Intellectual Property
Showing 241–256 of 336 results
-
Dodging patent infringement liability in good faith
Year End 2013
Newsletter: Ideas on Intellectual Property Law
Price: $225.00, Subscriber Price: $157.50
Word count: 422
Abstract: In what could be a tough break for patent holders, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit has given parties accused of induced patent infringement another way of defending themselves. They may now be able to escape liability by showing a good-faith belief that the patent was invalid — even if the patent was, in fact, valid. This article examines the case. Commil USA, LLC v. Cisco Systems, Inc., No. 2012-1042, June 25, 2013 (Fed. Cir.)
-
Oprah’s next chapter – Court allows trademark infringement case to continue
Year End 2013
Newsletter: Ideas on Intellectual Property Law
Price: $225.00, Subscriber Price: $157.50
Word count: 530
Abstract: The owner of a motivational services business holds events and releases publications under the federally registered service mark “Own Your Power.” After Oprah Winfrey and various other defendants began using this same mark, the owner sued. The district court found fair use. This article explains why the appeals court disagreed, vacating the district court’s judgment and remanding the case for further proceedings. Kelly-Brown v. Winfrey, No. 12-1207-cv, May 31, 2013 (2nd Cir.)
-
Should royalties end when a patent expires?
Year End 2013
Newsletter: Ideas on Intellectual Property Law
Price: $225.00, Subscriber Price: $157.50
Word count: 616
Abstract: After an inventor sued Marvel Enterprises for patent infringement and breach of a verbal contract in regard to a Spider-Man toy, an agreement was reached — but it had no expiration date. After several disagreements cropped up, the inventor filed a breach of contract action concerning the calculation of royalty payments. But the district court ruled that the royalties ended when the patent expired. The appeals court affirmed the decision, relying on a Supreme Court case known as Brulotte. This article explains why the appeals court felt it applied in this case. Kimble v. Marvel Enterprises, Inc., No. 11-15605, July 16, 2013 (9th Cir.) Brulotte v. Thys Co., No. 20, Nov. 16, 1964 (Supreme Court)
-
Patent eligibility for software – Fractured Federal Circuit provides little clarity
Year End 2013
Newsletter: Ideas on Intellectual Property Law
Price: $225.00, Subscriber Price: $157.50
Word count: 937
Abstract: Many have understandably been befuddled by the sometimes conflicting recent court decisions regarding the patent eligibility of computer-implemented inventions. Unfortunately, the 135-page decision from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in CLS Bank Int’l v. Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. provides little clarity. This article discusses the divided opinions among the 10 judges, who produced six opinions as well as conflicting tests for patent eligibility. Given this uncertainty, a sidebar suggests how it might be best to proceed when drafting patent claims. CLS Bank Int’l v. Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd., 2011-1301, May 10, 2013 (Fed. Cir.)
-
Case dismissed: “ibooks” mark isn’t protected
October / November 2013
Newsletter: Ideas on Intellectual Property Law
Price: $225.00, Subscriber Price: $157.50
Word count: 434
Abstract: After Apple announced it would be offering e-reader software called “iBooks,” a small publisher of an imprint labeled “ibooks” sued. But, as this article explains, the district court held that the plaintiff had failed to present sufficient evidence to show that its mark was entitled to trademark protection or was likely to suffer from reverse confusion with the “iBooks” mark.
-
You reap what you sow – Patent exhaustion defense doesn’t stir Supreme Court
October / November 2013
Newsletter: Ideas on Intellectual Property Law
Price: $225.00, Subscriber Price: $157.50
Word count: 621
Abstract: After a farmer went to great lengths to devise a complex planting and harvesting practice to evade the terms of a licensing agreement, the seed manufacturer sued him. Although the farmer had violated the license terms by planting the purchased seed over eight seasons instead of just one, he claimed that he was protected by the “patent exhaustion” doctrine, which gives the purchaser of a patented article, or any subsequent owner, the right to use or resell that article. This article explains why the Court rejected that defense — at least in this case.
-
Are wireless carriers liable for user infringement?
October / November 2013
Newsletter: Ideas on Intellectual Property Law
Price: $225.00, Subscriber Price: $157.50
Word count: 506
Abstract: Today’s technology makes it easier than ever to infringe copyrighted material. But can the providers of that technology be found liable for its users’ infringement? This article looks at a case in which a seller of commercial multimedia-messaging content, after finding that users were resharing content without permission or compensation, alleged that the carrier vicariously infringed its content and induced others to do so. But the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit determined that, because the plaintiff had failed to establish the necessary specific knowledge of infringement, its contributory copyright infringement claim also failed.
