intellectual property 2017 av... · brian mcmahon, member, christensen o'connor johnson...

INTELLECTUAL

PROPERTY 2017: FROM FUNDAMENTALS TO ENFORCEMENT July 12-14, 2017

Seattle University School of Law • Summer Practice Academy

Table of Contents

Original Program Agenda .................................................................................................... 1

Faculty Biographies ............................................................................................................. 5

Day One Outline .................................................................................................................. 8

Trademark and Trade Dress Handout ............................................................................... 12

Trademark Registration Example ...................................................................................... 16

Trade Dress Registration Example .................................................................................... 17

Day Two Outline ................................................................................................................ 18

Business Matrix Handout .................................................................................................. 19

Sample Utility Patent ........................................................................................................ 21

Sample Design Patent ....................................................................................................... 35

Example Plant Patent ........................................................................................................ 45

Day Three Outline ............................................................................................................. 53

Helpful Websites for IP Information ................................................................................. 54

Intellectual Property: From Fundamentals to Enforcement

July 12-14, 2017

Agenda

July 12, 2017 - Day One: Intellectual Property Fundamentals

8:00 a.m. Registration and Coffee Service

8:30-9:30 a.m. Introduction to Intellectual Property Fundamentals Speakers: Brian McMahon, Member, Christensen O'Connor Johnson Kindness Alina Morris, Associate, Christensen O'Connor Johnson Kindness Everett Fruehling, Member, Christensen O'Connor Johnson Kindness

9:30-10:45 a.m. Trademarks Speakers: Brian McMahon, Member, Christensen O'Connor Johnson Kindness Alina Morris, Associate, Christensen O'Connor Johnson Kindness Everett Fruehling, Member, Christensen O'Connor Johnson Kindness

10:45-11 a.m. Break

11 a.m.-12:15 p.m. Trade Secrets Speakers: Brian McMahon, Member, Christensen O'Connor Johnson Kindness Matt Balint, Member, Christensen O'Connor Johnson Kindness

12:15-1:15 p.m. Lunch (on your own)

1:15 -2:30 p.m. Patents Speakers: Brian McMahon, Member, Christensen O'Connor Johnson Kindness Matt Balint, Member, Christensen O'Connor Johnson Kindness David Sheldon, Member, Christensen O'Connor Johnson Kindness

1

2:30-2:45 p.m. Break

2:45-3:45 p.m. Copyrights Speakers: Brian McMahon, Member, Christensen O'Connor Johnson Kindness Alina Morris, Associate, Christensen O'Connor Johnson Kindness

3:35-4:00 p.m. Summary of Day One, Q & A

4:00 p.m. Evaluations and Adjourn

July 13, 2017 - Day Two: Practical IP and Working with Businesses


8:30-10:30 a.m. IP Needs of Small, Medium, and Large-sized Businesses Speakers: Brian McMahon, Member, Christensen O'Connor Johnson Kindness L. Rhys Lawson, Ph.D., Member, Christensen O'Connor Johnson Kindness Alina Morris, Associate, Christensen O'Connor Johnson Kindness David Sheldon, Member, Christensen O'Connor Johnson Kindness

10:30-10:45 a.m. Break

10:45 a.m.-12 noon Licensing Speakers: Brian McMahon, Member, Christensen O'Connor Johnson Kindness Margie Aoki, Associate, Christensen O'Connor Johnson Kindness Brandon Stallman, Member, Christensen O'Connor Johnson Kindness


1:00-2:30 p.m. Anatomy of an IP Dispute (defensive) Speakers: Brian McMahon, Member, Christensen O'Connor Johnson Kindness David Sheldon, Member, Christensen O'Connor Johnson Kindness

2:30-2:45 p.m. Break

2:45-3:45 p.m. Budgeting an IP Dispute

2

July 14, 2017 - Day Three: Protecting and Enforcing the Intellectual Property of Your Clients


8:30-9:30 a.m. Introduction to Enforcement (offensive) Speakers: Brian McMahon, Member, Christensen O'Connor Johnson Kindness Everett Fruehling, Member, Christensen O'Connor Johnson Kindness

9:30-10:30 a.m. Mechanics of Enforcement: Part One Speakers: Brian McMahon, Member, Christensen O'Connor Johnson Kindness Everett Fruehling, Member, Christensen O'Connor Johnson Kindness

10:30-10:45 a.m. Break

10:45 a.m.-12 Noon Mechanics of Enforcement: Part Two Speakers: Brian McMahon, Member, Christensen O'Connor Johnson Kindness Everett Fruehling, Member, Christensen O'Connor Johnson Kindness Matt Balint, Member, Christensen O'Connor Johnson Kindness


1:45-2:30 p.m. Identifying IP for Your Clients Speakers: Brian McMahon, Member, Christensen O'Connor Johnson Kindness Everett Fruehling, Member, Christensen O'Connor Johnson Kindness Matt Balint, Member, Christensen O'Connor Johnson Kindness

Speakers: Brian McMahon, Member, Christensen O'Connor Johnson Kindness Alina Morris, Associate, Christensen O'Connor Johnson Kindness

3:45-4:00 p.m. Summary of Day Two, Q & A


3

2:30-2:45 p.m. Break

2:45-3:45 p.m. Discussing IP with Your Clients Speakers: Brian McMahon, Member, Christensen O'Connor Johnson Kindness Everett Fruehling, Member, Christensen O'Connor Johnson Kindness Matt Balint, Member, Christensen O'Connor Johnson Kindness

3:45-4:00 p.m. Summary of Day Three, Final Q & A


4

Faculty Biographies

Program Developer John Denkenberger John Denkenberger is a co-managing member of Christensen O'Connor Johnson Kindness, serves on the firm's executive committee and is head of its litigation practice group. John has successfully litigated patent, trademark, trade secret, and unfair business competition issues in both federal and state court nationwide. In addition to his litigation practice, John also advises clients on foreign and domestic patent and trademark procurement, technology licensing, and litigation strategies in a variety of technology areas, including mechanical, electromechanical, acoustics, and software. Prior to becoming an attorney, John worked for 10 years as a research and design engineer in the aerospace and aircraft industry.

Program Developer & Program Moderator Brian McMahon Brian McMahon is a member at COJK. He focuses his practice specifically on intellectual property litigation matters for clients ranging from Fortune 100 companies to individual inventors, involving technologies relating to chemical, mechanical, and electrical arts alike. In so doing, he has appeared before the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, several federal district courts, and the United States International Trade Commission. Brian has extensive experience in all phases of litigation, including prelitigation investigation and due diligence, case management, strategy and development, discovery, law and motion practice, obtaining and opposing injunctive relief, damages analysis, expert witness preparation, depositions, settlement negotiations, mediation, trial, and appeals. Brian also leads the firm's Hatch-Waxman "ANDA" litigation group. Brian is a member of the West Point Association of Graduates (WPAOG) Advisory Council, which provides advice and counsel to the WPAOG Board of Directors. He received his B.S. from the United States Military Academy at West Point and his J.D. from the Georgetown University Law Center. After graduation, he served a one-year term as judicial law clerk for then Chief Judge H. Robert Mayer of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit.

Speakers Margie B. Aoki Margie Aoki collaborates with inventors and business owners to help them protect and benefit from their ideas. Her practice focuses on the procurement, analysis, and licensing of patents across a wide range of technologies, including medical devices, heavy duty vehicles, alternative and clean energy, and consumer products. She also counsels clients on other general intellectual property matters, including trademarks, copyrights, and domain names. Prior to joining COJK, Margie spent four years working as a mechanical systems engineer at Intel Corporation. She received her J.D., cum laude, from Seattle University School of Law, and her B.S. in mechanical engineering from the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign.

