IP UPDATE
Exploring the Latest in Intellectual Property Law
IP UPDATE
Exploring the Latest in Intellectual Property Law
Results for ""
Subscribe to Results for ""'s Posts

Trademark Fee Increases: The TEAS Party Is Over

by | Dec 5, 2024 |

After a lengthy public comment and review process, the US Patent & Trademark Office (PTO) announced trademark fee increases effective January 18, 2025. The goal of PTO fee setting is to provide sufficient financial resources to facilitate the effective administration of the US intellectual property system. The PTO aspires to recover aggregate costs to:

  • Finance the PTO’s mission, strategic goals, and priorities.
  • Enable financial sustainability.
  • Promote efficient operations and filing behaviors.
  • Align fees with the costs of services provided.
  • Encourage access to the trademark system for all stakeholders.

The fees for filing a new trademark application via either the Trademark Electronic Application System (TEAS) or TEAS Plus will remain unchanged: $350 per class for a TEAS standard application and $250 per class for a TEAS Plus application for as long as TEAS remains available (and then using the Beta site discussed below). However, the PTO will institute surcharges for applications that are incomplete or contain custom identifications of goods or services. These application surcharges are intended to encourage more complete applications, which will improve examination efficiency and help reduce pendency.

Description Surcharge Insufficient information (Sections 1 and 44), per class $100 Using the free-form text box instead of the Trademark ID Manual within the Trademark Center to identify goods and services (Sections 1 and 44), per class $200 Each additional group of 1,000 characters in the free-form text box beyond the first 1,000 (Sections 1 and 44), per affected class $200

Since the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) is currently unable to collect surcharges, the PTO will raise the fee for WIPO Madrid Trademark Applications to $600 per class.

The PTO will also raise the fees for post-registration filings to offset higher processing costs for these filings and continue balancing the cost of base applications.

Filing Current Fee Fee as of January 18, 2025 Section 9 registration renewal application, per class $300 $325 Section 8 declaration, per class $225 $325 Section 15 declaration, per class $200 $250 Section 71 declaration, per class $225 $325

The PTO has not increased the filing fees in connection with intent to use filings since 2002, although the time to examine such filings has increased exponentially because of the need to examine questionable specimens. Those fees are now set to increase as follows:

Description Current Fee Fee as of January 18, 2025 Amendment to allege use (AAU), per class $100 $150 Statement of use (SOU), per class $100 $150

The fees for requesting an extension of time are unchanged.

Finally, the number of petitions and protests have increased. The PTO will attempt to recover more of the cost of processing petitions and protests as follows:

Description Current Fee Fee as of January 18, 2025 Petition to the Director $250 $400 Petition to revive an application $150 $250 Letter of protest $50 $150

For further details, including a complete list of the fee increases, click here.

The PTO also announced that as of January 18, 2025, filers [...]

Continue Reading



read more

Chill Out: Request for Profit Disgorgement Isn’t Entitled to Jury Trial

by | Dec 5, 2024 |

The US Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit affirmed a district court ruling that a plaintiff was not entitled to a jury trial regarding its trade dress infringement claim and that the plaintiff failed to prove that its trade dress had acquired the required secondary meaning. National Presto Industries Inc. v. U.S. Merchants Financial Group Inc., Case No. 23-1493 (8th Cir. Nov. 12, 2024) (Loken, Erickson, Grasz, JJ.)

National Presto manufactures household appliances, including personal electric heaters sold under the brand name “HeatDish” since 1989. These heaters had “a parabolic design that looked like a satellite dish.” National Presto supplied HeatDish heaters to Costco for many years. However, amid slumping sales, Costco began exploring alternative options. In 2017, Costco requested a “parabolic electric heater that was UL approved, had high heat, and looked industrial and robust” from another supplier, U.S. Merchants Financial Group. U.S. Merchants began development of a heater named “The Heat Machine.” Costco requested modifications to the initial design, including “changes focused on a comparison with Presto’s HeatDish.” Costco began selling The Heat Machine in 2018.

In December 2018, National Presto filed suit against U.S. Merchants asserting trade dress infringement under the Lanham Act. National Presto requested both injunctive relief and that U.S. Merchants “be required, pursuant to 15 U.S.C. § 1117, to account to National Presto for any and all profits derived by them, either individually or jointly to be ordered to disgorge, and be ordered to pay all damages sustained by National Presto by reason of Defendant’s actions complained herein.”

