Ideas on Intellectual Property Law
Showing 289–304 of 336 results
-
When trademark and patent injunction standards collide
Year End 2011
Newsletter: Ideas on Intellectual Property Law
Price: $225.00, Subscriber Price: $157.50
Word count: 456
Abstract: This article looks at a recent trademark dispute in which preliminary injunction standards for trademark cases collided with those for patent cases. The decision by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit holds an important lesson for those seeking injunctions.
-
Standard raised for “inequitable conduct” defense
Year End 2011
Newsletter: Ideas on Intellectual Property Law
Price: $225.00, Subscriber Price: $157.50
Word count: 594
Abstract: In response to more than a decade of increasing criticism, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit has raised the standard for inequitable conduct. By doing so, it’s reduced the chances that infringers will be able to successfully argue that patents should be rendered unenforceable because of purportedly wrongful conduct during patent prosecution. This article examines the court’s ruling.
-
It’s all in the genes … or is it? Patentability of “isolated” DNA molecule affirmed
Year End 2011
Newsletter: Ideas on Intellectual Property Law
Price: $225.00, Subscriber Price: $157.50
Word count: 638
Abstract: This article discusses a recent federal appeals court ruling that an “isolated” DNA molecule is patentable — at least in part. In doing so, the panel shot down a controversial district court ruling that could have invalidated all patents for such molecules. Instead, the court found that two types of claims were patentable, but two others were not. Association for Molecular Pathology v. U.S. Patent and Trademark Office and Myriad Genetics Inc., No. 2010-1406, July 29, 2011 (Fed. Cir.) Bilski et al v. Kappos, No. 08-964, June 28, 2010 (Supreme Court)
-
Turning a blind eye backfires – Supreme Court addresses induced patent infringement
Year End 2011
Newsletter: Ideas on Intellectual Property Law
Price: $225.00, Subscriber Price: $157.50
Word count: 970
Abstract: When a home appliance manufacturer copied a design from a competitor’s fryer that didn’t have U.S. patent markings, it was successfully sued based on the induced infringement theory, which, an appeals court said, requires a showing that the alleged infringer knew or should have known that its actions would induce actual infringement. But, finding the relevant provision ambiguous, the Supreme Court delved into the criteria necessary to satisfy the knowledge requirement. This article explains how its findings affected the case. A sidebar explains the effect that the recently passed America Invents Act is expected to have on patent law. Global-Tech Appliances, Inc. v. SEB S.A., No. 10-6, May 31, 2011 (Supreme Court)
-
Playing the Internet domain name game
October / November 2011
Newsletter: Ideas on Intellectual Property Law
Price: $225.00, Subscriber Price: $157.50
Word count: 602
Abstract: When an online women’s wear company tried unsuccessfully to obtain similar domain names from another company, its complaint was dismissed because there was a “total absence of competition between the businesses.” But when the other company also became a site devoted primarily to women’s fashion, the Fourth Circuit took a different view. Newport News Holdings Corp. v. Virtual City Vision, No. 09-1947, April 18, 2011 (4th Cir.)
-
DuPont factors weigh heavily in banking dispute
October / November 2011
Newsletter: Ideas on Intellectual Property Law
Price: $225.00, Subscriber Price: $157.50
Word count: 437
Abstract: When evaluating the likelihood of confusion between two trademarks, courts often apply the 13 so-called “DuPont factors.” But there’s been some disagreement about whether these various factors should all weigh equally or if certain ones should hold greater relevancy based on the circumstances of the case in question. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit brought some clarity to the matter in a case involving similar names between two banks. Citigroup Inc. v. Capital City Bank Group, Inc., No. 2010-1369, March 28, 2011 (Fed. Cir.)
-
Are you hiding something? Failure to share key information could invalidate a patent
October / November 2011
Newsletter: Ideas on Intellectual Property Law
Price: $225.00, Subscriber Price: $157.50
Word count: 556
Abstract: A company held patents on a resin that was composed of several components. The patent, however, didn’t disclose one component and, for the components listed, it disclosed ranges of concentrations rather than the precise recipe. When it later filed suit against another company for patent infringement, the defendant asserted that there was no patent protection, because the plaintiff had failed to establish the “best mode” of practicing the claimed invention. This article looks at the Federal Circuit’s decision. Wellman, Inc. v. Eastman Chemical Co., No. 2010-1249, April 29, 2011 (Fed Cir.)
-
You invent it, you own it – Supreme Court addresses federally funded inventions
October / November 2011
Newsletter: Ideas on Intellectual Property Law
Price: $225.00, Subscriber Price: $157.50
Word count: 1016
Abstract: Researchers at a university and a private biotech company developed a technique to measure the effectiveness of antiretroviral drugs used to treat HIV. The university obtained three patents related to the technique. Its researchers agreed to assign to the university their right, title and interest in the inventions created, but one did the same for the private company. When the division doing this federally funded research was taken over by another company, which then began manufacturing HIV detection kits, the university alleged patent infringement. This article explains why the Supreme Court sided with the company, while a sidebar discusses the opinions of the two dissenting justices. Bd. of Trustees v. Roche Molecular Sys., Inc., No. 09-1159, June 6, 2011 (Supreme Court)
-
You call that art? Flower display doesn’t make the cut for copyright protection
August / September 2011
Newsletter: Ideas on Intellectual Property Law
Price: $225.00, Subscriber Price: $157.50
Word count: 502
Abstract: When a park district modified a garden that had been designed by an artist, the artist sued on the grounds that his “moral rights” had been violated under the Visual Artists Rights Act of 1990. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit disagreed. Kelley v. Chicago Park District, Nos. 08-3701, 08-3712, Feb. 15, 2011 (7th Cir.)
