Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%

Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.

Movers & Shakers

By ALM Staff | Law Journal Newsletters |
August 27, 2009

K&L Gates LLP welcomes Charles D. Holland to the firm's Palo Alto office as a partner in the intellectual property practice. Holland joins K&L Gates from Morrison & Foerster LLP.

A patent lawyer and engineer who focuses on renewable energy and clean technology, Holland counsels investors and companies ranging from startups to Fortune 500 corporations on intellectual property matters. In addition to patent prosecution, portfolio review, and strategic advice, his practice includes non-infringement and invalidity analyses, due diligence reviews, and litigation analyses. Holland has advised companies on issues involving a wide array of technologies, such as solar energy, water purification, solar cells, alternate fuels, and waste handling, as well as on the manufacturing of medical devices, pharmaceuticals, semiconductors, and chemical and petrochemical products.

“K&L Gates is pleased to welcome Chuck to our Palo Alto office,” said Jon Michaelson, administrative partner of K&L Gates' Palo Alto office. “Chuck's extensive patent experience and familiarity with the renewable energy sector further expand K&L Gates' intellectual property capabilities and services to the firm's clients.”

K&L Gates Chairman and Global Managing Partner Peter J. Kalis said: “With Chuck's arrival, K&L Gates' intellectual property group takes another step forward, and we add to strength in industry sectors of growing importance to the economy.”

“I am delighted to join K&L Gates with its strong patent prosecution capabilities and impressive team of IP lawyers with diverse technical backgrounds,” commented Holland. “The depth and breadth of the firm's cleantech and related practices is particularly attractive, and I look forward to helping to advance further the firm's ability to handle IP issues in the cleantech and life sciences areas.”

K&L Gates LLP welcomes Charles D. Holland to the firm's Palo Alto office as a partner in the intellectual property practice. Holland joins K&L Gates from Morrison & Foerster LLP.

A patent lawyer and engineer who focuses on renewable energy and clean technology, Holland counsels investors and companies ranging from startups to Fortune 500 corporations on intellectual property matters. In addition to patent prosecution, portfolio review, and strategic advice, his practice includes non-infringement and invalidity analyses, due diligence reviews, and litigation analyses. Holland has advised companies on issues involving a wide array of technologies, such as solar energy, water purification, solar cells, alternate fuels, and waste handling, as well as on the manufacturing of medical devices, pharmaceuticals, semiconductors, and chemical and petrochemical products.

K&L Gates is pleased to welcome Chuck to our Palo Alto office,” said Jon Michaelson, administrative partner of K&L Gates' Palo Alto office. “Chuck's extensive patent experience and familiarity with the renewable energy sector further expand K&L Gates' intellectual property capabilities and services to the firm's clients.”

K&L Gates Chairman and Global Managing Partner Peter J. Kalis said: “With Chuck's arrival, K&L Gates' intellectual property group takes another step forward, and we add to strength in industry sectors of growing importance to the economy.”

“I am delighted to join K&L Gates with its strong patent prosecution capabilities and impressive team of IP lawyers with diverse technical backgrounds,” commented Holland. “The depth and breadth of the firm's cleantech and related practices is particularly attractive, and I look forward to helping to advance further the firm's ability to handle IP issues in the cleantech and life sciences areas.”

This premium content is locked for Entertainment Law & Finance subscribers only

  • Stay current on the latest information, rulings, regulations, and trends
  • Includes practical, must-have information on copyrights, royalties, AI, and more
  • Tap into expert guidance from top entertainment lawyers and experts

For enterprise-wide or corporate acess, please contact Customer Service at [email protected] or 877-256-2473

Read These Next
Major Differences In UK, U.S. Copyright Laws Image

This article highlights how copyright law in the United Kingdom differs from U.S. copyright law, and points out differences that may be crucial to entertainment and media businesses familiar with U.S law that are interested in operating in the United Kingdom or under UK law. The article also briefly addresses contrasts in UK and U.S. trademark law.

The Article 8 Opt In Image

The Article 8 opt-in election adds an additional layer of complexity to the already labyrinthine rules governing perfection of security interests under the UCC. A lender that is unaware of the nuances created by the opt in (may find its security interest vulnerable to being primed by another party that has taken steps to perfect in a superior manner under the circumstances.

Strategy vs. Tactics: Two Sides of a Difficult Coin Image

With each successive large-scale cyber attack, it is slowly becoming clear that ransomware attacks are targeting the critical infrastructure of the most powerful country on the planet. Understanding the strategy, and tactics of our opponents, as well as the strategy and the tactics we implement as a response are vital to victory.

Legal Possession: What Does It Mean? Image

Possession of real property is a matter of physical fact. Having the right or legal entitlement to possession is not "possession," possession is "the fact of having or holding property in one's power." That power means having physical dominion and control over the property.

The Stranger to the Deed Rule Image

In 1987, a unanimous Court of Appeals reaffirmed the vitality of the "stranger to the deed" rule, which holds that if a grantor executes a deed to a grantee purporting to create an easement in a third party, the easement is invalid. Daniello v. Wagner, decided by the Second Department on November 29th, makes it clear that not all grantors (or their lawyers) have received the Court of Appeals' message, suggesting that the rule needs re-examination.