National Presto sought a jury trial for its trade dress claim, but the district court ruled that National Presto was seeking equitable relief and thus was not entitled to a jury trial. The district court noted that under the Lanham Act, courts generally “find that a claim for disgorgement of an infringer’s profits is an equitable claim” and therefore the Seventh Amendment does not provide the right to a jury trial for such a claim. After a bench trial, the district court ruled that National Presto failed to prove infringement because its trade dress had not acquired secondary meaning. National Presto appealed.

The Eighth Circuit affirmed. Regarding the denial of a jury trial, which the Court reviewed de novo, National Presto argued that “disgorgement is considered a legal claim when the infringer’s profits serve as a ‘proxy’ for the plaintiff’s damages.” Although the district court did not reject that legal theory, it found that the facts National Presto presented were not sufficient to support a finding that the profits were in fact serving as a proxy. The Court rejected several of National Presto’s arguments, including that “Presto’s desired remedy was legal rather than equitable because its aim was compensation rather than disgorgement of unjust enrichment.”

Regarding the district court’s secondary meaning finding, which the Eighth Circuit reviewed for clear error, the Court noted that “the chief inquiry is whether in the consumer’s mind the mark has become associated with a particular source.” In rejecting National [...]

Continue Reading



read more

A Lesson in Judicial Principles: No Dismissal After Decision

by | Dec 5, 2024 |

The US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit denied a patent owner’s motion to voluntarily dismiss the appeal following the Federal Circuit’s decision to vacate and remand the case to the Patent Trial & Appeal Board but before the mandate issued. Cisco Sys., Inc. v. K.Mizra LLC, Case No. 22-2290 (Fed. Cir. Nov. 19, 2024) (Dyk, Reyna, Stoll, JJ.)

Computer networking companies Cisco, Forescout, and Hewlett Packard filed a petition for inter partes review (IPR) to challenge the patentability of several claims of a patent owned by K.Mizra. The Board found that the petitioners failed to show that the challenged claims were unpatentable. Cisco and Hewlett Packard appealed.

After full briefing and oral argument, the Federal Circuit issued an opinion vacating the Board’s decision and remanding with further instructions. Before the Court’s mandate issued, the parties reached a settlement and moved to voluntarily dismiss the appeal without submitting a request to vacate the Federal Circuit opinion. The motions were unopposed.

The Federal Circuit stayed the issuance of the mandate while it considered the motions and invited the US Patent & Trademark Office (PTO) to comment. The PTO requested that the Federal Circuit deny the motions because it had already entered its opinion and judgment and denied rehearing. The Court agreed, declining to depart from its principle that granting a motion to dismiss the appeal at such a late stage (days before the issuance of the mandate) would result in a modification or vacatur of its judgment that was neither required nor a proper use of the judicial system.

The Federal Circuit also emphasized that appeals from the Board require additional consideration in terms of the PTO Director’s unconditional right to intervene. The Court concluded with a reminder that the parties were free to seek dismissal from the Board on remand.



read more

Senate Judiciary Subcommittee Advances Two Patent Reform Bills

by | Dec 5, 2024 |

This post has been updated since its original publication date.

On November 15, 2024, the US Senate Judiciary Subcommittee on Intellectual Property advanced the Inventor Diversity for Economic Advancement (IDEA) Act, one of three significant bills it considered this year to reform the patent system. On November 21, 2024, that same subcommittee advanced the Promoting and Respecting Economically Vital American Innovation Leadership (PREVAIL) Act. No action has been taken by the subcommittee yet regarding the Patent Eligibility Restoration Act (PERA). It is unlikely any of these bills will become law before the new Congress begins on January 3, 2025.

The IDEA Act, sponsored by Senator Mazie Hirono (D-HI) and garnering bipartisan support, would require the US Patent & Trademark Office to seek demographic data from patent inventors residing in the United States on a voluntary basis. The bill also includes safeguards to protect the confidentiality of the collected information and ensure it is not used as part of the examination process, with a report to be submitted to Congress biannually.