5

Matthew D. Balint, P.E. Matt Balint is a member of Christensen O'Connor Johnson Kindness PLLC (COJK) in the firm's mechanical practice group. Matt brings to his patent practice a strong background in mechanical engineering, particularly in the field of aviation. His practice encompasses the preparation and prosecution of patents pertaining to various mechanical, electro-mechanical, and aeronautical technologies. Matt is a licensed professional engineer (mechanical engineering) with over 15 years of practical experience as a structural design engineer for The Boeing Company. Matt received a B.S. degree in mechanical engineering from Stanford University, and received his J.D. from Seattle University School of Law. Everett E. Fruehling Everett Fruehling is the head of the trademark practice group, with over 20 years of experience in all aspects of trademark law, including trademark selection, clearance, prosecution, enforcement, and defense. He is also experienced with domain name issues and disputes and copyright matters. Everett began his trademark practice in 1994, when he joined the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office as a trademark examining attorney. In 1997, he went into private practice to focus on domestic and international trademark law. Everett received his J.D. from the University of Washington School of Law, and his B.A. in political science from Willamette University. L. Rhys Lawson, Ph.D. Dr. Rhys Lawson is a patent attorney at COJK and a member of the firm's life sciences and mechanical engineering practice groups focusing his practice on creating patent portfolios to obtain integrated worldwide protection for his clients' inventions. Rhys' practice extends to assisting clients with licensing, agreements, IP opinions, and design patents. Rhys speaks frequently on patent law issues and cost-effective patent portfolio strategies at nanotechnology and chemical conferences. He received his J.D., with honors, from the University of Washington School of Law, his Ph.D. in chemistry and nanotechnology from the University of Washington, his M.S. in chemistry from Western Washington University, and his B.S. in chemistry and mathematics from the University of Puget Sound. Alina Morris Alina Morris is an associate at COJK. She focuses her practice on domestic and international trademark counseling, clearance, filing, prosecution, registration, maintenance, enforcement, defense, and portfolio management. A former trademark examining attorney with the United States Patent and Trademark Office, Alina leverages her insider expertise with the trademark application and registration process to help clients register their marks and protect their brands. Alina also handles disputes before the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board, commercial litigation, copyright matters, domain name disputes, licensing, and business agreements. Additionally, Alina provides expert witness analysis and opinions in matters related to trademark examination and registration.

6

Alina regularly presents programs on trademark, copyright and domain name protection, participating in programs hosted by local and national organizations, including the King County Bar Association, the Washington State Bar Association, and the International Trademark Association (INTA). She is an INTA committee member, and on the board of directors of the Seattle chapter of the Inn of Court. She has been named a "Rising Star" in 2015 and 2016 by Super Lawyers. Alina received a B.A. degree in political science from Boston College and received her J.D. from George Washington University Law School. David P. Sheldon David Sheldon is a patent attorney whose strong background in computer science and his technical experience in software engineering help him assist clients with patent drafting, prosecution, intellectual property portfolio management, open source software licensing, and legal counseling for various software and computer-related technologies. David is a member of the Washington State Patent Law Association where he serves as chair of the Community Education Committee. He received his J.D., Order of the Coif, from UCLA School of Law, and his B.S., cum laude, in computer science, from Northwestern University. Brandon C. Stallman Brandon Stallman's practice encompasses all aspects of intellectual property law, including strategic counseling, patent portfolio management, licensing and other technology agreements, and patent, trademark, and copyright procurement and counseling. His practice further includes the preparation of opinions regarding matters of patent infringement, validity, and enforceability, conducting intellectual property due diligence investigations, and related litigation, including post-grant proceedings with the United States Patent Office (USPTO). Brandon also advises on privacy policies, end-user license agreements, terms of use agreements for web sites, and other software licensing and use issues. He assists clients in developing the agreements necessary to protect intellectual property while doing business with others, including non-disclosure agreements, product development agreements, manufacturing and supply agreements, software development agreements, and other transactional agreements involving intellectual property. Brandon is a former examining attorney at the USPTO. He received his J.D. from St. Louis University School of Law, and his B.S. in mechanical engineering from the University of Missouri.

7

1

SUMMER PRACTICE ACADEMY 2017

July 12, 2017

Intellectual Property Certificate Program

Day One

Intellectual Property Fundamentals

I. Welcome and Introduction

A. Program overview and deliverables

B. Overview of current status of IP

C. Intellectual property and its importance

D. IP vocabulary/introduction of terms

II. Trademarks

Introduction and overview

A. Trademarks

B. Non-traditional marks

C. Trade dress

D. Mistakes and misconceptions

III. Trade Secrets

Introduction to trade secrets and "know-how"

A. "Know-how"

B. Trade secrets

1. The Uniform Trade Secrets Act with 1985 Amendments (UTSA) defines a

"trade secret" as information including a formula, pattern, compilation,

program, device, method, technique, or process, that:

Intellectual Property 2017: From Fundamentals to Enforcement On-Demand Materials

Recorded July 12-14, 2017 8

http://www.law.seattleu.edu/

2

a. derives independent economic value, actual or potential, from not

being generally known to, and not being readily ascertainable by

proper means by, other persons who can obtain economic value from

its disclosure or use, and

b. is the subject of efforts that are reasonable under the circumstances

to maintain its secrecy.

See also RCW 19.108.010(4)

2. Examples of trade secrets

C. "Misappropriation" of a trade secret means:

1. acquisition of a trade secret of another by a person who knows or has reason

to know that the trade secret was acquired by "improper means;" or

2. disclosure or use of a trade secret of another without express or implied

consent by a person who:

a. used improper means to acquire knowledge of the trade secret; or

b. at the time of disclosure or use, knew or had reason to know that his

or her knowledge of the trade secret was

i. derived from or through a person who had utilized improper

means to acquire it,

ii. acquired under circumstances giving rise to a duty to maintain

its secrecy or limit its use, or

iii. derived from or through a person who owed a duty to the

person seeking relief to maintain its secrecy or limit its use; or

c. before a material change of his or her position, knew or had reason to

know that it was a trade secret and that knowledge of it had been

acquired by accident or mistake.

"Improper means" includes theft, bribery, misrepresentation, breach or inducement of a

breach of a duty to maintain secrecy, or espionage through electronic or other means.

D. What to do if a trade secret is misappropriated

IV. Patents

A. What is a patent?

B. Patent rights

C. Patent claims

D. The value of patents



3

E. Patent ownership

F. Patentability

1. What you can patent

2. "Novel" and "non-obvious"

3. Patent-eligible subject matter

4. What you can't patent

G. Patent Process

V. Copyrights

A. Working Definitions

1. Copyright

2. “Tangible Medium of Expression”

3. Derivative Works

4. Fair Use

5. Work for Hire

B. Why Copyright?

1. Rights in copyrights

2. Limitations in copyrights

3. Eligible subject matter

4. Ownership of object vs. ownership of expression

C. Duration of Copyright Protections

1. Some relevant inquiries:

a. When was the work created? (pre-/post- January 1, 1978)

b. Can we identify the author(s)?

c. Was the work made for hire?

d. Is any author still alive?

e. When was the work first in the public domain/“copyrighted?”

