Ideas on Intellectual Property Law

Showing 33–48 of 328 results

  • Federal Circuit limits disqualifying prior art for design patents

    April / May 2022
    Newsletter: Ideas on Intellectual Property Law

    Price: $225.00, Subscriber Price: $157.50

    Word count: 443

    Abstract: Can the existence of a similar-looking art tool anticipate or render obvious a patent for the design of an item used in plastic surgery? Fortunately for a design patent applicant in In re: SurgiSil, L.L.P., the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit found that the Patent Trial and Appeal Board erred in finding that the art tool anticipated a lip implant, rendering the implant’s design unpatentable. This article summarizes the case and the concept of “anticipation.” In re: SurgiSil, L.L.P., No. 20-1940 (Fed Cir. Oct. 4, 2021).

    Read More

  • Potential trademark injury not enough for federal jurisdiction

    April / May 2022
    Newsletter: Ideas on Intellectual Property Law

    Price: $225.00, Subscriber Price: $157.50

    Word count: 656

    Abstract: For the first time, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit recently considered what a trademark challenger must show to establish the standing required under the U.S. Constitution to appeal a decision of the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board (TTAB). This article summarizes the court’s conclusion in Brooklyn Brewery Corp. v. Brooklyn Brew Shop, LLC, which resulted in a mixed bag for one challenger. Brooklyn Brewery Corp. v. Brooklyn Brew Shop, LLC, No. 20-2277 (Fed Cir. Oct. 27, 2021).

    Read More

  • Failures of “prior art” undermine obviousness challenge to patent

    April / May 2022
    Newsletter: Ideas on Intellectual Property Law

    Price: $225.00, Subscriber Price: $157.50

    Word count: 600

    Abstract: “Prior art” can make a patent obvious and therefore unpatentable. But what about previous research that fails? Does it defeat a patent for an invention that succeeded? This article reviews a decision from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, which found that where the prior art shows only failures to achieve what the inventor accomplished, the court couldn’t find an expectation of success based on that prior art. University of Strathclyde v. Clear-Vu Lighting, LLC, No. 20-2243 (Fed Cir. Nov. 4, 2021).

    Read More

  • Screenwriter’s copyright returns from the dead – Labor law doesn’t control work-for-hire determination

    April / May 2022
    Newsletter: Ideas on Intellectual Property Law

    Price: $225.00, Subscriber Price: $157.50

    Word count: 862

    Abstract: Employee or independent contractor? The answer is critical for a variety of rights, and multiple tests have been developed under employment law. But, in Horror, Inc. v. Miller, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit found those tests aren’t determinative when it comes to copyright issues. This article reviews the employment status — and thus copyright ownership — of a screenwriter for the successful “Friday the 13th” movies. Horror, Inc. v. Miller, No. 18-3123 (2d Cir. Sept. 30, 2021).

    Read More

  • TTAB still constitutional post-Arthrex

    February / March 2022
    Newsletter: Ideas on Intellectual Property Law

    Price: $225.00, Subscriber Price: $157.50

    Word count: 422

    Abstract: Last year, the U.S. Supreme Court found that the Patent Trial and Appeal Board’s administrative patent judges could constitutionally perform their duties only if they were appointed by the president and confirmed by the Senate. This case summarizes the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit’s finding on whether this reasoning applies to the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board’s administrative trademark judges. Piano Factory Group, Inc. v. Schiedmayer Celesta GMBH, No. 20-1196 (Fed. Cir. Sept. 1, 2021).

    Read More

  • Words matter – NDA language doesn’t protect trade secrets indefinitely

    February / March 2022
    Newsletter: Ideas on Intellectual Property Law

    Price: $225.00, Subscriber Price: $157.50

    Word count: 683

    Abstract: Most owners of a trade secret would want to keep it, well, secret. But the wording in a nondisclosure agreement (NDA) can inadvertently undermine that goal. This article discusses a case in which the court reviewed this potentially very costly lesson. BladeRoom Group Ltd. v. Emerson Electric Co., No. 19-16583 (9th Cir. Aug. 30, 2021).

    Read More

  • Failure to mark reduces patentee’s infringement recovery

    February / March 2022
    Newsletter: Ideas on Intellectual Property Law

    Price: $225.00, Subscriber Price: $157.50

    Word count: 534

    Abstract: Patent holders may think that their patents mean they can recover reasonable royalty damages on all infringers’ sales of their infringing products. But this isn’t necessarily the case. This article reviews a case in which the court notes that a patent holder who hasn’t complied with the marking requirement of the federal Patent Act may be awarded limited damages — even if the defendant admits it was aware of the patent. Lubby Holdings LLC v. Chung, No. 19-2286 (Fed. Cir. Sept. 1, 2021).

    Read More

  • Is limited online access to copyrighted work a “public display”?

    February / March 2022
    Newsletter: Ideas on Intellectual Property Law

    Price: $225.00, Subscriber Price: $157.50

    Word count: 852

    Abstract: If no one sees an unauthorized online copy of a photo, has it truly been “publicly displayed” as required for a copyright infringement lawsuit? The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit recently answered that question in the affirmative in a case brought by a plaintiff who one judge characterized as a “copyright troll.” Bell v. Wilmott Storage Svcs., LLC, No. 19-5582, -56181 (9th Cir. Sept. 9, 2021).