By the time of the November 21 action, the subcommittee sent the PREVAIL Act, sponsored by Senators Christopher Coons (D-DE) and Thom Tillis (R-NC), to the full US Senate. In the words of Coons, the PREVAIL Act is intended to make proceedings before the Patent Trial & Appeal Board “cheaper, swifter, more efficient alternatives to federal district court.” The PREVAIL Act would enact substantial changes to post-grant and inter partes review proceedings at the Board, including by introducing a standing requirement, aligning standards more closely with district court standards, and strengthening estoppel provisions to prevent re-litigation of validity issues.

The substance of PERA and the PREVAIL Act have been reported on previously here and here, respectively. PERA would revise the standards related to patent eligibility under 35 U.S.C. § 101, which have been broadly criticized as providing insufficient predictability and certainty. PERA would overturn Supreme Court precedent by establishing specific categories of exceptions to broad patent eligibility for inventions or discoveries.

At the November 15 hearing, Coons and Tillis explained that they continue to receive feedback on PERA, which has been unsuccessfully introduced in previous years. Coons and Tillis both telegraphed optimism that PERA was moving toward being voted out of the subcommittee. After the November 21 hearing, both sponsors indicated that they hoped PERA would be voted on soon.



read more

UPC Court of Appeal Rules on Suspending First Instance Enforcement, Managing Director Liability

by | Nov 21, 2024 | ,

The Court of Appeal (CoA) of the Unified Patent Court (UPC) addressed a request for suspensive effect of an appeal and ruled that managing directors of an alleged patent-infringing company cannot be held liable as “intermediaries” under Article 63 of the Agreement on a Unified Patent Court (UPCA). Koninklijke Philips NV v. Belkin GmbH, UPC_CoA_579/2024, ORD_53377/2024 (UPC CoA Oct. 29, 2024) (Rombach, J.)

In contrast to German law (for example), appeals before the UPC generally do not have suspensive effect (See Article 74(1) of the UPCA). Thus, first instance decisions are immediately enforceable under Article 82 of the UPCA and Rule 354 of the UPC Rules of Procedure (RoP), which can have significant economic implications, particularly in the context of injunctions against the affected companies. To mitigate such effects, an application for suspensive effect may be filed under Rule 223.1 of the RoP.

In the present case, Philips initiated an infringement action against the Belkin Group before the Local Division Munich (CFI_390/2024), targeting not only the Belkin Group but also its subsidiaries’ managing directors. In its first instance decision, the Munich court ruled in favor of Philips and granted an injunction against Belkin and its subsidiaries’ managing directors, classifying the latter as “intermediaries” within the meaning of Article 63(1), Section 2 of the UPCA. Belkin appealed and requested suspensive effect under Rule 223.1 of the RoP.

The CoA partially granted this request, ordering suspensive effect with regard to the injunction against the managing directors. The CoA ruled that the suspensive effect of an appeal is an exception that can only be ordered in special circumstances. This involves determining whether the appellant’s interest in maintaining the status quo until the decision of the appeal exceptionally outweighs the respondent’s interest in enforcement. The CoA clarified that such circumstances exist where the decision being appealed is manifestly wrong. Whether this is the case – and whether there is, therefore, an evident violation of the law – is assessed on the basis of the factual findings and legal considerations of the first instance decision. If these findings or legal considerations prove to be untenable on summary examination, suspensive effect must be ordered.

In the present case, the CoA found a manifest error of law in the classification of the managing directors as “intermediaries” within the meaning of Article 63 of the UPCA and Article 11 of Directive 2004/48. It reasoned that managing directors, acting in their official capacity, represent the company itself and are not external to it. Therefore, the appellant company cannot be a “third party” in relation to its CEO. Accordingly, liability under Article 63(1), Section 2 of the UPCA as an intermediary cannot arise solely from the CEO functioning as a managing director.

Consequently, the CoA granted suspensive effect for the injunction against the managing directors but dismissed the application for suspensive effect in all other respects.

Practice Note: Practitioners should carefully consider the rule exception framework when applying for suspensive effect before the UPC. To be successful, a convincing, case-specific justification [...]

Continue Reading



read more

Let’s Not Get It On: Battle of the Greatest Hits

by | Nov 14, 2024 |

The US Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit affirmed a district court ruling that Ed Sheeran’s 2014 hit “Thinking Out Loud” does not infringe the copyright on Marvin Gaye’s 1973 classic “Let’s Get It On.” Structured Asset Sales, LLC v. Sheeran, Case No. 23-905 (2d Cir. Nov. 1, 2024) (Calabresi, Parker, Park, JJ.)

