Skip to main content

Adrienne B. Naumann

Attorney Profile

Top Rated Intellectual Property Attorney in Skokie, IL

Law Office of Adrienne B. Naumann
8210 North Tripp
Skokie, IL 60076
Phone: 847-329-8185
Fax: 847-329-8750
Selected to Super Lawyers: 2017 - 2022
Licensed in Illinois Since: 1984
Practice Areas: Intellectual Property
  • Free Consultation
Attorney Profile

Ms. Naumann earned her law degree from Chicago-Kent College of Law with high honors and as a published member of the Law Review. She also holds a master’s degree from the University of Illinois where she was the recipient of grants, research assistantships and teaching assistantships. Ms. Naumann was elected to the Nu Pi Sigma Honorary Society at the University of Chicago and received a Jurisprudence Award in Torts from her law school.

Admitted to practice in Illinois, Ms. Naumann is licensed to appear before federal courts including the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals, and the Federal Circuit. Ms. Naumann has provided intellectual property law for almost 30 years, and she provides this expertise with flat attorney fees for patent, trademark and copyright prosecution. Ms. Naumann is also an expert in the laws of trade secrets, confidential information and shop rights. 

Ms. Naumann currently serves as Secretary and Board member of the University of Chicago Women’s Alliance as well as Board of Directors member for the University of Chicago Alumni  Club.

Ms. Naumann has also served upon the e-discovery pilot program committee sponsored by  the  U. S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit  and the Alumni Board of Directors at the Illinois Institute of Technology. During her tenure on the e-discovery pilot committee, Ms. Naumann presented on e-discovery topics and drafted a comprehensive proposal to reduce e-litigation costs for small and medium sized entities. Ms. Naumann has also served as Chairman of the Science, Technology and Law committee for the Chicago Bar Association, and she currently remains a member of this Association.

Ms. Naumann has written  and published extensively on a wide range of cutting-edge intellectual property topics.  Ms. Naumann is also a faculty member of  APEXCLE where she records her original and accredited continuing legal education intellectual property presentations. These video presentations are generally ninety minutes in length and are distributed nationally for CLE credit to participating attorneys. 

 

 

 

Practice Areas
  • 100%Intellectual Property
Focus Areas

Copyrights, Patents, Trademarks, Intellectual Property Law

Selections

6 Years Super Lawyers
  • Super Lawyers: 2017 - 2022

About Adrienne B. Naumann

First Admitted: 1984, Illinois

Professional Webpage: http://www.naumannpatentcopyright.com/About/

Educational Background

  • M.S., University of Illinois
  • B.A., University of Chicago 

Special Licenses/Certifications

  • Licensed to practice before the united States Patent & Trademark Office, 1989

Other Outstanding Achievements

  • Election to the Board of Directors for the University of Chicago Alumni Club, 2019
  • continued A+ rating from Better Business Bureau of Northern Illinois
  • Re-election to the national University of Chicago Women's Alliance Alumni Board of Directors as Program Coordinator. Election to the national University of Chicago Alumni Club Board of Directors, 2019

