Randall B. Bateman, Copyright Attorney in Salt Lake City, Utah

Rand Bateman is a registered patent attorney and specializes in all forms of intellectual property. Rand has prosecuted approximately 400 patents and over 1,000 trademark applications. His experience also includes complex litigation of patent, trademark, and copyright matters. He represents local, regional, national, and international clients. A particular focus of Rand’s practice involves patents on medical devices and shooting range/target technologies. Rand also does extensive work in trademark disputes both in Federal Court and before the United States Patent and Trademark Office.

Rand Bateman is a registered patent attorney and specializes in all forms of intellectual property. Rand has prosecuted approximately 400 patents and over 1,000 trademark applications. His experience also includes complex litigation of patent, trademark, and copyright matters. He represents local, regional, national, and international clients. A particular focus of Rand’s practice involves patents on medical devices and shooting range/target technologies. Rand also does extensive work in trademark disputes both in Federal Court and before the United States Patent and Trademark Office.

PROFESSIONAL INVOLVEMENT

American Intellectual Property Association (AIPLA)

Federal Bar Association

Founder Utah Genius

Central Utah Bar Association – President 2014-2015, Vice President 2013-2014

Utah State Bar Association – Chair, Intellectual Property Section 1997-1998

– Chair, Cyberlaw Section, 2006-2007

HONORS AND AWARDS

Super Lawyers – 15 consecutive years. Rated top 100 in the Mountain West six times.

Recognized by Best Lawyers® – 15 consecutive years Information Technology Law “Lawyer of the Year” award winner in 2016, 2022.

Rated Superb with a ‘10’ ranking on AVVO, National Attorney Ranking Service

Recognized in Forty Under 40: Utah’s Rising Stars by Utah Business Magazine

Utah Legal Elite

REPRESENTATIVE CASES/DEALS

Small company which made promotional kits for distributors in the essential oils industry was sued for trademark, trade dress and copyright infringement. In response to the Complaint, Rand filed a motion to dismiss or, in the alternative, for summary judgement arguing that the Plaintiff had no legal rights in the trademark and that the company’s kits did not infringe any trade dress or copyrights owned by the Plaintiff. The Court agreed and dismissed the lawsuit with prejudice.

The manufacturer of electronics equipment was sued for patent infringement on a medical method patent. Rand filed a motion to dismiss on the basis that the facts alleged by the plaintiff proved that our client could not have infringed the patent because a third party must have performed key parts of the method, thereby preventing liability for our client. The Court agreed and granted a dismissal with prejudice.

Software company filed action to stop competitor threatening patent infringement against its clients. After an unsuccessful mediation, Rand filed a motion for summary judgment that 4 of the patents claimed ineligible subject matter. The court agreed, resulting in all 118 claims in the patents being held invalid. The ruling was unanimously upheld on appeal.

Inventor was informed by prior patent attorney that his invention was unpatentable because of the prior art. The inventor brought the application to Rand for a second opinion. Rand rewrote the application within the limits imposed by Patent and Trademark Office guidelines and convinced the Examiner to grant two patents for the technology disclosed in the original application.

A small online retailer was threatened by a competitor who had obtained a trademark registration for a phrase commonly used to describe the products being sold. The trademark owner had threatened several other competing companies. Rand filed a cancellation proceeding and obtained summary judgment cancelling the trademark registration.

A start-up company approached Rand about representing them regarding new electro-surgery technology. Carefully analyzing and distinguishing the crowded field of prior art, Rand obtained twenty-eight issued U.S. patents for the company on various aspects of the technology.

Rand’s client was struggling with numerous competitors using their company’s marks in Internet tag lines to steer business toward their products. Many of the competitors claimed that the marks were descriptive. By pursuing cases against several competitors, the misuse of the client’s mark has become rare.

RECENT PUBLICATIONS •

My view: Celebrate World IP Day, Deseret News, April 2016

All About Patent Searches, March 2016

Copyright Law 101, Business Connect magazine, October 2015

Pleading Patent Ineligibility, Lexology, 2015

Collateral Estoppel of TTAB Ruling and the Race to the Courthouse, Lexology, April 2015

Speaker, New Lawyer CLE, Utah State Bar, What Everyone Should Know About Copyrights, 2015

Speaker, New Lawyer CLE, Utah State Bar, What Everyone Should Know About Patents, 2015

Speaker, New Lawyer CLE, Utah State Bar, What Everyone Should Know About Trademarks, 2015

The Inventor’s Dilemma: New Patent Laws a Trap for the Unwary – Utah Business, 2014

Forum Shopping in Copyright Cases, Intellectual Property Law Today, March 2014

Speaker, Utah County Chamber of Commerce, Navigating the World of Intellectual Property, 2013

REPRESENTATIVE PATENTS

11,029,134 – Target carrier system having advanced functionality

11,029,114 – Trigger mechanism for firearms

10,806,621 – Clavicle fracture infant brace

D894,756 – Beverage container having a transparent crystal mount holding a crystal

10,569,748 – Jack for ATV

D875,752 – Display screen with graphical user interface

10,488,16 – Walking target

9,927,216 – Target system

9,809,204 – Trailer jack plunger pin release lever system

9,737,783 – Free weight organization system

D790,866 – Fabric substrate with a camouflage pattern

D787,265 – Roasting device handle

9,636,282 – Hands free breast pump

9,549,774 – System and method of controlling power delivery to a surgical instrument

9,549,743 – Bone graft harvesting device and method of use

9,526,558 – Sealing and/or cutting instrument

9,499,972 – Electrical component cover for protecting wildlife

9,402,487 – Hanging device for belts

D760,164 – Portable power supply

9,322,197 – Prisoner safety seat and method of use

9,283,331 – Hypodermic needle system and method of use to reduce infection

9,275,044 – Method, apparatus and system for finding synonyms

9,272,129 – Method for controlling drug delivery through an infusion set

9,265,556 – Thermally adjustable surgical tool, balloon catheters and sculpting of biologic materials

9,217,623 – Bullet deflecting baffle system

9,149,321 – System and method for cooling of a heated surgical instrument and/or surgical site and treating tissue

9,060,608 – Support bracket and method of use

8,993,946 – Single-mode microwave popping device

8,985,268 – Speaker enclosure frame

8,915,909 – Impedance matching circuit

8,858,544 – Surgical instrument guide

8,783,919 – Bicycle lighting apparatus and method of use

D695,368 – Vibration training apparatus

8,579,294 – Emergency stopping system for track mounted movable bullet targets and target trolleys

D692,334 – Breathalyzer machine

8,397,617 – Adapter for converting a magazine-fed firearm to use linked ammunition

8,361,041 – Optically guided feeding tube, catheters and associated methods

D673,240 – Fishing lure

8,332,978 – Method for correcting deformational plagiocephaly and other cranial deformations 8,292,966 – Artificial toe joint

8,262,121 – Low movement trailer hitch

D659,827 – Surgical retaining clamp

8,163,023 – Multi-lobe artificial spine joint

7,998,121 – Automatic safety occluder

7,987,722 – Ultrasonic air and fluid detector

7,931,022 – Method and apparatus for dispensing inhalator medicament

7,921,718 – Optical pressure monitoring system

7,682,346 – Low-profile enterostomy device