Intellectual Property

Showing 225–240 of 276 results

  • Using survey results in false advertising claims

    February / March 2012
    Newsletter: Ideas on Intellectual Property Law

    Price: $225.00, Subscriber Price: $157.50

    Word count: 541

    Abstract: False advertising lawsuits often rely on consumer survey evidence to show that advertising claims are misleading. So it wasn’t surprising that one liquor company used a consumer survey to claim that a competitor’s “Havana ClubTM” rum misled consumers into believing that the rum was made in Cuba, even though the label specifically identified Puerto Rico as the source. But this article shows that, in this case, a survey wasn’t enough. Citation: Pernod Ricard USA, LLC v. Bacardi U.S.A., Inc., No. 10-2354, Aug. 4, 2011 (3rd Cir.)

    Read More

  • Court shelves first-sale doctrine for foreign-made works

    February / March 2012
    Newsletter: Ideas on Intellectual Property Law

    Price: $225.00, Subscriber Price: $157.50

    Word count: 552

    Abstract: It’s well-settled law that the owner of a lawfully purchased copyrighted work is generally free to resell that copy of the work without restriction. But what if the work was made overseas? This article discusses a U.S. Court of Appeals ruling holding that foreign-made works can’t be so freely resold. This potentially far-reaching ruling could restrict resale of a wide range of products produced abroad. But the court acknowledged a tension between two different sections of the Copyright Act, which could ultimately lead to a review by the U.S. Supreme Court. Citations: John Wiley & Sons, Inc. v. Kirtsaeng, No. 09-4896, Aug. 15, 2011 (2nd Cir.); Omega S.A. v. Costco Wholesale, Nos. 07-55368, 07-56206, Sept. 3, 2008 (9th Cir.)

    Read More

  • Transaction denied — Federal Circuit addresses software patentability

    February / March 2012
    Newsletter: Ideas on Intellectual Property Law

    Price: $225.00, Subscriber Price: $157.50

    Word count: 859

    Abstract: The patentability of software applications is by no means certain. This article looks at a recent decision handed down by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. The court’s ruling addresses the role and application of the so-called machine-or-transformation test for the patentability of method claims. In so doing, it took into account a Supreme Court ruling that the machine-or-transformation test isn’t the exclusive check for patentability of claims. Citations: CyberSource Corporation v. Retail Decisions, Inc., No. 2009-1358, Aug. 16, 2011 (Fed. Cir.); Bilski v. Kappos, No. 08-964, June 28, 2010 (Supreme Court)

    Read More

  • The America Invents Act — Key components of the patent reform law

    February / March 2012
    Newsletter: Ideas on Intellectual Property Law

    Price: $225.00, Subscriber Price: $157.50

    Word count: 998

    Abstract: When President Obama signed the Leahy-Smith America Invents Act (AIA) last fall, it marked the culmination of a years-long reform process. This article discusses several key components of the law that will significantly affect the patent prosecution and review processes. Specifically, it shows how the AIA shifts the U.S. patent system from a first-to-invent priority scheme to a first-inventor-to-file scheme and implements entirely new procedures for challenges to the validity of an issued patent. A sidebar explains why patent ownership could get more expensive.

    Read More

  • 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.

    Read More

  • 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.

    Read More

  • 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)

    Read More

  • 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)

    Read More

  • 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.)

    Read More

  • 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.)

    Read More

  • 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.)

    Read More

  • 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)

    Read More

  • 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.)

    Read More

  • 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.)

    Read More

  • 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.)

    Read More

  • 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.)

    Read More