Scholarly Lectures/Writings

  • This article discusses this recent Surpreme Court decision which held that Congress did not have constitutional authority to enact the Copyright Remedy Clarification Act., Sole author, Who's the Pirate Here? Allan v. Cooper, Intellectual Property for Business People, Attorneys, Paralegals And Business People Worldwide, 2020
  • This article addresses the circumstances under which a diagnostic medical method comprisesi patent eligible subject matter. To do so, it discusses a recent federal district court decision in which the patent owner's patents were invalidated because  there were no new claimed elements in addition to a non-eligible natural phenomenon., sole author, IT HAPPENED ONE NIGHT: Caredx v Natera, Intellectual Property for Business People, Including But Not Exclusively: Legal, Paralegal, Business, Finance, Economics, Visual Arts, Music, Literary And Inventors, 2021
  • This article confirms the minimal effect of patent assertion letters upon licensing for patent assertion entities. It also provides information from the 2016 Federal Trade Commission Report about  the percentage of  licenses  which generate the most revenue for patent assertion entities, as well as the recognizedsolvency of many of these entities., sole author, RUMOR HAS IT: Federal Trade Commission Report on Patent Assertion Entities continued, Intellectual Property for Business People, Legal, Paralegal, Business, Financial, Economic, Art, Dance, Literary, Biotechnology And Others, 2021
  • This article addresses the legal and financial attributes of a large portion of non-practicing entities which commence  patent infringement lawsuits and/or license many patents in their portfolios.. The conclusion is that the 2016 Federal Trade Commission Report  contradicts a great many  factual misconceptions about the funding and structure of these businesses. , Sole author, Something to Talk About: Federal Trade Commission Report on Patent Assertion Entities, "Intellectual Property for Business People", Legal, Paralegal, Scientific, Engineering, Business, Art, Literary And Technical Industries, 2021
  • This article addresses the Oregon state anti-patent statute  which imposes civil liability for the distribution of bad faith patent infringement notification/warning letters. Two Oregon federal district court decisions held that this state law was pre-empted by the federal patent statute with respect to evidence requirements and pleading requirements., sole author, GO WEST YOUNG PATENT HOLDER: Oregon anti-patent statute, " Intellectual Property for Business People", Non-exclusive List: Legal, Paralegal, Business, Finance, Economics, Visual Art, Software, Literary, Inventors And Educational Institutions, 2021
  • This article addresses the 2016 government report which comprehensively studied the business and litigation practices of patent holding companies in the United States.  The article proposes that patent holding entities  (i) are  the only viable recourse for independent inventors to protect their investments from patent infringement;  (ii) specialize in to access  to compensation for independent inventors ;and (iii) provide an efficient equitable patent marketplace., Sole author, NOT SORRY: Federal Trade Commission Report on Patent Holding Companies, "Intellectual Property for Business People", Legal, Paralegal, Scientific, Engineering, Business, Art, Literary And Technical Industries, 2021
  • This article addresses the 2016 Federal Trade Commission report on patent holding companies as well as their business and litigation practices.  This report includes the proposition that small and  medium sized business innovators, as well as independent inventors, absolutely require patent holding companies for patent enforcement, because they have no other recourse against misappropriation of patented inventions., Sole author, NOT SORRY : Federal Trade Commission Report on Patent Holding Companies Part 2, "Intellectual Property for Business People", Legal, Paralegal, Scientific, Engineering, Business, Art, Literary And Technical Industries, 2021
  • This article addresses a federal district court decision upholding the North Caroline state statute which imposes penalties for sending a bad faith  patent infringement cease and desist letter. The court dismisses constitutional, statutory interpretation and federal pre-emption reasons why the statute does not comprise a legitimate exercise of the state's regulation for unfair competition., Sole author, A Farewell to Patents: NAPCO v. Landmark Technology, A, LLC , "Intellectual Property for Business People", Legal, Paralegal, Scientific, Engineering, Business, Art, Literary And Technical Industries, 2021
  • This article addresses a recent split in federal court opinion on the meaning of public display in the United States Copyright Act. In the  New York federal district court decision of Nicklen v. Sinclair Broadcast Group, Inc., the court held that (i)automatic display of a third party's content from any server, and (ii) as an integral portion  within another person's online work, (iii) comprises copyright infringement if there is no third party  authorization for the automatic display. , Sole author, Dangerous Liaisons: Embedding third party content, "Intellectual Property for Business People", Legal, Paralegal, Scientific, Engineering, Business, Art, Literary And Technical Industries, 2021
  • This article discusses U.S. federal district court decisions  with litigation under state law anti-patent  statutes  as counterclaims in patent infringement litigation. These state statutes  enable an alleged infringer to counterclaim that the  patent owner sent a cease and desist in bad faith and is liable for damages  to the alleged patent infringer. The anti-patent statutes were ostensibly implemented to curb unethical behavior of  patent owning entities who distribute hundreds of phony infringement letters to other businesses. The cases to date clearly illustrate that these state statutes have been used exclusively  to harass business competitors, and I have found no decisions  in which a truly unethical entity has been sanctioned., Sole author, A little less conversation, a little more action please: Blackberry Fallout Part 3, "Intellectual Property for Business People", Legal, Paralegal, Scientific, Engineering, Business, Art, Literary And Technical Industries, 2021