2. Other considerations

D. Obtaining a Copyright

1. Application/Registration



4

2. Renewals

E. Enforcing a Copyright

1. Notice/Marking: ©; “Copyright”; “Copr.”

2. Enforcement, generally

VI. Summary and Evaluations



1



Day One Examples of Trademarks

Words and letter trademarks

IPad

Phrases (slogans) trademarks

JUST DO IT

DON’T LEAVE HOME WITHOUT IT

COME FLY THE FRIENDLY SKIES

THE BREAKFAST OF CHAMPIONS



2

Design (symbols, logos) trademarks

Examples of Trade Dress



3

Examples of color, pattern, sound, and smell

Color: Pink Owens Corning fiberglass

Sound: NBC Chimes

Pattern: Burberry Plaid

Smell: Coconut Scent




July 13, 2017


Day Two

Intellectual Property – Practical IP and Working with Businesses

I. IP needs of Small-, Medium-, and Large-sized Businesses

II. Licensing

A. What is licensing?

B. Reasons to license patents

C. Basic patent license terms

D. Before licensing a patent

E. Considerations

F. Reports and payments

G. Sublicense

H. Licensee performance, representation, and warranties

I. Enforcement considerations

III. Anatomy of an IP Dispute (defensive)

IV. Budgeting an IP Dispute

V. Summary and Evaluations




1

Day Two – In

tellectual Property: Practical Business Application and Issue Spotting

Su

mm

er P

ract

ice

Aca

dem

y 20

17

Intellectual Property

Certificate Program

BUSINESS SIZE

Definitions for purposes set forth

Small

Indep

enden

tly owned

and

operated

; closely held

Can

be for‐profit or non‐profit

Strong but not dominant in its

field

1‐100 employees

Annual reven

ues under $50M

Medium

Might be a public company

(maybe NASD

AQ‐listed); closely

held

Has some fair/m

oderate market

share

100‐500 employees

Annual reven

ues between $50M

to $7 50M

Large

Public company trading on

global stock m

arkets

Has dominant market share

500+ em

ployees

Annual reven

ues exceed $750M

IP‐RELATED CONCER

NS

BUSINESS

STAGE

Start‐up:

“Garage” business;

new

“niche” m

arket or service;

“spin‐off” from larger

corporation;

"idea” business attempting to

solicit investors;

business plan stage/w

ithin first

year of operation

Idea

protection – putting

employee IP agreemen

ts

into

place

Borrowing potential

Obtaining significant market

share

IP landscape and potential

infringemen

t issues – risk

adverse

Scope of IP protection –

U.S. v. W

orld

Funding issues

Idea

protection

Borrowing potential


share

Investmen

t attraction

Em

ployee solicitation

Possible third‐party IP

Gaining market

share/increase

market growth through

acquisition

IP due diligence

IP licensing

Risk assessmen

t

Idea

prot ection

Borrowing potential


share

Investmen

t attraction

Em

ployee solicitation

Stock value

Shareh

older satisfaction

Board approval

Definite third‐party IP

Risk assessmen

t

IP licensing



2

Interm

ediate:

Established

market for the

product exists and is

provided

for by business

Idea

protection

Increasing borrowing

potential/net worth

Maintaining/growing significant

market share

Obtaining suppliers and

distributors (potentially

exclusively)


IP enforcem

ent/licen

sing?

Idea

protection


potential/net worth


market share (brand recognition)

Optimizing supplier/distributor

network

Investor satisfaction

Em

ployee solicitation/reten

tion

Definite IP third‐party IP

Select IP

enforcem

ent and

licen

sing

Idea

protection


potential/net worth


market share (brand

recognition)

Continued

investmen

t attraction

Em

ployee solicitation/rete n

tion

Stock value

Shareh

older satisfaction

Board approval


IP enforcem

ent and licensing

policy?

Potential M

&A

concerns/inquiries

Mature: Established

company with m

arket

dem

and for their specific

brand

Idea

protection

Increasing net worth


market share (brand

recognition)

Optimizing supplier/distributor

network


IP licensing and/or en

forcem

ent

Establish IP

‐ded

icated

budget?

New

market opportunities –

being acquired

or acquiring

Idea

protection



market share (brand recognition)

Optimizing supplier/ distributor

network

Maintaining/en

suring investor

satisfaction

Em


tion


Established

IP budget

Possible ded

icated

enforcem

ent

and licensing program

Potential M

&A concerns

Idea

protection



market share (brand

recognition)

Continued

investmen

t attraction

Em


tion

Stock value

Shareh

older satisfaction

Board approval


Definite IP enforcem

ent and

licen

sing policy

M&A/investmen

ts (due

diligence)



(12) United States Design Patent (10) Patent N0.: Angelo et a].

USO0D532352S

US D532,352 S (45) Date of Patent: *1. Nov. 21, 2006

(54) FENDER PANELS FOR TRUCK HOOD

(75) Inventors: Gerald Jay Angelo, Bellevue, WA (US); Daniel Kie?er, Kirkland, WA (US); Wayne K. Simons, Kent, WA (US); Steven H. Hovind, Bellevue, WA (US); Daniel Farmer, Coupeville, WA (US); Richard D. Wailes, Jr., Woodinville, WA (US); Erik David Hjorten, Everett, WA (US)

(73) Assignee: PACCAR Inc, Bellevue, WA (US)

(**) Term: 14 Years

(21) App1.No.: 29/238,134

(22) Filed: Sep. 12, 2005

(51) LOC (8) Cl. .................................................. .. 12-16

(52) US. Cl. .................................... .. D12/184; D12/196

(58) Field of Classi?cation Search .............. .. D12/184,

D12/196, 90492, 173, 96; 280/152.1, 8474849, 280/851; 296/185.1

See application ?le for complete search history.

(56) References Cited

U.S. PATENT DOCUMENTS

D29l,872 S 9/1987 Simons et a1. D29l,982 S 9/1987 Simons et a1.

(Continued) OTHER PUBLICATIONS

Kenworth Truck Company W900 brochure, Kirkland, Wash, 2005.

Kenworth Truck Company W900 brochure, Kirkland, Wash, 2002.

Kenworth Truck Company W900 brochure, Kirkland, Wash, 1 996.

Kenworth Truck Company T2000 brochure, Kirkland, Wash, 2005. Kenworth Truck Company T2000 brochure, Kirkland, Wash, 2002.

Kenworth Truck Company T800 brochure, Kirkland, Wash, 2005.

(Continued) Primary ExamineriMelody N. Brown (74) Attorney, Agent, or FirmAChriStenSen O’Connor Johnson Kindness PLLC

(57) CLAIM

The ornamental design for fender panels for truck hood, as shown and described.

DESCRIPTION

FIG. 1 is a front perspective view of fender panels for truck hood showing a ?rst embodiment of our new design; FIG. 2 is a top plan view of the fender panels for truck hood of FIG. 1; FIG. 3 is a bottom plan view of the fender panels for truck hood of FIG. 1; FIG. 4 is a front elevational view of the fender panels for truck hood of FIG. 1; FIG. 5 is a rear elevational view of the fender panels for truck hood of FIG. 1; FIG. 6 is a left side elevational view of the fender panels for truck hood of FIG. 1; FIG. 7 is a right side elevational view of fender panels for truck hood of FIG. 1; FIG. 8 is a front perspective view of a fender panels for truck hood showing a second embodiment of our new design; FIG. 9 is a top plan view of the fender panels for truck hood of FIG. 8; FIG. 10 is a bottom plan view of the fender panels for truck hood of FIG. 8; FIG. 11 is a front elevational view of the fender panels for truck hood of FIG. 8; FIG. 12 is a rear elevational view of the fender panels for truck hood of FIG. 8; FIG. 13 is a right side elevational view of the fender panels for truck hood of FIG. 8; and, FIG. 14 is a left side elevational view of the fender panels for truck hood of FIG. 8. The broken lines in the drawings form no part of the claimed design.

