As an inventor, you need a lawyer who is capable of understanding your invention, and its relationship to the existing technology. But protecting the technology of the 21st century requires more than just attention to detail. You also need a lawyer who can strategize your overall protection scheme and help you plan to protect your marketplace.

Michael de Angeli gets results:

"The advice of a competent patent lawyer is essential in obtaining valid patents with claims that properly protect the invention and which will stand up to microscopic examination in litigation. Mike's work has so far enabled my company PAICE LLC to obtain a judgment of validity and infringement of one of my patents (5,343,970) by Toyota's hybrid vehicles. A nine-figure damage award has been reached."

—Alex J. Severinsky, Ph.D
PAICE, LLC [view more references]

Michael M. de Angeli, P.C. is a solo law practice located in Jamestown, Rhode Island, specializing in intellectual property law. Mike de Angeli has over thirty years’ experience in all phases of intellectual property law, including preparation and prosecution of patent applications, enforcing patents in litigation (including significant wins against corporations such as Toyota and Eastman Kodak), obtaining and defending trademarks, copyright prosecution and litigation, trade secret enforcement, and licensing. Mike has also handled patent matters throughout the world, including appeals in the Japanese and European Patent Offices.

Need to protect an invention? Click here for advice to new inventors useful in containing the cost of a patent application.

What sort of protection is available for my ideas? Click here for definitions of patents, trademarks, and copyrights, and for information regarding trade secret protection.

How can I keep patent costs as low as possible? Click here for answers to various questions that often come up, including fees and costs.

Mike de Angeli represented a small Rhode Island company with which I was associated in a patent infringement lawsuit against a much larger and far better funded opponent. Mike ran a guerrilla-style campaign because that was all we could afford. After about four years he managed to bring the opponent to the table and we settled for a number in the high seven figures, netting a substantial profit on the cost of the litigation. Throughout I was impressed with Mike's ability to do high-quality legal work at a reasonable price. I was also impressed with his writing ability and his presentation of our case to the judge at oral hearings on several contested motions, all of which we won.

Thomas J. Gardner
LJT Associates
Financial and Management Consulting

Click here for more references from satisfied clients and fellow lawyers, here for details of Mike’s career and professional qualifications, or click here for personal details.

How do you do business? Click here for a sample representation agreement.

We hope to hear from you soon - it is always fun to learn about a new invention!

Michael M. de Angeli, P.C.
34 Court St
Jamestown RI 02835
Tel: 401-423-3190
Fax: 401-423-3191

Registered Patent Attorney No. 27,869. Licensed to practice in Pennsylvania and Maryland. Not licensed to practice in Rhode Island.

Admitted to practice before the US Supreme Court and the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, and various federal district courts.

[RSS Feed]   or, receive e-mail alerts of new entries:


Changes in False Marking Interpretation
Published January 3, 2010

In a recent decision, The Forest Group, Inc. v. Bon Tool Company, No. 2009-1044, the Federal Circuit has radically reinterpreted the false marking statute, 35 USC 292. The false marking statute makes it illegal to apply a patent number to a product that is not patented, to use "patent pending" when no application is pending, or to use another's patent number with the intent to decieve the public. A $500 fine is payable for violations. Any person can sue for the penalty, and if successful can keep half the recovery, with the other half going to the government.

Historically, this statute has seen little or any use: who's going to sue for $250? However, the Forest Group decision may change all that. In Forest Group the Federal Circuit held that the $500 fine is payable on a per article basis, not on a per judicial decision basis, as previously. For example, a company that sold 10,000 units of a product with an erroneous patent notice - which could easily happen as old patent numbers were not removed from product labels as they expired - would be liable for $5,000,000.

The statute requires that the fine is only payable if the misleading statement specified were made with the intent to deceive the public. Intent is notoriously difficult to prove per se, but can often be inferred.

There are two action items that should be considered in response to this decision. First, all of one's own product notices, labeling, packaging, websites and the like should be carefully reviewed for complete accuracy. Second, one's competitors' notices and labeling should similarly be reviewed for possible liability.

Feel free to contact me for more information.

Welcome to
Published December 26, 2009

This is my first blog entry on my recently-launched website. Periodically, I will post comments on news of interest to inventors, attorneys, and others in the intellectual property community. A link to subscribe via email and to view an RSS feed will be available shortly. Please check back soon!


© 2018 Michael de Angeli                                                                                                                                                                                               [Client login]