  • This article addresses state anti-patent statutes which were ostensibly enacted to curb patent owning companies which send bad faith patent assertion letters to targeted entities and individuals. These companies then pressure these entities and individual to settle  questionable threatened lawsuits. The article concludes that these recently enacted statutes are clearly overbroad and significantly injure the ability of legitimate patent owners to protect their products and services. The author also recommends that current federal and state laws are sufficient to solve this problem in an even handed and more narrowly tailored manner., Sole author, Try a fly swatter and not an atom bomb: Blackberry Aftermath Part 2, "Intellectual Property for Business People", Legal, Paralegal, Scientific, Engineering, Business, Art, Literary And Technical Industries, 2021
  • This article discusses the Blackberry settlement and begins with a description of the litigation leading up to the settlement. The article also analyzes (i) a patentee's right to exclude and (ii) how the resulting fallout from the payout to the patentee  fundamentally conflicts with long standing property rights  as well as the United States patent statute., Sole author, Food for Thought: Reminisces on the Blackberry settlement, Intellectual Property for Business People, Legal, Paralegal, Scientific, Engineering, Business, Art, Literary And Technical Industries, 2021
  • This article discusses biomedical inventions which the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit has found to be patent eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. section 101. Two such categories are clear, consistent, and  easily foreseeable, while a remaining category is also easily foreseeable but not patent eligible. The most recent relevant United States Supreme Court decisions are also addressed., sole author, Once More with Feeling: Patent Eligibility Part 2 , "Intellectual Property for Business People", Legal, Paralegal, Scientific, Engineering, Business, Art, Literary And Technical Industries, 2021
  • The article addresses the recent spike in cancellation of patents and patent applications  in the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit based upon patent ineligible subject matter. The focus is upon computer related inventions because of the clear foreseeable categories that exhibit different probabilities of being properly drafted as enforceable patents., Sole author, Many Called Few Chosen: Patent Eligiblity, "Intellectual Property for Business People", Legal And Paralegal Communities As Well As Art, Literary, Design, Scientific, Computer Related And Engineering Communities, 2021
  • This article discusses the  requirements for submitting a request for non-publication to the United States Patent & Trademark Office. This request, if properly submitted prevents the patent office from publishing a patent application application on the internet eighteen months are the application is submitted thereto.  The article also addresses the consequences of not submitting the request  for non-publication for a patent application., Sole author , Just One of those Things: Non-publication request for your patent application, Intellectual Property for Business People, Businesses, Scientists, Artists, Paralegals, Attorneys And All Other Relevant Industries, 2021
  • This  sixty minute videotaped presentation addresses selected U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit decisions from 2020 and 2021. These decisions  whether  whether inventions ----disputed in several procedural postures---- comprise patent eligible subject matter under United States law., Sole author and presenter, Patent Eligible Subject Matter 2020-2021, ApexCLE, Attorneys, Paralegals, Creative Arts, Inventors, Software Developers And Businesspeople., 2021
  • This article discusses the initial U.S. patent office adversarial proceeding between the University of California  and  the Broad Institute, Harvard and MIT. The  prize was a new gene splicing technique worth potentially millions of dollars in licensing fees in the biomedical industry. The  U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit eventually affirmed the U.S. Patent Trial & Appeal Board's decision, i.e., that U.C's technique and Broad's technique comprised two distinct inventions., Sole author, "Loose Lips Sink Ships", Friendly Passages (in press), Attorneys, Paralegals, Scientists, Business People World Wide, 2021
  • This article addresses the right to privacy pitfalls in the photography industry. , Sole author, What is it hard? Photograph Part 2, Intellectual Property for Business People, Attorneys, Paralegals And Business People Worldwide, 2021
  • This article addresses U.S. trademark and copyright infringement pitfalls  in the photography field., Sole author, What is it hard? Photography Part 1, Intellectual Property for Business People, Attorneys, Paralegals And Business People Worldwide, 2020
  • This article addresses the history and substance of the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit opinion in the above captioned case., Sole author, We're mad as h--- and we're not going to take it any more! American Axle & Manufacturing, Inc. v. Neapco Holdings LLC , Intellectual Property for Business People, Attorneys, Paralegals And Business People Worldwide, 2021
  • This article comprises a description of several basic provisions and requirements of all contracts in the United States., Sole author, Time Flies when You're having Fun: Learning U.S. Contract Basics, Intellectual Property for Business People, Attorneys, Paralegals, Scientists, Business People World Wide, 2020