    Read More

  • What constitutes an “exceptional case”? Court adopts new standard for attorneys’ fees in trademark cases

    Year End 2021
    Newsletter: Ideas on Intellectual Property Law

    Price: $225.00, Subscriber Price: $157.50

    Word count: 482

    Abstract: The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit has for the first time addressed whether the U.S. Supreme Court’s standard for awarding attorneys’ fees under the Patent Act also applies to such awards under federal trademark law’s Lanham Act. This article summarizes the court’s finding that because the fee provisions in the Patent Act and the Lanham Act are identical, the standard also applies to the Lanham Act. Derma Pen, LLC v. 4EverYoung Limited, No. 19-4114 (U.S. June 8, 2021).

    Read More

  • Heads up! SCOTUS upholds, but limits, assignor estoppel

    Year End 2021
    Newsletter: Ideas on Intellectual Property Law

    Price: $225.00, Subscriber Price: $157.50

    Word count: 627

    Abstract: It seems like a simple matter of fairness that an inventor who assigns its patent rights can’t later challenge the validity of the underlying patent. But, as the U.S. Supreme Court recently explained, assignors can do just that in certain limited circumstances. This article reviews the case and the ability of assignors to challenge a patent’s validity. Minerva Surgical, Inc. v. Hologic, Inc., No. 20-440 (U.S. June 29, 2021).

    Read More

  • Supreme Court shakes up the PTAB

    Year End 2021
    Newsletter: Ideas on Intellectual Property Law

    Price: $225.00, Subscriber Price: $157.50

    Word count: 585

    Abstract: A decade after the American Invents Act of 2011 (AIA) brought significant change to the U.S. patent system, the courts and players in the patent regime continue to grapple with some aspects of the law. This article reviews a recent U.S. Supreme Court finding that the Patent Trial and Appeal Board’s administrative patent judges’ power is incompatible with their status as inferior officers. The article also reviews guidance from the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office in the wake of the Court’s holding. U.S. v. Arthrex, Inc., No. 19-1434 (U.S. June 21, 2021).

    Read More

  • Establishing infringement of “thin” copyrights

    Year End 2021
    Newsletter: Ideas on Intellectual Property Law

    Price: $225.00, Subscriber Price: $157.50

    Word count: 835

    Abstract: The copyright troll, whose business model the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit has described as an “intellectual property shakedown,” again found its claims under scrutiny by the court. This time, the court took the occasion to clarify what’s necessary for a successful claim of infringement of works with “thin” copyright protection. This article reviews two well-established copyright doctrines: scènes à faire and merger. It looks at how they restrict the ability of infringement plaintiffs to claim expansive intellectual property rights. A brief sidebar details how the copyright troll plaintiff operates. Design Basics, LLC v. Signature Construction, Inc., Nos. 19-2716 (7th Cir. April 23, 2021); Design Basics, LLC v. Lexington Homes, Inc., 858 F.3d 1093 (7th Cir. 2017).

    Read More

  • Establishing “actual use” standard in service mark infringement cases

    October / November 2021
    Newsletter: Ideas on Intellectual Property Law

    Price: $225.00, Subscriber Price: $157.50

    Word count: 419

    Abstract: The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit recently faulted a lower court for applying the wrong legal standard when determining whether a service mark infringement plaintiff had actually used the mark. This short article reviews the actual use standard in service mark infringement cases. Underwood v. Bank of America Corp., Nos. 19-1349, -1087 (10th Cir. April 30, 2021).

    Read More

  • When is initial-interest confusion trademark infringement actionable?

    October / November 2021
    Newsletter: Ideas on Intellectual Property Law

    Price: $225.00, Subscriber Price: $157.50

    Word count: 610

    Abstract: A trademark battle between sellers of adjustable air mattresses led the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit to put to bed the question of whether it recognizes a trademark infringement theory already accepted by most federal courts of appeal. More than a decade after sidestepping the question, the court confirmed that it views initial-interest confusion as a valid basis for liability. This article examines initial-interest confusion, but notes that the Eighth Circuit made no comment on how such confusion might affect the analysis of remedies and damages. Select Comfort Corp. v. Baxter, No. 19-1113 (8th Cir. May 11, 2021).

    Read More

  • Alice strikes again – Targeted advertising is patent-ineligible

    October / November 2021
    Newsletter: Ideas on Intellectual Property Law

    Price: $225.00, Subscriber Price: $157.50

    Word count: 548

    Abstract: The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit Court has dispatched yet another patented invention to the wasteland of patent-ineligible abstract ideas under the Alice test. This article summarizes the court’s ruling reaffirming that targeted advertising can’t be patented. Free Stream Media Corp. v. Alphonso Inc., Nos. 19-1506, -2133 (Fed. Cir. May 11, 2021).

    Read More

  • Copyright’s fair use defense – Court clarifies “transformative use” analysis

    October / November 2021
    Newsletter: Ideas on Intellectual Property Law

    Price: $225.00, Subscriber Price: $157.50

    Word count: 815

    Abstract: In a colorful copyright case involving iconic artists Prince and Andy Warhol, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit agreed with a photographer’s objection to Warhol’s use of her photo of Prince. According to the court, the fair use defense to copyright infringement wasn’t available because Warhol’s series based on the photographer’s photo retains the essential elements of the photo without significantly adding to or altering them. This article summarizes the case, while a short sidebar highlights the proposal by two judges of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit for a different approach to the fair use analysis. The Andy Warhol Foundation for the Visual Arts, Inc. v. Goldsmith, No. 19-2420-cv (2d Cir. March 26, 2021).

    Read More