Careers

At M&G, we dedicate ourselves to finding the best solutions to our clients’ challenges, no matter where it takes us.

Case Studies

Industries

Offices

About Merchant & Gould

Pages

People

News Room

Practices

Staff

Home - Merchant & Gould P.C.

Kamal is a member of Merchant &amp; Gould's electronics and computer law practice group in Atlanta. Kamal has experience helping an array of clients develop IP strategies including preparing and prosecuting client inventions related to electrical and computer technology arts, mechanical arts, and semiconductor technology. &nbsp;Kamal also counsels clients on a variety of matters, including prosecuting foreign applications, assisting in foreign opposition proceedings, patent landscape, freedom to operate, patentability, and patent validity.

contentpilot/introduction

Kamal is a member of Merchant &amp; Gould's electronics and computer law practice group in Atlanta. Kamal has experience helping an array of clients develop IP strategies including preparing and prosecuting client inventions related to electrical and computer technology arts, mechanical arts, and semiconductor technology. &nbsp;Kamal also counsels clients on a variety of matters, including prosecuting foreign applications, assisting in foreign opposition proceedings, patent landscape, freedom to operate, patentability, and patent validity.

Kamal joined Merchant &amp; Gould in 2012 from G.E. Energy where he worked as a Patent Engineer. &nbsp;Kamal has also worked at Hewlett Packard as intellectual property specialist and K&amp; S Partners as Patent agent. &nbsp;Kamal has a Bachelor’s degree in Electrical Engineering from Indian Institute of Technology (IIT) Delhi.&nbsp; Outside of the office, Kamal enjoys hiking and gardening.

core/paragraph

Kamal joined Merchant &amp; Gould in 2012 from G.E. Energy where he worked as a Patent Engineer. &nbsp;Kamal has also worked at Hewlett Packard as intellectual property specialist and K&amp; S Partners as Patent agent. &nbsp;Kamal has a Bachelor’s degree in Electrical Engineering from Indian Institute of Technology (IIT) Delhi.&nbsp; Outside of the office, Kamal enjoys hiking and gardening.

Test update on main site to see how it is received by microsite.

Test update on main site to see how it is received by microsite.

Georgia State University, J.D., 2019

Indian Institute of Technology, B.Tech., 2005, 

Franklin Pierce Law Center, Master of Intellectual Property, 2010

Computer Technology

Telecommunications

Semiconductors

Electronics

Alternative Energy

Business Methods

Internet

Manufacturing

Medical Devices

Nanotechnology

Software & Information Technology

Atlanta

Over the past decade there has been a significant uptick in online sales. COVID-19 only exacerbated this movement, making products even more accessible at the click of a single button. Online purchasing has never been easier, and it seems that consumers are willing to part ways with the in-person buying experience. But perhaps buyers should be more skeptical, or at least cautious, with sight unseen, click-and-buy purchases. This Article provides four tips to ensure that the product you click is the product you get.



<h2 class="wp-block-heading">1.    Know Where You “Landed”</h2>



If you are visiting a website, make sure you have landed where you intended. Sometimes, even the slightest error in spelling or name variation can land you at a doppelganger website. This is the result of domain name squatting. Often, domain name squatters register slight variations of authentic domain names to divert traffic or confuse consumers. Sometimes, the only variation is the top-level domain name (e.g., “.com” versus “.net”). Ideally, companies have protected you by redirecting domain names with slight variations such as common misspellings to their authentic page. But that is not always the case, so it is important to ensure you land where you intended.



<h2 class="wp-block-heading">2.    Don’t Roll the Dice on the Seller</h2>



Have you ever attempted to re-order a product, just to find that the two products are completely different? Here’s why. Products sold on marketplaces are often sorted based on an Identification Number. Each Identification Number is correlated to a specific type of product. Sellers that want to sell that type of product must do so under the appropriate Identification Number. Each Identification Number has its own product page with images and description. Products under a single Identification Number are grouped together, regardless of the seller. Therefore, when you add a product to your cart you essentially roll the dice on which Seller’s product you will receive. One way to prevent this is to look at which seller currently has the “Buy Box.” This will allow you to determine which seller is fulfilling orders for the product on that day. However, because the image and description for all products under a single Identification Number are the same, there is no guarantee that the product you receive will be the product shown. But, by at least knowing and selecting which seller to buy from, you ensure that the product you purchased on Monday, is the same as one purchased on Tuesday.



<h2 class="wp-block-heading">3.    ★ ★ ★ ★ ★: What It Really Means</h2>



If you’ve ever been on the fence between two products and checked the reviews to tip the scale one way or another, you may have been better off flipping a coin. Many product reviews on online platforms are fake or commissioned by the seller. Often, it appears as if a real consumer has left the review, but in reality, the “consumer reviews” are fictitious profiles used by the companies that sellers hire in an effort to boost their ratings. Some indications that a review may be fake include overgeneralizations, lack of detail, reference to inapplicable features, or unexplained gloating. In response to the ever-growing number of fake reviews, services that help consumers determine whether the reviews are legitimate are being developed. Consider using these services before adding the “five star” product to your cart. 