  • The United States Supreme Court held that a defense based upon a trademark infringement settlement could proceed where the claim in an earlier proceeding (i) exclusively addressed a single trademark which (ii) was different from  trademarks that were litigated in a subsequent proceeding between the same parties. The Court also based its decision upon the observation that the claims occurred at different times., Sole author, It's the claim preclusion stupid: Lucky Brand Dungarees v. Marcel Fashions, Intellectual Property for Business People, Attorneys, Paralegals And Business People Worldwide, 2020
  • Discussion of a recent U. S. Supreme Court decision holding that annotations which are an integral  part of an official state code, and  prepared under the authority of the state legislature, are not copyright eligible in the United States.  In particular, the Court resolved that works prepared by state officials during their official duties are within the scope of the government edits doctrine, and therefore these works are not copyright eligible on this basis.          , Sole Author, Peaches, peanuts and statutes oh my! Georgia v. Public.Resource, Intellectual Property for Business People, Attorneys, Paralegals And Business People Word Wide, 2020
  • This  article details the background and holding of the U. S. Court of Appeals for Federal Circuit,  and wherein the court affirmed the Patent Office Trial and Appeal Board decision in The University of California et al.  v. The Broad Institute et al. litigation. In its  decision the Federal Circuit held that the in vitro bioengineered invention of the University of California was a distinct and separate invention from the in vivo bioengineered invention of the Broad Institute.  , Sole author, Loose Lips Sink Ships, Intellectual Property for Business People, Attorneys, Paralegals, Business People Wordwide, 2020
  • Title of article: Let the Punishment Fit the Crime: Halo Electronics, Inc.  v. Pulse Electronics, Inc. This U.s. supreme  Court decision restored a trial court's discreton to award treble damages for patent infringement based upon evidence solely for subjective bad faith. , writer, Author, Friendly Passages November/December 2016, Legal, 2016
  • This article discusses judicial decisions which resolve threatened misappropriation claims under the Act., Sole author, Inevitable Disclosure under the Defend Trade Secrets Act, Intellectual Property for Business People, Attorneys, Paralegals, Business People World Wide, 2020
  • This article addresses recent judicial decisions interpreting the federal Defend Trade Secrets Act. In particular, there are discrepancies in interpretation with respect to the necessary elements for threatened misappropriation. So far, the appellate circuit or state in which a federal district court sits appears to determine the evidentiary or allegation requirements for a plaintiff., Author: Adrienne B. Naumann, Esq., Plain old run of the mill threatened misappropriation, Intellectual Property for Business People, Attorneys, Paralegals And Business People Wordwide, 2020
  • This pending United States Supreme Court decision will resolve whether a computer program's (i) organization and (ii) specific code forcomputer instructions are each, in and of themselves, copyright eligible. If they are copyright eligible does copying of these computer instructions and the computer program organization without authorization compriise fair use?, Author: Adrienne B. Naumann, Esq., Declarations of Independence? Google v. Oracle, Intellectual Property for Business People, Attorneys, Paralegals And Business People Worldwide, 2020
  • This Supreme Court pending decision will resolve whether two generic terms comprising a single logo are ever eligible for trademark status in the United States. More specifically, can 'booking' which is generic for hotel reservation services, and the internet domain identifier '.com,' be combined to create a trademark eligible descriptive mark?, Author: Adrienne B. Naumann, Esq., Book of (Generic?) Business: USPTO v. Booking.com, Intellectual Property for Business People, Attorneys, Paralegals, And Business People World Wide, 2020
  • This recent United States Supreme Court decision confirms a wide scope of non-appealable patent office decisions in inter partes review which are non-appealable. Specifically, in this instance the patent office's decision to commence an inter parties review  is not subject to judicial review  even though the statutory deadline to submit the initial petition had expired. , Author: Adrienne B. Naumann, Esq., Thryv is Thriving! Thryv v. Click-to-Call Technologies, LP, Intellectual Property for Business People, Attorneys, Paralegals And Businesspeople Wordwide, 2020
  • This article is a discussion of the recent United States Supreme Court decision addressing the statutory trademark infringement remedy of defendant's profits., Author: Adrienne B. Naumann, Esq., Beware of whom you hook up with: Romag Fasteners v. Fossil, Intellectual Property for Businesspeople, Attorneys, Paralegals, Business Communities Worldwide, 2020
  • This book addresses in detail the significant judicial decisions and statutory provisions of the United States federal Defend Trade Secrets Act. It also addresses in detail the United States Supreme Court  intellectual property decisions for the 2018-2019 term. This book is approximately 120 pages in length., Author: Adrienne B. Naumann, Esq., United States Federal Intellectual Property Developments 2018-2019, Publisher: Pincus Professional Education, International Attorney, Paralegal, Business Communities , 2019
  • FRIENDLY PASSAGES is a law journal published by the Friends of the Rupert J. Smith Law Library of St. Lucie County, Florida., scholarly publication about recent updates in trade secret protection, "Don't Let Your Cat or Trade Secrets Out of the Bag", FRIENDLY PASSAGES Summer 2018, pp. 25, 27 and 28. , All Attorneys, 2018
  • Intellectual Property for Business Persons, Author, Author: Adrienne B. Naumann, Esq., United States Federal Intellectual Property Developments 2018-2019, Publisher: Pincus Professional Education, 2019