1 Claim, 8 Drawing Sheets



US D532,352 S Page 2

D307,731 D308,032 D312,805 D313,966 D320,583 D329,214 D366,638 D366,640 D382,841 D382,844 D384,019 D395,860 D403,636 D411,140 D411,494 D422,251 D423,990 D424,489 D425,450 D431,806 D433,980 D433,981 D434,347 D434,358 D435,816 D436,563 D436,894 D437,258 D437,570

U.S. PATENT DOCUMENTS

S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S

5/1990 5/1990

12/1990 1/1991

10/1991 9/1992 1/1996 1/1996 8/1997 8/1997 9/1997 7/1998 1/1999 6/1999 6/1999 4/2000 5/2000 5/2000 5/2000

10/2000 11/2000 11/2000 11/2000 11/2000 1/2001 1/2001 1/2001 2/2001 2/2001

Kerney et al. Kerney et al. Marlowe et al. Marlowe et al. Simons et al. Marlowe et al. Tucker et al. Tucker et al. Norwood et al. Norwood et al. Meryman et al. Meryman et al. Meryman et al. Meryman et al. Meryman et al. Bader et al. Meryman et al. Damon et al. Barraclough et al. Damon et al. Conway et al. Davis et al. Damon et al. Conway et al. Delashaw et al. Delashaw et al. Barraclough et al. Meryman et al. Meryman et al.

D446,175 S 8/2001 Hoyle, Jr. D475,657 S 6/2003 Wong et a1. D478,300 S 8/2003 Chiang D482,993 S 12/2003 Conway et al. D484,077 S 12/2003 Conway et al. D497,581 S 10/2004 Conway et al. D502,904 S 3/2005 Delashaw et al. D504,642 S * 5/2005 Perfetti et al. ........... .. D12/173

D511,727 S * 11/2005 Shaw et al. .............. .. D12/184

D514,483 S 2/2006 Chiang D518,761 S 4/2006 Chiang

OTHER PUBLICATIONS

Kenworth Truck Company T800 brochure, Kirkland, Wash,

2K(e(i13vilorth Truck Company T800 brochure, Kirkland, Wash,

Kggiyorth Truck Company T600 brochure, Kirkland, Wash,

2K(::(i15vi/orth Truck Company T600 brochure, Kirkland, Wash,

Kggiyorth Truck Company T600 brochure, Kirkland, Wash,

Kgeiiilorth Truck Company T300 brochure, Kirkland, Wash,

2K(::(i15vi/orth Truck Company T300 brochure, Kirkland, Wash, 2001.

* cited by examiner



U.S. Patent Nov. 21, 2006 Sheet 1 0f 8 US D532,352 S

Fig. I.




Fig.2.




Fig. 8.




////// /////’///

/ w .

F lg. 13.

/:’i:



United States Patent [19] Krans et a].

i 1 lllll Ill llll llllll llll ll lll lllll llll Illll llllllllllll I ’ USOOPP10289P

Plant 10,289 Mar. 17, 1998

Patent Number:

Date of Patent: [11]

[45]

[54] ‘MS-EXPRESS’ BERMUDAGRASS

[75] Inventors: Je?'rey V. Krans; H. Wayne Philley. both of Mississippi State. Miss.

[73] Assignee: Mississippi State University. Mississippi State. Miss.

[21] Appl. No.: 582,963

[22] Filed: Jan. 4, 1996

[51] Int. Cl.6 ..................................................... .. A01H 5/00

[52] US. Cl. Flt/90 [5 8] Field of Search ................................................ .. P1tJ90

[56] References Cited

PUBLICATIONS

Krans. V.J. et al.. "Registration of ‘MS-Express’ Bermuda grass" Crop Science 35:1507.

Primary Examiner—lames R. Feyrer Atromey, Agent, or Finn-Oblon. Spivak. McClclland.

Maier. & Neustadt. RC.

[57] ABSTRACT

An improved Bermudagrass plant. having superior properties. suitable for a variety of turf applications. is disclosed. The Bermudagrass is characterized by a medium green color. high-head density. moderate seed-head density. ?ne-leaf texture. good fall color retention. average sod

strength. excellent cold tolerance. good shade tolerance as compared to other Bermudagrasses. good dollar spot. and good leaf-spot resistance.

1 Drawing Sheet

1 BACKGROUND OF THE NEW PLANT

The present invention relates to a new and distinct variety of Bermudagrass. which has excellent turfgrass quality. good pest resistance and above-average environmental stress hardiness. The inventive Bermudagrass is suitable for use on residential lawns. sports ?elds. golf fairways and tess. The inventive Bermudagrass is characterized by a

medium green color. high-shoot density. moderate seed head-density. ?ne-leaf texture. good fall color retention. average sod strength. excellent cold tolerance. good shade tolerance as compared to other Bermuda grasses. good dollar spot and good leaf-spot resistance.

BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF THE FIGURES

The plant is illustrated in FIGS. 1-6. which are color photographs of the inventive Bermudagrass.

FIG. 1 re?ects whole plant features of mowed and unmowed turf.

FIG. 2 is a photograph of a ?eld plot of mowed turf. FIG. 3 is a photograph of a typical inflorescence structure

showing three racemes per stalk. FIG. 4 is a photograph re?ecting the leaf blade and sheath

features of the inventive plant. FIG. 5 is a photograph re?ecting an abaxial view of

spikelets of the inventive Bermudagrass. FIG. 6 is a photograph re?ecting an adaxial view of

spikelets of the inventive Bermudagrass. MS-Express (experimental name MSB 20) is a distinct

genotype of Cynodon that was developed and is vegatatively propagated at the Plant Science Research Center. Missis sippi Agricultural and Forestry Experiment Station. Missis sippi State. Miss. MS-Express originated from a single clone collected. from the 10th fairway at the Shady Oaks Country Club. Jackson. Miss. on Aug. 21. 1980. Persons knowledge able of Shady Oaks Country Club’s history said that this fairway was established with Bermudagrass seed in the 1913. has existed as a golf fairway since its original planting. and had not been intentionally replanted with Bermudagrass seed. sprigs. plugs or sod since 1913.

MS-Exprcss’s origin may be from anyone of the follow ing sources: (a) a seed within the original seed lot; (b) a seed

10

15

20

25

30

35

2 or plant introduced unintentionally to this site; or (c) a plant which developed as a result of an environmentally selected mutations. The identifying features of the original clone of

MS-Express were a medium green color. very fine leaf texture. prostrate leaf growth. and a high shoot density. The size of the original clone was approximately 2 ft in diameter. A 4 inch diameter plug was removed from the center of the clone and transplanted to a Bermudagrass nursery located at the Plant Science Research Center. MS-Express was 1 to 72 ecotypes of Bermudagrass planted and maintained in this nursery. MS-Express was evaluated for 5 years in this nursery.

During this period. MS-Express maintained its original green color. very ?ne leaf texture. prostrate growth of leaves. and high shoot density.

In 1986. MS-Express was included in a regional Ber mudagrass evaluation trial located at 15 sites encompassing 11 states. Data was collected from 1986 to 1990. The ?ndings from this study con?rmed MS-Express’s light to medium green color. prostrate leaf growth. and high shoot density.

Morphological Description

MS-Express has a medium leaf width (1.6 to 2.0 mm). short leaf length (17.8 to 29.8 mm). medium internode length (8.1 to 14.1 mm). medium internode diameter. (0.78 to 1.12 mm). and medium node diameter (1.03 to 1.47 mm) (Table 1).

Seed Head Density

The seed head density of MS-Express was measured at 3 location for 2 or 3 years depending on location (Fable 2). At all three locations. MS-Express had slightly higher than average seed head density compared to the other Bermuda grasses tested.

