Daniel H. Bliss of Howard & Howard

Photo of Daniel H. Bliss of Howard & Howard

Mr. Bliss manages all phases of intellectual property litigation, including case preparation, analysis, and execution. He works with multinational corporations and consortiums in obtaining, managing, evaluating, and licensing intellectual property. His scope of expertise spans a wide range of technology including mechanical, electrical, chemical, materials, computer software, and business methods.
Mr. Bliss also focuses on trademark rights. He has experiencemanaging a number of international trademark portfolios and excels in trademark management, protection and prosecution strategies. He has extensive experience in preparing trademark opinions and prosecuting trademark applications in the U.S. He has also handled oppositions and cancellations of trademark applications and registrations in the U.S. Mr. Bliss has international trademark experience and counsels clients on the advantages and disadvantages of foreign registration and on the selection of foreign counsel. He works with foreign counsel regarding search results, prosecuting trademark applications, potential disputes, and all registration matters, ensuring the enforcement of trademark rights after registration.
Mr. Bliss served as an expert on patent law and patent office procedure on several occasions. He testified as an expert on patent law and patent office procedure at trial in connection with Sundance, Inc. and Merlot Tarpaulin & SideKit Mfg. Co., Inc. v. DeMonte Fabricating Ltd. and Quick Draw Tarpaulin Systems, Inc. and Walter DeMonte, Civil Action No. 02-73543, U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan. He also has experience appearing before the United States Patent and Trademark Office and other various federal courts throughout the United States.
Mr. Bliss prepared and filed over 50 patent applications for an automotive original equipment manufacturer for an electronically-controlled automatic transmission. One of these patent applications produced the patent that won invention of the year in 1990 by the Intellectual Property Organization. He also managed a team of attorneys that prepared and filed over 50 patent applications for a hybrid vehicle for an automotive original equipment manufacturer. Under his leadership, the team obtained the disclosures from a contract supplier, drafted the patent applications and then filed them all on the same day.
Mr. Bliss is a Past President for the Michigan Intellectual Patent Law Association, Past Chair for the Intellectual Property Law Section of the State Bar of Michigan, Past President for Michigan State College of Law Alumni Association, and Past Secretary and Treasurer for the Michigan Technological University Alumni Association. He has served as a director on various boards including corporations, associations, and non-profits.
Mr. Bliss is admitted to practice in Michigan, and before the United States Patent and Trademark Office. He is also admitted to practice before the Eastern and Western Districts for the State of Michigan, the Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, and the U.S. Supreme Court.
For two decades, Mr. Bliss, along with his partner, Gerald E. McGlynn, III, and their associates, have served the global intellectual property community from their firm, Bliss McGlynn, P.C. In July 2013, Bliss McGlynn, P.C. joined the firm of Howard & Howard.
**Not Licensed or Admitted to Practice Law in the State of Nevada

Subscribe to all posts by Daniel H. Bliss of Howard & Howard

How to Avoid Having Your Patent Interpreted as a Covered Business Method (CBM) Patent

Suppose that you have an invention disclosure that uses computers and the Internet to carry out transactions that could include financial transactions? When you draft your patent application, is there anything that you can do to avoid having your patent application and resulting issued patent from being interpreted as a covered business method patent?  The … Continue Reading


How do you plead patent infringement in the United States?  Can you survive a motion to dismiss if the defendant challenges the sufficiency of your complaint?  What should you do? Let’s say your client has a United States patent that is believed to be infringed by another party.  You do not rely on the client … Continue Reading


In the United States, a trademark can be refused registration on the Principal Register because the trademark is deemed merely descriptive.  If the trademark is not allowed for registration on the Principal Register, it may be eligible for registration on the Supplemental Register.  So, how do you determine if your mark is descriptive and which … Continue Reading

Can a 3-D Work of Artistic Craftsmanship be Protected by a Copyright?

Suppose that you create a unique three-dimensional display. You find out that your competitor has copied your three-dimensional display. Can you claim that the design of the display is a three-dimensional work of artistic craftsmanship to apply for a copyright registration to enforce against your competitor? The answer may be YES! Under 17 U.S.C. § … Continue Reading


Suppose that you have a unique design for your product but no patent protection in the United States?  Can you protect your product design to prevent a competitor from producing the same or similar design?  Is there anything you can do? Let’s say you created a unique design for a product such as a smart … Continue Reading

Can 3-D Scanning and Printing be a Copyright Infringement?

Suppose that you have a unique configuration for your physical object. You find out that your competitor has scanned the configuration of your object and is printing the object with a three-dimensional (3-D) printer. Is there anything you can do?  The answer is YES! Let’s suppose you have created a physical object such as a … Continue Reading