Honors/Awards

  • Continued A+ rating by BBB, Better Business Bureau, BBB, 2021
  • Graduation with HIGH HONORS, American Jurisprudence Award in Torts, IIT Chicago-Kent College of Law
  • from 2017-2020, Rated A+, Better Business Bureau of Northern Illinois, 2020
  • Argonne National Laboratory, Summer Internship
  • Recipient of Sigma Xi Grant in Aid of Research
  • Nu Pi Sigma Honorary Society, University of Chicago, Member
  • Chicago-Kent Law Review, Published Member
  • Chicago Bar Association, Member
  • Teaching and Research Assistantships, University of Illinois

Bar/Professional Activity

  • Election to second two-year term on University of Chicago Club Board of Directors for Chicago, 2021
  • Federal Seventh Circuit Bar, Member
  • Former Chairman, Science, Technology and Law Committee of the Chicago Bar Association
  • University of Chicago’s Women’s Alliance, Board Member and Secretary
  • Federal Bar for the Northern District of Illinois, Member
  • Seventh Circuit E-Discovery Pilot Program Committee
  • Federal Circuit Bar, Member
  • Illinois Institute of Technology Alumni Board of Directors, Past Member

Pro bono/Community Service

  • As Board Member and Secretary of the University of Chicago Women's Alliance authored the revised Policy Statement on behalf of this affinity group (which is also  part of the University of Chicago)., 2021
  • Appointed and participated as cochairman of my college class reunion committee., 2021
  • As Secretary and Board Director for University of Chicago Women's Alliance (CWA): Drafted and edited  CWA bylaws as chairman of bylaws committee, and  especially with respect to term limits, fundraising and removal from the Board position.  , 2021

Transactions

  • Review of client's 80 page manuscript entitled "Improving Healthcare & Retail Customer Experiences" for proper citation to the appropriate source; proper designation of intellectual property ownership such as United States trademark and copyright symbols; identification of manuscript passages carrying possible tort liability for claims such as, but not exclusively,  false light, invasion of privacy, and defamation.  , 2020
  • Draft of assignment of rights from LLC members to the LLC, and on behalf of sixth client/author-artist., 2019
  • Settlement of cease and desist claim from seventh client's former employer., 2019
  • Draft of non-disclosure transfer of rights agreements for third parties, and prepared on behalf of a sixth client/author-artist., 2020
  • Draft of non-disclosure transfer of rights agreement for second inventor for potential licensees and developers, 2019
  • Draft of non-disclosure transfer of rights agreement for inventor-client to present to third parties, and especially potential manufacturing licensees; draft of introductory letter to potential manufacturing licensees for the same inventor-client.  , 2019

Industry Groups

  • and anyone with confidential information and/or shop rights
  • App Developers
  • apparel design
  • Artists
  • Businesses
  • computer programmers
  • Inventors
  • Writers
Show More
Office Location for Adrienne B. Naumann

8210 North Tripp
Skokie, IL 60076

Phone: 847-329-8185

Fax: 847-329-8750

Last Updated: 5/15/2022

Page Generated: 0.47374415397644 sec