Genetic Color

The genetic color of MS-Express was visually rated at 7 locations for 1 or 2 years depending on location (Table 3). At all locations. MS-Express’s color was rated light to



Plant 10.289

3

medium green. The stolons are light green and rhizomes are white.

The color designation of MS-Express is 7.5 GY 5/8 using a Munsell color chart rating.

Shoot Density

The shoot density of MS-Express was measured at 2 location for l or 2 years depending on location (Table 4). MS-Express has a high shoot density that ranked average or slightly higher compared to the other Bermudagrasses tested.

Shade Tolerance

The shade tolerance of MS-Express was measured at 1 location for 2 years (Table 5). MS-Express has a good tolerance to shade that ranked above average compared to the other Bermudagrasses tested.

Ploidy Level and Chromosome Number

MS-Express’s ploidy level and chromosome number were determined and compared to other Bermudagrasses (Table 6). MS-Express was found to be a triploid with 27 chromo somes.

Turfgrass Quality Rating

The overall mrf quality of MS-Express was measured at 15 locations for 1. 2. or 3 years depending on location (Table 7). MS-Express has excellent turfgrass quality. In compari son to other Bermudagrasses tested. MS-Expressed at or near the top of the rankings depending on location.

Leaf Texture

Leaf texture based on a visual comparison was measured at 8 locations for l or 2 years depending on location (Table 8). MS-Express has a ?ne leaf texture that ranked well above average when compared to the other Bermudagrasses tested.

Establishment Rate

The establishment rate of MS-Express was measured at 6 locations during the 1986 establishment year (Table 9). MS-Express had the highest establishment rate 4 to 5 weeks after planting compared to the other Bermudagrasses tested.

Fall Color Retention

Fall color retention of MS-Express was measured during the month of November at 6 locations for l or 3 years depending on location (Table 10). MS-Express had good fall color retention that ranked at or slightly less than average when compared to other the other Bermudagrasses tested

Unmowed Height and Sod Strength

The unmowed height and sod strength of MS-Express was measured at 1 location for 1 year and 1 location for 2 years. respectively (Table 11). MS-Express had a low unmowed height and average sod strength compared to the other Bermudagrasses tested.

Low Temperature Kill

The low temperature kill of MS-Express was measured at 1 location for 2 consecutive years (Table 12). During both years. MS-Express showed better than average low tempera ture tolerance compared to the other Bermudagrasses tested.

4

Disease Resistance

MS-Express’s resistance to leafspot (Helrninthosporium spp.) and dollar spot (Sclerotinia spp.) was measured at 1 location for 2 years (Fable 13). MS-Express showed good resistance to leafspot and slightly above average suscepti bility to dollar spot compared to other Bennudagrasses tested.

Distinguishing Features of MS-Express

MS-Express can be distinguished by morphological and ttn'f performance characteristics. MS-Express has high turf density and quality as illustrated in pot and ?eld plot culture (FIG. 1 and 2). MS-Express’s shoot structure is pilose on the abaxial and adaxial leaf blade surfaces. pubescence tufted at the ligule margins. and glabrous on the adaxial leaf surface and sheath (FIG. 4). MS-Express has a raceme in?orescence structure with 3 racemes attached per stalk in a single whorl (FIG. 3). Spikelet density is one spikelet attached every 1.73 mm on the raceme stalk. Length of an average spikelet is 2.30 mm with glumes extending '/_1 to 1/z the length of a ?oret (FIG. 5 and 6). The ?ower of MS-Express has a purple stigma and yellow anthers.

MS-Express has a narrower leaf than MS-Choice and Midiron. but a wider leaf width than MS-Pride. Tifgreen. Tifway II. and Tifway (Table 1). Leaf length of MS-Express is shorter than Midiron and Tufcote. There were no differ ence in internode length between MS-Express and the other Bermudagrasses tested. The internode and node diameters of MS-Express were larger than MS-Pride. Tifway l1. and Tifway. but smaller than MS-Choice and Texturf 10. Seed head density of MS-Express was higher than MS-Choice. Tifway. Tifway H. Texturf 10. Tufcote. Midiron. and MS-Pride (Table 2).

MS-Express has turf performance characteristics that dis tinguish it from other Berrnudagrasses. Compared to other ?ne textured Bermudgrasses. MS-Express has a signi?cantly faster rate of establishment (Table 9). This feature is impor tant under putting green management because rapid estab lishment re?ects a shortened time prior to playability. In addition. MS-Express showed excellent tolerance to winter ldll (Table 12) and a ?ne leaf texture (Fable 8). These characteristics are important because Bermudagrass winter kill is common in the South and ?ne texture is necessary for putting green quality.

MS-Express. like all turf grasses. has a tendency to thatch. The tendency to thatch in this grass is limited. The thatch is comprised of dead leaves. dead or living stolons and dead or living crowns. In contrast to other Bermudagrasses. MS-Express has an average tendency to thatch.

The mowing height range for MS-Express is from 3/1¢s-~% inches. ‘This Bermudagrass is suitable for use for golf putting greens.

Other performance characteristics of MS-Express ranked above average and included good turf quality. high shoot density. good fall color retention. good shade tolerance. and good disease resistance. The following additional distinctive feamres are noted:

(a) Leaf color is lime green and rated a 7.5 GY 5/8 based on a Munsell® color chart for plant tissue. There is no anthocyanin pigmentation expressed in leaves during the fall. The average leaf width is 1.8 mm and average length 23.8 mm.



Plant 10.289 5

(b) The grass has a dense canopy of leaves erect from a prostrate base of creeping. strong stolons. Rhizomes are branched profusely. Stolon color is 5 GY 6/8 based on a Munsell® color chart for plant tissue. There is no antho cyanin pigmentation expressed in stolons during the fall. The average stolon internode diameter is 0.95 mm. the average stolon node diameter is 1.25 mm. and average stolon internode length is 11.1 mm.

(c) The grass has an extensive ?brous root system initiated from the nodes of stolons and rhizomes.

(d) Leaves are folded in the bud shoot; the blades are mostly ?at or slightly V-shaped with only the midvein visible; and the leaf tip is tapered to an acute apex.

(e) The grass has a moderate frequency of in?orescence formation having an average density of 235 in?orescences per square meter. Average height of culms is 30 mm. The in?orescences consists of 2 to 3 digitate spikes at the top of the main stem. folded down at a 30 to 40 degree angle from vertical. spikelets sessiled and closely appressed The average length of each spike is 32 mm.

(f) The grass blade is pilose on the abaxial and adaxial surface. The ligule consists of a fringe of hairs. The sheath is glabrous. split with margins overlapping. and pubes cence tufted at the side of the ligule. The collar is a continuous narrow band. glabrous and auricles are absent.

(g) The spikelets are glabrous in two rows. blunt at their base and pointed at their tips. Spikelets are attached an average distance of 1.73 mm along the spikes. borne singly on short branches. The length of an average spikelet is 2.3 mm with glumes extending V1 to 1/z the length of a ?oret. The spikelet has stigmas of light purple-red color rated as a 5 RP 7/8 based on a Munsel® color chart for plant tissue.

(h) The grass has a somatic chromosome number of 27 and classed as a tn'ploid.