-
Getting particular with false marking claims
August / September 2011
Newsletter: Ideas on Intellectual Property Law
Price: $225.00, Subscriber Price: $157.50
Word count: 413
Abstract: Qui tam provisions, like the one in the False Marking Statute, empower everyday citizens to enforce laws. The provisions, however, also provide financial incentives that can encourage frivolous lawsuits. In one recent case, a patent attorney sued a manufacturer for marking some products with an expired patent number. But the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit determined that plaintiff needed to amend its complaint to satisfy the “particularity requirement” of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. In re BP Lubricants USA Inc., Misc. Docket No. 960, March 15, 2011 (Fed. Cir.)
-
Blurred vision: Trademark dilution standard clarified
August / September 2011
Newsletter: Ideas on Intellectual Property Law
Price: $225.00, Subscriber Price: $157.50
Word count: 551
Abstract: The owners of famous trademarks often face a constant onslaught of parties using marks similar to their famous marks. This occurred in one case in which a clothing manufacturer claimed that another was using a decorative stitching that impaired the distinctiveness of its own famous mark. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit clarified the burden of proof required since passage of the Trademark Dilution Revision Act. Levi Strauss v. Abercrombie & Fitch, No. 09-16322, Feb. 8, 2011 (9th Cir.) Thane International, Inc. v. Trek Bicycle Corp., Nos. 00-55293, 00-55599, Sept. 6, 2002 (9th Cir.)
-
Better get used to it – Court addresses patent infringement of an information system
August / September 2011
Newsletter: Ideas on Intellectual Property Law
Price: $225.00, Subscriber Price: $157.50
Word count: 970
Abstract: When someone uses another party’s patented invention without authorization, it’s clearly infringement. But what qualifies as “use” when the invention is an information system? This article looks at a recent case in which a plaintiff alleged that another company’s billing system infringed its patent. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit helped clarify exactly what’s required to “use” a patented information system. A sidebar looks at another question addressed in the same case: What is the difference between making and using an invention? Centillion Data Systems, LLC v. Qwest Communications Int’l, Inc., Nos. 2010-1110, 2010-1131, Jan. 20, 2011 (Fed. Cir.) Akamai Technologies, Inc. v. Limelight Networks, Inc., Nos. 2009-1372, 2009-1380, 2009-1416, 2009-1417, April 20, 2011 (Fed. Cir.)
-
Can a patentee establish liability for joint infringement?
June / July 2011
Newsletter: Ideas on Intellectual Property Law
Price: $225.00, Subscriber Price: $157.50
Word count: 397
Abstract: Direct infringement of a method patent requires a single party to perform every step of the claimed method. But what about when a patented method requires more than one party to perform the necessary steps? How can a patentee establish that a defendant is liable for such joint infringement? This article describes the answer given by the appeals court. Akamai Technologies, Inc. v. Limelight Networks, Inc., 09-1372, Dec. 20, 2010 (Fed Cir.)
-
Facts > rules – Federal Circuit rejects familiar formula for patent damages
June / July 2011
Newsletter: Ideas on Intellectual Property Law
Price: $225.00, Subscriber Price: $157.50
Word count: 657
Abstract: In patent damages cases, the “25% rule” has been widely used to estimate the reasonable royalty rate that the manufacturer of a product using the patent would be willing to offer the patentee in a hypothetical negotiation for a license. It suggests the licensee pay a royalty rate equaling 25% of its expected profits for the product that incorporates the patent. But this article describes one case in which a jury awarded damages based on this rule — an award that the district court deemed excessive. The appeals court concurred, making it clear that these awards must be based on the facts of the case, rather than an abstract formula. Uniloc USA Inc. v. Microsoft Corp., 2010-1035, Jan. 4, 2011 (Fed. Cir.)
-
Eek! “Naked licensing” leads to lost trademarks
June / July 2011
Newsletter: Ideas on Intellectual Property Law
Price: $225.00, Subscriber Price: $157.50
Word count: 518
Abstract: “Freecyclers” are people who encourage others to pass on their goods rather than disposing of them. But this generous approach to life doesn’t always fly in the world of intellectual property. This article describes a case in which an umbrella nonprofit organization ordered a member to cease using its trademarks. The member responded with a declaratory action seeking a finding of noninfringement based on a defense of “naked licensing,” in which the owner loses the right to enforce its marks after failing to enforce their quality. FreecycleSunnyvale v. The Freecycle Network, No. 08-16382, Nov. 24, 2010 (9th Cir.)
-
Losing control – Ninth Circuit examines distribution’s role in copyright case
June / July 2011
Newsletter: Ideas on Intellectual Property Law
Price: $225.00, Subscriber Price: $157.50
Word count: 934
Abstract: When copyright holders release their creations, they can retain some control through licensing agreements. So one music company sued the recipient of recordings it had sent to him, unsolicited and free of charge, when he then sold them on eBay. But the court ruled that the company’s “Promotional Use — Not for Sale” label was insufficient to establish a license. This article explains the court’s reasons, while a sidebar examines the role of the Unordered Merchandise statute in this case. UMG Recordings, Inc. v. Augusto, No. 08-55998, Jan. 4, 2011 (9th Cir.)