In 1973, Ed Townsend and Marvin Gaye wrote the Motown hit “Let’s Get It On.” Townsend subsequently registered a copyright for the song’s melody, harmony, rhythm, and lyrics by sending the deposit copy of sheet music to the US Copyright Office. Townsend, Gaye, and Motown Records each held a one-third share in the copyright. Structured Asset Sales (SAS) purchases royalty interests from musical copyright holders, securitizes them, and sells the securities to other investors. SAS owns a one-ninth interest in the royalties from “Let’s Get It On.” Townsend’s remaining two-ninths share in the copyright is split between Kathryn Griffin, Helen McDonald, and the estate of Cherrigale Townsend.

In 2014 Ed Sheeran and Amy Wadge wrote the global chart-topper and Grammy-award-winning song “Thinking Out Loud.” In 2018, SAS brought a copyright infringement suit against Sheeran, Wadge, and various entities that produced, licensed, and distributed “Thinking Out Loud” (collectively, Sheeran). SAS alleged similarities in harmonies, drums, bass lines, tempos, and chord progression combined with anticipation (harmonic rhythm). SAS’s lawsuit followed the Griffin/McDonald/estate of Cherrigale Townsend’s 2017 lawsuit against Sheeran (Griffin lawsuit) alleging materially similar claims.

The district court determined that SAS’s infringement claim was limited to the scope of Townsend’s registration as reflected in the deposit copy (i.e., the sheet music) and excluded the sound recording of “Let’s Get It On.” As evidence that the songs were similar, SAS’s expert witness testified that the “Let’s Get It On” deposit copy included an inferred bass line that matched the bass line in Gaye’s sound recording of “Let’s Get It On” and the bass line in “Thinking Out Loud.” The district court rejected this testimony, concluding that “copyright law protects only that which is literally expressed, not that which might be inferred or possibly derived from what is expressed.”

The district court then denied Sheeran’s two motions for summary judgment without prejudice, determining that whether chord progression and harmonic rhythm in “Let’s Get It On” demonstrated sufficient originality and creativity to warrant copyright protection was a factual question to be determined at trial. Sheeran filed a motion for reconsideration. After the jury in the Griffin lawsuit found that Sheeran did not infringe the “Let’s Get It On” copyright, the district court granted Sheeran’s motion for reconsideration and concluded that “[t]here is no genuine issue of material fact as to whether defendants infringed the protected elements of [‘Let’s Get It On’]. The answer is that they did not.” SAS appealed.

SAS argued that the district court erred in limiting the evidence SAS could present to support its infringement claim and in granting summary judgment in favor of Sheeran. The Second Circuit rejected both arguments.

The Second Circuit explained that excluding the audio recording of “Let’s Get It On” was not error because the 1909 Copyright Act protects [...]

Continue Reading



read more

Moving to Recuse? Too Little, Too Late

by | Nov 14, 2024 |

The US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit ruled that waiting until well after an adverse summary judgment motion to move for a district court judge’s recusal is untimely and moot, especially where an appeal from the adverse decision is already filed and where the recusal motion is based on public information. Cellspin Soft, Inc. v. Fitbit LLC, et al., Case No. 22-1526 (Fed Cir. Nov. 1, 2024) (Taranto, Prost, Reyna, JJ.) (nonprecedential).

Cellspin filed a complaint for patent infringement against Fitbit and others in October 2017. In February 2021, Fitbit amended its corporate disclosure statement to reflect the completion of its acquisition by Google (an indirect subsidiary of Alphabet). Almost a year later, in January 2022, Fitbit and the other defendants moved for summary judgment of noninfringement in their respective cases, and in June 2022, the district court granted summary judgment.

Months later, in January 2023, after the grant of summary judgment and the filing of notices of appeal from that grant, Cellspin filed a motion to recuse the district court judge based on the judge’s mutual fund investments that were likely to invest in Google. The consulting firm for which the judge’s husband worked also sold Google services, but the judge’s spouse did not do work for Google. The district court denied the motion on the merits as untimely and because the district court lacked authority to vacate the summary judgment that was already on appeal.