TABLE 1

A quantitative comparison of morphological features for describ' the u - and u I . . ~ 5,

Leaf Leaf Inter-node hternode Node Bernmdagrzss Width Length Length Diameter Diameter Entry mm

MS-Pride 1.3 29.0 11.8 0.65 0.85 MS-Choice 2.4 22.6 10.2 1.43 1.65 Midiron 2.3 35.8 15.7 1.00 1.35 Texturf 10 1.8 22.9 9.4 1.28 1.28 Tlxr?cote 1.7 33.7 12.9 1.10 1.33 MS-Express 1.8 23.8 11.1 0.95 1.25 Tifgreen 1.3 22.3 9.4 0.90 1.22 Tlfway 11 1.3 27.2 10.9 0.64 0.85 Tifway 1.2 28.2 11.8 0.67 0.89 LSD (.05) 0.22 5.66 3.02 0.172 0.222 Mean 1.65 27.27 11.47 0.93 1.18

TABLE 2

Comparative seed head density of MS-Express and nine other bermudagasses.

Field Plot Locations

Bermudagrass Starkville Las Cruces Blacksburg Entry Mississippi New Mexico Virginia

MS-Clnice 8.81 9.0 9.0 Tifgreen 4.0 4.7 6.2 Tifway 7.0 7.8 8.2 Tifway II 7.3 7.8 7.8 Textm'f 10 5.3 8.0 6.7

6

TABLE Z-continued

Comparative seed head density of MS-Express and nine other bennudavrasses.

Field Plot Locations

Bermudagrass Starkville Las Cruces Blacksburg Entry Mississippi New Mexico Virginia

'Iufcote 7.5 5.3 7.7 Midiron 5.7 5.0 7.3 MS-Pride 7 .3 7 .9 7 .7 MS-Express 4.3 5.1 6.5 Arizona Common 4.7 5.9 6.7 LSD (.05) 0.77 0.67 0.82 Mean 6.2 6.6 7.4 Cultivar X Year * " **

interaction. Years data was 1987 1986 1987 collected. 1988 1987 1988

1988

‘Seedheaddensityratingbasedona l to9sca1e; with 1 =highseedheacl density and 9 = no seed heads. *3‘" Signi?cant at the .05 and .01 level of probability, respectively.

TABLE 3

Comparative genetic color of MS-Express and nine other bennudagrasses.

Field Plot Location

Bermudagrass 'Ihcson Santa Ana Gainsville Starkville Entry Arizona California Florida Mississippi

MS-Choioe 7.01 9.0 7.3 7.7 Tifgreen 6.3 7.0 5.2 5.0 'Iifway 6.7 8.0 7.0 6.3 'Iifway 11 6.3 8.0 6.8 7.0 Tcatturf 10 6.3 7.7 5.8 5.3 Titfcote 6.7 6.7 5.8 5.0 Midimn 6.7 7.7 5.7 5.3 MS-Prirle 6.0 7.7 6.8 7.0 MS-Express 6.3 7.7 6.2 5.0 Arizona Common 5.3 5.7 5.2 5.0 LSD (.05) NS 0.75 0.55 0.65 Mean 6.4 7.5 6.2 5.9 Cultivar X Year ” interaction. Years data was 1987 1987 1987 1988 collected. 1988

Field Plot Location

Bermudagrass Las Cruces Stilwater Cleveland Entry New Mexico Oklahoma Texas

MS-Chuice 7.5 8.0 8.7 'I'xfgrecn 6.8 6.3 7.7 Tifway 7.0 7.7 9.0 Tifway 11 7.7 6.0 8.0 Texturf 10 7.0 7.3 8.0 Tufcote 7.2 4.7 7.3 Midiron 6.3 6.7 7.0 MS-Pridc 7.7 7.0 8.7 MS-Express 6.7 6.3 77 Arizona Common 5.5 6.0 6.7 LSD (.05) NS 1.08 0.80 Mean 6.9 6.6 7.9 Cultivar X Year NS interaction. Years data was 1986 1988 1988 collected. 1987

lGenetic color rating based on a l to 9 scale‘. with l = light geen color and 9 = dark green color. “3" Signi?cant at the .05 and .01 level of probability, respectively.



Plant 10.289 7 8

TABLE 4 TABLE 6-continued

Comparative shoot densig of MS~§gress and nine other bermudawses. The ploidy level and chromosome number of MS-Express and nine other berrnudagyses.

Field Plot Location Bennuclagmss

Bennudagrass Las Cruces Stillwater Entry Ploidy Level Chromosome Number Entry New Mexico Oklahoma

Trfgreen 27 M50106: 8.4‘ 8.0 Trfway 27 'l'ifgreen 8.4 7.7 Tifway II 27 MS-Pride 8.1 7.3 Texturf 10 7.8 8.0 1Chromosome numbers were determined using squashes of root tips. 'Iifway 7.7 7.7 Midiron 7.9 7.0 Tt?w?y n 7.3 7.7 MS-Express 7.3 7.3 Tufcote 6.3 7.7 TABLE 7 Arizona Common 3.9 6.0 LSD (0.05) 0.61 0.95 Comparative mrfgrass quality of Mean 7.3 7.5 MS-Express and nine other bernmdagrasses. Entry x Year *"‘ NA hum-mam Field Plot Location

Year(s) data was 1986 1987 recorded 1987 = II - = 1 = Tucson Santa Ana Riverside Gainsville

Entry Arizona California California Florida

lShoot density rating based on a visual scale; with 1 : low density and 9 = _ high dmi‘y‘ MS-Chorce 7.51 6.3 4.9 5.7 *, "'" Signi?cant at the 0.05 and 0.01 level of probability, respectively. Tifgl'een 7.3 5.8 5.4 4.8

Tifway 7.8 6.5 5.5 5.8 Tit‘way H 7.9 6.5 5.7 5.7 Texturf 10 7.8 5.8 5.1 5.1 Tufcote 7.3 5.4 5.2 5.6 Midiron 6.2 5.8 4.9 4.9

TABLE 5 MS-Pride 8.3 6.5 5.3 6.0 ~ MS-Express 7.8 5.9 5.8 5.2

Ms- ?p'l'l‘?nihi??if .1 Am» comm 5.5 4.4 4.1 .9 LSD (.05) 0.54 0.33 0.55 0.32

“as gas; Mean 7.3 5.9 5.2 5.4 2:: Shade Tolerance Fmivm,‘ X Y” " NS "‘

rnteracnon.

Mschoic: 492 Year(s) data was 1988 1986 1986 1987 MS_PI-kk 4'5 collected. 1987 1987 1988 'nfwn 43, 1988 1988 MS-Express 4.3 Tifway H 33 Field Plot Location 'Iifway 3.7 Texmrf m 3.5 Be Manhanan Wichita Baton Rogue Silver Springs Tufcow 3_4 Entry Kansas Kansas Louisiana Maryland Arizona Common 25 Midi,“ 24 MS-Choiee 6.9 3.0 7.0 6.0 LSD (.105) 039 Tlfgneen 6.9 7.8 7.7 6.2 Mean 3_7 Tifway 6.3 8.2 7 .6 6.3 cum“!- X Yea,- " 'Iifway II 6.5 8.4 7.6 6.4 mm,“ Texturf 10 6.7 7.9 6.9 5.3 Yam data was 1937 'I‘ufoote 6.9 7.7 7.3 5.8 collected 1933 Midiron 6.7 7.7 6.7 5.4

MS-Pride 6.5 8.3 7.5 6.4

‘Field plots located in Starkville, MS. M§-E1rr=ss 6-8 8-1 7-6 17 2Shade tolerance based on a visual scale of 1 to 9: with 9 = excellent shade Arizona Common 5-0 5'9 6'3 5D tolerance and 1 = pom- shade tolerance, LSD (.05) 0.38 0.30 0.59 NS ", “"‘ Signi?cant at the 0.05 and 0.01 level of probability. respectively. Mean 6.5 7.8 7.2 6.1