<h2 class="wp-block-heading">4.    Know Your Price: Too Good to Be True</h2>



Bargain hunters love a good deal, but sometimes a deal is, in fact, too good to be true. Products offered at a steep discount are often the result of either “passing off” or counterfeiting. When a seller “passes off” their product as that of a recognized brand, they include the brand name in the product name or description in hopes that the consumer mistakes their listing for an authentic one. And, often the brand they seek to associate with doesn’t even sell through that online marketplace. When a seller offers counterfeit products, their goal is to make the product look nearly identical to an authentic product. While counterfeiters don’t always use a brand name, they rely on consumers visual expectations and the defining features of a product in order to deceive. Consumers should anticipate the price of products and verify the platforms that specific brands sell on. To further avoid these traps, consumers should be skeptical of prices that seem too good to be true – because often behind a bargain is an inauthentic product.

Ensuring You Get What You Click

<div class="sqs-html-content">
Last week, the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit issued an opinion in <a href="http://www.cafc.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/opinions-orders/18-1218.Opinion.4-1-2019.pdf" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Cleveland Clinic Foundation v. True Health Diagnostics LLC</a>, 2018-1218 (April 1, 2019). Cleveland Clinic sued True Health for infringing patents relating to tests to determine whether an individual has increased risk of cardiovascular disease (“CVD”). Specifically, the patents related to evaluating CVD risk by measuring the concentration of myeloperoxidase (“MPO”) in the blood using an immunoassay and comparing the MPO concentration to those of healthy control subjects. According to the patents, this was more accurate than prior methods. In granting a Rule 12(b)(6) motion brought by True Health, the district court found the asserted claims directed to ineligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101. Cleveland Clinic appealed.
The patents in suit matured from continuation applications claiming priority from a parent patent, the validity of which had already been adjudicated by the Federal Circuit. In Cleveland Clinic Foundation v. True Health Diagnostics LLC, 859 F.3d 1352 (Fed. Cir. 2017), the Court held the parent patent was directed to the ineligible natural law that blood MPO levels correlate with CVD risk. Cleveland Clinic argued the newly asserted claims were different, and valid, because using an immunoassay to detect the correlation between blood MPO levels and CVD risk supplied an inventive concept sufficient to transform the asserted claims into patent-eligible subject matter. True Health responded that the correlation of CVD risk and blood MPO levels is a natural law that exists apart from human intervention regardless of the technique to observe it. The Federal Circuit agreed with True Health. Cleveland Clinic raised a number of additional arguments, each of which the Court rejected in affirming the district court’s dismissal. In one such argument, Cleveland Clinic asserted the district court failed to give appropriate deference, under Skidmore v. Swift & Co., to subject matter eligibility guidance published by the USPTO. Skidmore requires courts to give some deference to informal agency interpretations of “ambiguous statutory dictates.” According to Cleveland Clinic, Example 29 of the USPTO Guidance confirmed Cleveland Clinic’s patents were directed to patent eligible subject matter, and the district court erred in concluding otherwise. The Federal Circuit disagreed, explaining it is “not bound by [the USPTO’s] guidance” on issues related to subject matter eligibility. The Court further held Example 29 contradicted its own case law, which “must control.” 
</div>

CAFC “Not Bound” by USPTO Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance

<div class="sqs-html-content">
Last week, the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit issued an opinion in Natural <a href="http://www.cafc.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/opinions-orders/18-1295.Opinion.3-15-2019.pdf" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Alternatives International, Inc. v. Creative Compounds, LLC</a>, 2018-1295 (March 15, 2019). Natural Alternatives sued Creative Compounds for infringing several patents related to dietary supplements containing beta-alanine. The district court granted Creative Compounds’ Rule 12(c) motion for judgment on the pleadings, holding all asserted patent claims were directed to patent ineligible laws of nature under 35 U.S.C. § 101 and lacked an inventive concept sufficient to render them patent eligible. Natural Alternatives appealed.  
The Federal Circuit reversed in a split opinion, with Judge Moore writing for the majority. Addressing the asserted method claims, the Court noted that while mere discovery of a natural law does not constitute patent eligible subject matter, claims directed to a specific method of treatment are patent eligible. The Court explained, the method claims at issue require “specific steps to be taken in order to bring about a change in a subject, altering the subject’s natural state. Unlike the claims in Mayo, the [m]ethod [c]laims at issue are treatment claims.” Addressing the asserted product claims, the Court held the incorporation of the natural product, beta-alanine, into particular dosage forms with particular characteristics is sufficient to prevent judgment on the pleadings on patent eligibility. Addressing the asserted manufacturing claims, the Court held they were “not directed to the natural law or product of nature, but instead are an application of the law and new use of that product.” As such, they are addressed to patent eligible subject matter. The Court further held that fact issues concerning the presence of an inventive concept precluded judgment on the pleadings for all of the asserted claims. The majority opinion concluded with the cautionary note that “[w]e live in a natural world, and all inventions are constrained by the laws of nature. . . . [But] we must be careful not to overly abstract claims when performing the Alice analysis.” 
Judge Reyna wrote separately, concurring-in-part and dissenting-in-part, to express his belief that the district court applied an erroneous claim construction, and that certain claims are indeed directed to patent ineligible subject matter when the proper claim construction is applied. Judge Reyna concluded by expressing concern over whether “the time has come for this court to reconsider whether a Rule 12(c) motion based on § 101 should be decided before claim construction.”
</div>

Federal Circuit Reverses Judgment of Patent Ineligibility

Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum.



Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum.



Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum.

DU Test Blog

Testing after updates







Test update after publish….adding kamal as related person







Another test update after publish. adding heather chatterson as related person







Test adding content but no additional related fields.

Lindsey Blog Test 4

<div class="sqs-html-content">
Last week, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit issued a precedential decision in <a href="https://cafc.uscourts.gov/opinions-orders/22-1212.OPINION.10-18-2023_2207653.pdf">Great Concepts, LLC v. Chutter, Inc., No. 2022-1212 (Oct. 18, 2023)</a>, on appeal from the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board. In 2010, Great Concepts’ counsel filed a combined Section 8 and 15 declaration with the USPTO, declaring in part that the DANTANNA’S mark was not involved in any pending legal proceeding. At the time of that filing, however, the mark was subject to both a cancellation action at the Board and a pending appeal from a trademark infringement lawsuit, both initiated by Chutter’s predecessor. Chutter then filed a new petition to cancel the DANTANNA’S mark in 2015, based on the fraudulent affidavit, which the Board ultimately granted in 2021. Great Concepts appealed to the Federal Circuit.
The Federal Circuit applied a de novo standard of review and reversed, finding the Board was not permitted to cancel the trademark registration based on the unambiguous language in the statute. Section 15 of the Lanham Act enables registered marks to acquire incontestable status after five consecutive years of use following registration—provided there is no pending proceeding involving the owner’s rights in the mark. 15 U.S.C. § 1065. Section 14, however, provides that even an incontestable mark may be canceled if “its registration was obtained fraudulently.” 15 U.S.C. § 1064(3) (emphasis added). For decades, the Board believed that it had the power to cancel a trademark after a fraudulent Section 15 declaration was filed in support of incontestability. See Crown Wallcovering Corp. v. Wall Paper Mfrs. Ltd., 188 USPQ 141 (TTAB 1975); see also Torres v. Cantine Torresella S.r.l, 808 F.2d 46 (Fed. Cir. 1986) (“Fraud in obtaining renewal of a registration amounts to fraud in obtaining a registration within the meaning of section 14(c) of the Lanham Act.”).
Citing the plain and unambiguous language in the Lanham Act, the Court disagreed. It concluded that a declaration of incontestability is not filed in furtherance of obtaining a registration. And although incontestability is an important right—indeed, it is conclusive evidence of the mark’s validity—incontestability is still fundamentally different than registration. The Section 15 declaration filed by Great Concepts did not cause or even contribute to the issuance of the registration. Accordingly, the Court held the Section 15 declaration could not be the basis for canceling the mark under 15 U.S.C. § 1064(3).
</div>

CAFC Overrules USPTO’s Trademark Cancellation Decision

Excepteur voluptate sint quis amet aliquip commodo nostrud labore. Sit adipisicing quis aliqua voluptate ea sit irure ad elit eu consectetur non veniam. Exercitation velit dolore occaecat esse. In adipisicing sint enim cillum eu laborum fugiat.

Lindsey Test

Electrical & Software

Mechanical

IP Due Diligence

Trademark

Trade Secret

Jennifer Williams

Associate

Kamal K. Arvind

<ul>
<li>U.S. Patent No.: 10,284,003; entitled: End User based backup management. Kamal K Arvind, Vernon Meadows, Marc Karl Losee, Jerry Steven Massey</li>
<li>U.S. Patent No.: 9,502,898; entitled: Systems and methods for managing a power distribution system. Kamal K Arvind, Vernon Meadows, Marc Karl Losee</li>
<li>U.S. Patent No.: 9,484,743; entitled: Power distribution network event analysis using data from different data sources. Ramon Juan San Andres, Kamal K Arvind, Vernon Meadows, Atul Nigam</li>
<li>U.S. Patent No.: 9,250,674; entitled: Methods and Systems for restoring power based on forecasted loads. Ramon Juan San Andres, Atul Nigam, Kamal K Arvind, Mary Elizabeth Bain</li>
<li>U.S. Patent No.: 8,825,553; entitled: Secure Customer acknowledgement of relay actuation. Hyoung Jhang, Vernon Meadows, Kamal K Arvind</li>
</ul>

Patents

<a href="https://www.americanbar.org/groups/intellectual_property_law/publications/landslide/2017-18/may-june/big-changes-international-ip-laws.html">Big Changes in International IP Laws: Business Methods and Computer Programs in China and Copyright Protection for Digital Technologies in Europe</a>, Author, Amercian Bar Association, June 2018.

Kamal K. Arvind

Practices

Industries

Education

Admissions

Patents

Publications