Applying Ninth Circuit law and reviewing for abuse of discretion, the Federal Circuit found that Cellspin’s behavior in waiting until well after it had lost on summary judgment, and almost two years after Google’s acquisition of Fitbit became final, “raises obvious concerns of lack of equity and strategic misuse of recusal.” The sources Fitbit cited for the judge’s spouse and the activities of the spouse’s employer were also public well before the summary judgment motion was granted, as were the judge’s financial disclosures.

While there is no specific time limit for seeking recusal, the Federal Circuit (citing its 1989 decision in Polaroid v. Eastman Kodak) noted that “timeliness is a well-established consideration in application of the [recusal] statute. In deciding motions to vacate orders issued by an allegedly disqualified judge, the courts have used ‘untimely’ as a synonym for ‘unfair’ when the circumstances, like those present here, are such that a grant of the motion would produce a result inequitable, unjust, and unfair.”

The Federal Circuit also noted that the risk of injustice to the parties from denying vacatur would also be essentially nonexistent here because the Federal Circuit’s concurrent holding on the summary judgment appeal against other defendants had preclusive effect, resolving Cellspin’s infringement assertions against Fitbit as well.

Practice Note: Any motion for recusal should be promptly filed when grounds for the motion become apparent.



read more

PTO Proposes Additional Audits to Put “Specimen Farms” Out to Pasture

by | Nov 14, 2024 |

In response to reports that some registrants use fraudulent specimens to prove continued use in commerce, the US Patent & Trademark Office (PTO) proposed an update to its post-registration audit process. Changes in Post-Registration Audit Selection for Affidavits or Declarations of Use, Continued Use, or Excusable Nonuse in Trademark Cases, 89 Fed. Reg. 85,435 (Oct. 28, 2024).

Since its institution in 2017, the PTO’s post-registration audit process has been essentially random. Pursuant to Section 8 of the Trademark Act, trademark owners are required to file documentation in the form of affidavits of continued use indicating that the marks remain in use in connection with goods or services covered by the registration. In turn, the public relies on the trademark register for notice of marks that may be available for use and registration. The PTO conducts random audits of submitted documentation to ensure its reliability.

Since encountering various filings that revealed “systemic efforts to subvert” a trademark’s use in commerce requirement, the PTO has taken steps to expand its audit program. For example, in 2019, the office amended its examination procedures to highlight “digitally created/altered or mockup specimens” that fraudulently indicate continued use in commerce. In 2021, the PTO became aware of “specimen farms,” which are websites designed to create the illusion of commerce without providing actual sales. To combat deceptive maintenance of obsolete marks, the PTO will no longer perform only randomized audits but will also conduct audits “directed” at items that show tell-tale signs of digital alteration or specimen farm website use.

The objective of the directed audit program is “to promote the accuracy and integrity” of the trademark register. This proposed policy is open for public comments on the Federal eRulemaking Portal until November 27, 2024.



read more

“Conquesting”: Use of Rival’s Name as Keyword Search Term Isn’t Actionable Under Lanham Act

by | Nov 7, 2024 |

Noting how rare it is for trademark infringement cases to be decided on summary judgment, the US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed a district court’s grant of summary judgment finding that the plaintiff law firm failed to establish a likelihood of consumer confusion by virtue of the defendant’s purchase of a keyword search term. Lerner & Rowe PC v. Brown, Engstrand & Shely, LLC, et al., Case No. 23-16060 (9th Cir. Oct. 22, 2024) (Desai, de Alba, JJ.; Chen, Dist. J, sitting by designation) (Desai, J., concurring).

The parties in this matter are rival personal injury law firms based in Arizona. Lerner & Rowe, PC, is the larger of the two firms. It has 19 offices and has spent more than $100 million promoting its brand and trademarks in the state. Brown, Engstrand & Shely, LLC, does business as The Accident Law Group (ALG). From 2015 to 2021, ALG engaged in an internet advertising strategy called “conquesting,” whereby companies promote themselves to potential customers who search for a competitor on the internet. ALG purchased the term “Lerner & Rowe” as a keyword search term so that whenever someone searched for that term, ALG’s advertisements would appear near the top of the search results list. The ALG advertisements themselves never included the term “Lerner & Rowe.”

