ILNews

IU Maurer IP clinic joins select U.S. Patent Office pilot program

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The intellectual property clinical program, established earlier this year at the Indiana University Maurer School of Law, has been certified for pro bono practice before the U.S. Patent Office.

IU Maurer is part of a select group that has been asked to join the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office’s Law School Clinic Certification Pilot Program in the fall. Currently 19 law schools have been tapped to join the 28 law schools that already participate in the pilot program. Of the 19, only IU Maurer and four other law schools will join both the patent and trademark portions of the program.

Certification will enable Indiana students to practice patent and trademark law before the federal patent office as part of their pro bono representations of clients.

 “We are delighted to partner with the USPTO in this important effort to provide pro bono IP services to early-stage entrepreneurs in Indiana,” said Mark Janis, director of IU Maurer’s Center for Intellectual Property Research. “Our students will gain invaluable hands-on experience in intellectual property practice, and our clients will benefit from the technical advice they need in order to secure rights to their innovations.”

The IP clinic has represented several clients on patent matters since it opened its doors in January. Complemented by the general corporate counseling work of the law school’s Elmore Entrepreneurship Clinic, the intellectual property clinic expects to support innovators referred by Indiana University Research and Technology Corp., the Purdue Foundry, Rose-Hulman Ventures and the Naval Weapons Support Center Crane, among others.

Also, the clinic has received crucial seed funding from IU’s Office of the Vice Provost for Research and volunteer assistance from intellectual property attorneys at the Indianapolis office of Faegre Baker Daniels LLP.

ADVERTISEMENT

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in Indiana Lawyer editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Don't we have bigger issues to concern ourselves with?

  2. Anyone who takes the time to study disciplinary and bar admission cases in Indiana ... much of which is, as a matter of course and by intent, off the record, would have a very difficult time drawing lines that did not take into account things which are not supposed to matter, such as affiliations, associations, associates and the like. Justice Hoosier style is a far departure than what issues in most other parts of North America. (More like Central America, in fact.) See, e.g., http://www.theindianalawyer.com/indiana-attorney-illegally-practicing-in-florida-suspended-for-18-months/PARAMS/article/42200 When while the Indiana court system end the cruel practice of killing prophets of due process and those advocating for blind justice?

  3. Wouldn't this call for an investigation of Government corruption? Chief Justice Loretta Rush, wrote that the case warranted the high court’s review because the method the Indiana Court of Appeals used to reach its decision was “a significant departure from the law.” Specifically, David wrote that the appellate panel ruled after reweighing of the evidence, which is NOT permissible at the appellate level. **But yet, they look the other way while an innocent child was taken by a loving mother who did nothing wrong"

  4. Different rules for different folks....

  5. I would strongly suggest anyone seeking mediation check the experience of the mediator. There are retired judges who decide to become mediators. Their training and experience is in making rulings which is not the point of mediation.

ADVERTISEMENT