreds of patent applications for a diverse array of technologies including blade servers and dense component configuration, embedded memories, programmable logic devices, automated mass spectrometry, ion-exchange columns, navigation solutions such as GPS and dead-reckoning, integrated beamforming circuits, intravascular ultrasound systems, cryoprobes, stents, optical storage, digital rights management, liquid crystal displays, wireless communications systems, switching power supplies, superconducting microwave filters, ultra-wideband radar, and semiconductor manufacturing processes. 

Before he joined Haynes and Boone, Jonathan spent four years at Hughes Aircraft Missile Systems Group designing and implementing radar signal processing algorithms. In addition, he was the sole representative of Hughes Aircraft for a year in Ulm, Germany in an international consortium developing a linear-frequency-modulated-continuous-wave-W-band-radar-guided missile.

Memberships

  • State Bar of California
  • Orange County Patent Law Association

Online Publications

01/09/2012 - Patenting Anything Under the Sun vs. Bilski
The definition of what is patentable with regard to software and business methods continues to be problematic despite the Supreme Court’s attempt in Bilski v. Kappos to bring clarity to this issue.

01/09/2012 - The IP Beacon, January 2012
A Haynes and Boone Newsletter highlighting current issues in Intellectual Property Law.  

10/14/2011 - BNA Patent, Trademark & Copyright Journal Guest Article: Patenting Anything Under the Sun vs. Bilski
The definition of what is patentable[1] with regard to software and business methods continues to be problematic despite the Supreme Court's attempt in Bilski v. Kappos[2] to bring clarity to this issue.

07/19/2011 - Orange County Business Journal Guest Column: Promising Case Law Trends for Patent Law
Patent case law has gone through some roller coaster changes lately. In particular, the 2007 KSR decision by the U.S. Supreme Court – which made it easier to invalidate patents on obviousness grounds – has been tempered by recent decisions.