Cultivar X Year " ** *

interaction Year(s) data was 1987 1986 1987 1988 collected. 1988 1987 1988

TABLE 6 1933

The ploidy level and chromosome number of MS-Express and nine other Fi?ld Plot Local-i911 bermudawes. Starkville Las Cruces Cleveland Beltsville

36mm Entry ' issippi New Mexico Texas Maryland Entry Ploidy Level Chromosome Number Ms‘cho'lce 6-1‘ 7-3 8-0 7D

Trfgreen 7.4 6.3 9.0 7.3 MS-Clnice Tetraploicl 361 Tifway 6.7 7.0 7.7 6.6 Texturf 10 36 'I'tfway 11 6.9 7.5 8.0 6.8 'Iirrfcote 36 Texturf 10 5.6 6.8 5.7 6.5 Midiron 36 Tnfcote 5.5 6.2 5.7 6.7 Arizona Common 36 Midiron 5.1 6.5 5.3 5.8 MS-Expues 'Iriploid 27 MS -Pride 6.9 7 .2 8 .0 6.9 MS-Pride 27 MS-Exptess 7.6 6.7 8.7 7 .0



9

TABLE 7-c0nt1'nued

Plant 10.289 10

TABLE 8-conl1'nued

MS-Express and nine other bermudagrasses. Comparative mfg-ass quality of Comparative leaf texture of MS-Express and nine other bermudagrasses.

Midiron 6.8 7.7 43 Arizona Common 4.1 3.8 4.0 4.5 MS-Pride 8.5 9.0 6.0 LSD (.05) 0.19 0.49 1.14 0.38 MS-Express 8.8 9.0 6.0 Mean 6.2 6.5 7.0 6.5 Arizona Common 4.2 6.3 2.3 Cultivar X Year “" “‘* NA ** LSD (.05) 0.79 0.79 1.19 interaction. Mean 7.3 8.1 5.1 Yearfs) data was 1986 1986 1988 1986 Cultivar X Year ** collected. 1987 1987 1987 interaction.

1988 1988 1988 Yea.r(s) data was 1986 1988 1983 collected. 1987

Field Plot Location 1Leaf texture rating based on a l to 9 scale; with 1 = coarse leaf texture and

Bermudagrass Blacksburg Blackstone Virginia Beach 9 = ?ne leaf texture. Emmy Virginia vu-ginia Virginia *, " Signi?cant at the 0.05 and 0.01 level of probability, respectively.

MS-Choice 5.9 6.8 6.7 Tifgreen 5.9 6.8 6.2 Tifway 6.5 7 .0 6.3 Tifway 11 6.1 6.8 6.9 TABLE 9 Texturf 10 6.0 6.6 5.7 Tufcom 5.8 64 49 Comparative establishment rate 4-5 weeks after planting of MS

Midiron 5.0 5.8 5.9 Mme; MS-Pride 5.8 6.8 6.4 _ ‘ MSEXPNSS 6.5 63 61) Field Plot Locations Arizona Common 4.2 5.0 3.9 . _ LSD (05) 0'43 038 Q77 BEEN-112281185 Staxkvdle Beltsville Blacksburg I“can i8 65 59 Entry Maryland Virginia Cultivar X Year "' " NA mm?om MS-Express 3.0 7.0 2.7 Year(s) data was 1986 1986 1986 Al'c‘m?m 6-3 7° 27 collected‘ 1937 1988 NUHBX Sahara 5.7 7.3 2.3

1938 NMS 15 4.7 8.0 3.3 FB-l 19 4.3 5 .7 2.7

1'I‘nrfgrass quality ratings based on a l to 9 scale with 1 = poor turfgrass ms 2 ‘to 8'0 2-7 quality and 9 = 616611611: turf uality. Time" 3-3 60 2-3 *, " Signi?cant at the .05 .01 level of probability, respectively. Rs-l 3-3 6-0 3D

A-29 3.3 6.7 1.7 Midlawn 3.3 5.0 3.0 Varnout 3.7 5.7 2.3 NM 43 2.7 5.7 2.0

TABLE 3 Sonesta 2.7 6.3 2.7 MS-Choice 3.3 4.3 2.3

Comparative leaf texture of MS-Exprcss and nine other bennudagrasses. MS 4 3-7 5~7 2-0 Texturf 10 3.0 4.7 2.0

Field Plot Locations Mid?eld 4.3 6.0 2.3 Guymon 3.7 5.3 2.7

Tucson Wichita Gainsville Stnrkville NM 471 3.3 4.0 2.0 Cultivar Arizona Kansas Florida Mississippi NM 507 3.3 4.0 2.0

Tifway 2.3 4.0 2.3 MS-Choice 5.31 6.7 5.7 5.0 Midimn 3.3 4.7 1.7 Tifgreen 7.3 9.0 7.5 7.7 Tufcote 3.0 4.0 2.0 Tlfway 7.0 7.7 7.8 6.0 'Iifway 11 2.3 4.3 2.0 'I‘rfway II 6.3 8.3 8.2 6.0 NM 72 2.7 2.7 2.0 Texturf 10 5.7 8.0 5.5 5.0 MS-Pride 1.7 3.0 1.7 Thfcote 5.7 6.0 7.0 5.0 NM 375 2.7 2.3 1.7 Midiron 5.3 4.0 5.8 5.0 CT-23 2.0 3.0 1.7 MS-Pride 6.7 7.3 8.0 6.0 LSD (.05) 1.3 1.1 0.7 MS-Express 7.7 9.0 7.3 8.0 Arizona Common 4.3 3.7 2.7 4.3 Field Plot Locations LSD (.05) 0.92 0.68 1.01 0.43 Mean 6.1 7.0 6.6 5.8 Bermudagrass Blackstone Virginia Beach Cultivar X Year "“" Enn'y Virginia Virginia Mean interaction. Year(s) data was 1987 1986 1987 1988 MS-Express 7.3 5.3 5.1 collected. 1988 Az-Comrnon 7.3 5.3 5.0

Numex Sahara 4.7 3.3 4.7 Field Plot Locations NMS 15 4.0 3.3 4.7

FB-l 19 6.3 4.0 4.6 Las Cruces Baton Rogue Virginia NMS 2 4.3 3.7 4.5

Cultivar New Mexico Louisiana Virginia Tifgreen 5.3 4.7 4.3 RS-l 4.3 3.7 4.1

MS-Choice 6.5 6.3 4.7 A-29 4.7 4.0 4.1 'Iifgreen 9.0 9.0 7.0 Midlawn 4.3 3.7 3.9 'Iifway 8.2 9.0 6.0 Vamont 4.3 4.3 ‘ 3.9 Tifway H 8.3 9.0 5.7 NM 43 4.3 3.3 3.8 Texturf 10 5.8 6.3 5.7 Sonesta 3.7 3.7 3.9 Tufcote 6.7 9.0 3.7 MS-Choice 4.7 3.7 3.7



Plant 10,289 11 12

TABLE 9-oontinued TABLE ll-continued

Comparative establishment rate 4-5 weeks after planting of MS- Comparative height of unmo’wed plots and sod strength of MS-Express Exw and 27 other berrnudagmses.‘ and nine other bermudagasses.