In 2021 Lerner & Rowe filed a complaint alleging federal and state trademark infringement, unfair competition, and unjust enrichment claims. In 2023 the district court granted summary judgment in favor of ALG as to the trademark infringement and unjust enrichment claims but denied summary judgment on the unfair competition claims. ALG moved for reconsideration, and the district court subsequently granted summary judgment as to all the claims. Lerner & Rowe appealed.

Because there was no dispute that Lerner & Rowe had a protectable interest in its marks, the Ninth Circuit’s trademark infringement analysis focused on assessing the likelihood of consumer confusion. At issue here was “initial interest confusion,” confusion that arises when an alleged infringer uses a competitor’s mark to direct attention to its own product. The Ninth Circuit used the four-factor test articulated in its 2011 decision in Network Automation v. Advanced Sys. Concepts to analyze likelihood of confusion in a keyword advertising context:

  • Strength of the mark.
  • Evidence of actual confusion.
  • Type of goods and degree of care likely to be exercised by the purchaser.
  • Labeling and appearance of the advertisements and the surrounding context on the screen displaying the results page.

Other less relevant factors include “the proximity of the goods, similarity of the marks, marketing channels used, defendant’s intent in selecting the mark, and likelihood of expansion of the product lines.”

The Ninth Circuit found, and ALG did not dispute, that Lerner & Rowe’s mark was strong, but the Court concluded that the other three factors favored ALG. As to evidence of actual confusion, Lerner & Rowe offered 236 phone calls received by ALG in which the caller mentioned Lerner & Rowe by name when asked [...]

Continue Reading



read more

Equivalence Requires Element-by-Element Proof With Linking Argument

by | Nov 7, 2024 |

The US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirmed a district court determination that a patent owner had not provided the “particularized testimony and linking argument” required to demonstrate equivalence under the doctrine of equivalents. NexStep, Inc. v. Comcast Cable Commc’ns, LLC, Case No. 2022-1815 (Fed. Cir. Oct. 24, 2024) (Chen, Taranto, JJ.) (Reyna, J., concurring in part and dissenting in part). In his dissent, Judge Reyna criticized the majority for ignoring the totality of the evidence presented by the patent owner and imposing a new rule requiring patentees to always present expert testimony to prove infringement under the doctrine of equivalents.

NexStep owns a patent directed to a “concierge device” for assisting users with obtaining customer support for smart devices. The claims are directed to a concierge device that initiates a technical support session in response to “a single action” (i.e., a single button press) by a user. After the claimed “single action,” the concierge device conveys consumer device identification information for the product at issue, identifies an appropriate technical support team for the product, and causes the home gateway to initiate a support session for the device and forward the consumer device information during the session.

NexStep sued Comcast for patent infringement, asserting that three tools in Comcast’s mobile smartphone application infringed the concierge device patent: Xfinity Assistant, Troubleshooting Card, and Diagnostic Check. Each of these tools assists users with troubleshooting a given device in response to the user pressing a series of buttons on a smartphone’s display. At trial, NexStep argued that pressing a series of buttons literally met the single action limitation because a single action could comprise a series of steps. By way of illustration, NexStep’s expert explained that throwing a baseball – a single action – required multiple steps: “[W]hen you throw a baseball, you pick it up, you orient it, you get it in your palm, you throw it.”

The jury returned a verdict of no literal infringement but found infringement under the doctrine of equivalents. Comcast moved for judgment as a matter of law, which the district court granted after finding that NexStep had failed to offer the “particularized testimony and linking argument” required to demonstrate equivalence. NexStep appealed.

The Federal Circuit emphasized that the doctrine of equivalents provides a “limited exception” to the principle that the claim defines the scope of the patentee’s exclusivity rights, and that a finding under the doctrine of equivalents is “exceptional.” To guard against overbroad applications of this exception, the Court’s precedent imposes specific evidentiary requirements necessary to prove infringement under the doctrine. The patent owner must provide proof on an element-by-element basis and from the perspective of someone skilled in the art, “for example through testimony of experts or others versed in the technology; by documents . . . and . . . by the disclosures of the prior art.” Finally, the patent owner must provide “particularized testimony and linking argument as to the insubstantiality of the differences between the claimed invention and the [...]

Continue Reading



read more

BLOG EDITORS

Paul Devinsky

Amol Parikh

Jodi Benassi

STAY CONNECTED

Subscribe

TOPICS

ARCHIVES