NMS 4 3.7 2.7 3.5 91am Mgasmm Texturf 10 4.0 4.0 3.5 Mid?eld 2.7 2.0 3.5 unmoved 50d Guymon 3-0 2-7 3-5 Bermudagrass Height Strength NM 471 4.3 3.0 3.3 Elm-y cm lbs NM 507 4.7 2.3 3.3 Tifway 4.7 2.0 3.1 Texturf 10 4.3 77.8 Midiron 3.0 2.3 3.0 “Iifway 4.3 95.2 'llufcote 3.3 1.3 2.7 MS-Express 4.0 86.7 Tifway 11 2.7 2.0 2.7 MS-Pride 4.0 157.7 NM 72 3.3 1.7 2.5 Tifgteen 3.3 74.7 MS-Pride 3.7 2.0 2.4 LSD (0.05) 1.8 34.5 NM 375 2.3 2.0 2.2 Mean 7.5 78.5 C1123 1.7 1.0 1.9 Fmtry 1 Year Interaction NA NS LSD (.05) 1.5 1.3 0.5 Year(s) data was collected 1986 1987

1988 ‘Comparative establishment rate based on a visual scale of l to 9; with 1 = Location Las Cruces Starkville minimal cover and 9 = complete cover. New Mexico Mississippi

1The shoot height was determined by measuring the height of the grass at its maximum length above the soil surface. zSod strength was determined by measuring the amount of force (lbs)

TABLE 10 required to shear an 18 X 24 x 1" section of sod.

Comparative fall color retention of MS-Pride and nine other bermuda .

I . TABLE 12 Field Plot Location

Bermudn- Raleigh Starkville 1.04:. 2 Cmpmm “f m" sigma‘? M125" MS mm“ and mm grass Beltsville North Mississ- Las Crnces New Entry Maryland Carolina ippi New Mexico Mexico Ycar

MS-Pride 5.3‘ 6.7 6.5 4.3 5.3 Tifway 4.8 6.7 6.2 4.6 5.7 Bm‘?w ‘987% m . 1988 Trfway 11 4.5 7.3 6.5 4.4 5.7 Em mmh‘y Tufcote 2.8 6.3 5.3 3.2 3.3 M60” 01 0 Midirion 2.3 3.7 4.2 3.1 3.3 “green 33 1;, Texturf 10 2.2 5.3 3.2 2.6 5.0 MSEXPMS 17 i0 MS-Choice 2.0 5.7 4.2 3.4 4.3 4mm- 10 3.3 100 Trfgreen 2.0 6.3 3.2 2.0 4.0 Msmde 5D 25D MS-Express 1.7 6.7 3.0 2.1 4.3 Midimn 11;, 11.7 Arizona 1.7 5.7 4.5 3.4 2.3 Tlfway 50 36.7 mm Tifway 11 5.0 36.7 151) (0.05) 0.68 1.54 0.43 0.76 1.74 Msshoice 11.7 3&7 Mean 2.9 6.0 4.7 3.3 4.3 m Comm 350 833 Cum” 1 "' NA ” " NA LSD (0.05) 11.6 12.9

_Y=" _ Mean 8.2 25.2 interaction Year(s) data 1986 1986 1986 1986 1988 1%“ Plot Wm located in Behaving‘ MD ‘:Eected 1987 1988 2The % of plot area lost to low temperature killed was based on a visual C evaluation of turf lost immediately following spring green-up in May.

‘Color matings based on a visual scale of color with; 9 = green color and l = brown color. ‘, " Signi?cant at the 0.05 and 0.01 level of probability, respectively.

TABLE 13

Comparative leafspot (Helminthosporium spp.) and dollarspot (Scletotinia spp.) disease resistance of MS-Errpress and nine other

TABLE 11 bermudaws.

Comparative height of unmowed plots and sod strength of MS-Express Bermudagmss Disease Rat1_n' g and nine other bernmdagrasses.

Entry Hehninthosporimn Dollar Spot Plant Measurement

MS-Pride 8.8‘ 8.4 unmoved Sod MS-Erpress 8.7 7.7

3e;- ....-. as He' 1 S th Trfgreen 8.3 7.3 Em. ' £1 "Eff 'Iifway n 8.3 8.5

Textul'f 10 8.2 8.7 Arizona Common 31.7‘ 26.82 Trfway 8.2 8.7 'Itrfeote 8.7 39.3 MS-Choice 7.9 6.4 Midiron 5.7 39.5 Midiron 7.8 8.7 'l'ifway II 5.0 121.5 Tufcote 7 .0 8.8 MS-Choice 4.3 65.5 Arizona Common 6.2 8.6



Plant 10,289 13

TABLE l3-continued

14

TABLE Iii-continued

Comparative leafspot (Helminthosporium spp.) and dollarspot (Sclerotinia spp.) disease resistance of MS-Express and nine other

bennudagrasses.

Bermudagrass Disease Rating

Entry Helminthosporitmi Dollar Spot

LSD (0.05) 0.73 0.83 Mean 7.9 8.2 Entry in Year " **

Intemcticm Yea1(s) data was 1986 1986 collected 1988 1988

Comparative leafspot (l-Ielminthosporim spp.) and dollalspot (Scletotinia spp.) disease resistance of MS-Express and nine other

bermudaggsses.

Eermudagrass Disease Ratg' 3

Katy Helminthosporium Dollar Spot

lDisease rating based on a visual scale ofl to 9; with 9 = no disease damage (excellent disease resistance) and l = high incidence of disease damage (poor disease resistance). ", *" Signi?cant at the 0.05 and 0.01 level of pmbability, respectively.

What is claimed is: 1. A Bermudagrass plant substantially as described and

illustrated in the speci?cation herein.

* * * * *




July 14, 2017


Day Three

Protecting and Enforcing the Intellectual Property of Your Clients

I. Introduction to Enforcement (offensive)

II. Mechanics of Enforcement: Part One

A. Cease and desist letters

B. Licensing

C. Patent challenges

D. Trademark challenges

E. Copyright challenges

III. Mechanics of Enforcement: Part Two

A. IPRs

B. PGRs

C. Ex parte reexamination proceedings

D. Third-party submissions

E. Trademark oppositions and cancellations

IV. Identifying IP for Your Clients

V. Discussing IP with Your Clients

VI. Summary and Evaluations




HELPFUL WEBSITES FOR IP INFORMATION

https://www.copyright.gov – United States Copyright Office

o https://www.copyright.gov/title17/title17.pdf ‐ Copyright Office Circular 92,

December 2016

http://www.uspto.gov – United States Patent and Trademark Office

o www.uspto.gov/patent – for patent information

o https://www.uspto.gov/trademark – for trademark information

http://www.uspto.gov/trademark/laws‐regulations/madridprotocol

‐‐ for information about the Madrid Agreement Concerning the

International Registration of Marks ("the Madrid Protocol")

o www.uspto.gov/learning‐resources – for general information and questions

o https://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/mpep/ – Manual of Patent

Examining Procedure

o https://www.uspto.gov/patent/laws‐and‐regulations/examination‐policy/su

bject‐matter‐eligibility ‐ Patent subject matter eligibility

www.wipo.int– World Intellectual Property Organization

o http://www.wipo.int/madrid/en/ – for additional information about the

Madrid Protocol for international trademark applications

o http://www.wipo.int/treaties/en/ip/paris/ – for additional information

about the Paris Convention for the Protection of Industrial Property ("the

Paris Convention") concerning international protection of intellectual

property

www.epo.org – European Patent Office

https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/BILLS‐114s1890enr/html/BILLS‐114s1890enr.htm

– Federal Trade Secrets Act

http://apps.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=19.108&full=true– Uniform Trade

Secrets Act as adopted by Washington State, Chapter 19.108 RCW

www.ndasforfree.com/UTSA.html – for general information on nondisclosure

agreements, the Uniform Trade Secrets Act, and sample nondisclosure agreements

(not recommended for any purpose other than to obtain additional general

information; consult an IP attorney/professional with specific questions)



intellectual property 2017 av... · brian mcmahon, member, christensen o'connor johnson...

Documents