-
The final round – Supreme Court addresses patentability of genes
October / November 2013
Newsletter: Ideas on Intellectual Property Law
Price: $225.00, Subscriber Price: $157.50
Word count: 939
Abstract: It’s a case that had the biotech industry on pins and needles for years. At stake was whether naturally occurring DNA segments were patentable. In the final round, the U.S. Supreme Court found that they were not. But the finding didn’t apply to synthetic, man-made DNA. This article examines the case as it proceeded through the district and circuit courts, and ultimately the Supreme Court, which found that synthetically created “cDNA” didn’t present the same obstacles to patentability as naturally occurring, isolated DNA segments did. A sidebar discusses the circuit court’s ruling on the lawsuit’s method claims, which weren’t pursued before the high court.
-
In the bag: “Willful blindness” defense denied
August / September 2013
Newsletter: Ideas on Intellectual Property Law
Price: $225.00, Subscriber Price: $157.50
Word count: 433
Abstract: After a designer of accessories notified a distributor that the products it was importing were counterfeit, it noticed no change of behavior and subsequently sued. A district court found the defendant liable for willful infringement and awarded damages to the plaintiff. The defendant appealed, but this article explains how its lack of action following its original notification led to the appeals court’s conclusion that the defendant had indeed willfully infringed. Fendi Adele, S.R.L. v. Ashley Reed Trading, Nos. 11-3025-cv (Lead), 11-3027-cv (Con), 11-3058-cv (XAP), Jan. 4, 2013 (2nd Cir.)
-
Federal Circuit marks the spot – Multistep patents prove hard to defend
August / September 2013
Newsletter: Ideas on Intellectual Property Law
Price: $225.00, Subscriber Price: $157.50
Word count: 956
Abstract: Winning a patent infringement claim can be tricky — especially when the patent in question covers a multistep method or process. A U.S. appeals court recently made this abundantly clear in a case in which a patentee argued that another company’s mapping software systems directly performed all of the steps in the patented method. This article examines the court’s conclusion that the patentee failed to prove that each and every step of the method was performed, and therefore no direct infringement had occurred. But a sidebar notes that the court found that the lower court should have conducted an indirect infringement analysis, and sent the case back to the district court. Move, Inc. v. Real Estate Alliance Ltd., No. 2012-1342, March 4, 2013 (Fed. Cir.) Akamai Technologies Inc. v. Limelight Networks, Inc., No. 2010-1291, Aug. 31, 2012 (Fed. Cir.)
-
Can silence stifle an infringement claim?
August / September 2013
Newsletter: Ideas on Intellectual Property Law
Price: $225.00, Subscriber Price: $157.50
Word count: 538
Abstract: They say silence is golden. But in one recent case, a patentee’s silence after sending a demand letter had a marked impact on the resulting decision handed down by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. The court agreed with the lower court’s finding that equitable estoppel barred the patentee’s infringement claims. This article shows that patentees that discover infringement must do more than simply send a demand letter. If they fail to take further action, they could end up forfeiting their claims down the road. Radio Systems Corp. v. Lalor, No. 2012-1233, March 6, 2013 (Fed. Cir.)
-
Book it – Supreme Court has final word on first-sale doctrine
August / September 2013
Newsletter: Ideas on Intellectual Property Law
Price: $225.00, Subscriber Price: $157.50
Word count: 603
Abstract: Two years ago, a U.S. appeals court held that buyers of copyrighted foreign-made works were not free to resell the works without restriction. In a surprising decision that could have restricted the resale of a wide range of products produced abroad, the court ruled that the first-sale doctrine didn’t apply to such works. Now, the U.S. Supreme Court has reversed this decision. This article discusses the case’s background and the Court’s reasoning. Kirtsaeng v. John Wiley & Sons, No. 11-697, March 19, 2013 (U.S. Supreme Court)
-
Infringement standard for photographs comes into focus
June / July 2013
Newsletter: Ideas on Intellectual Property Law
Price: $225.00, Subscriber Price: $157.50
Word count: 457
Abstract: A news photographer who captures a historic image generally holds the copyright to that photo. But, as one photographer learned the hard way, that doesn’t necessarily mean others can’t use the image for profit. This article describes the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit’s explanation that parts of his photo were indeed protected — but that the alleged infringer hadn’t re-created those parts. Harney v. Sony Pictures Television, Inc., No. 11-1760, Jan. 7, 2013 (1st Cir.)
-
Who gets the patent? USPTO issues final rules on first-to-file system
June / July 2013
Newsletter: Ideas on Intellectual Property Law
Price: $225.00, Subscriber Price: $157.50
Word count: 954
Abstract: This article takes a look at the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office’s long-awaited final rules and examination guidelines on the first-inventor-to-file provisions of the America Invents Act. Many of the regulations, which took effect in March, are similar to the earlier proposed regulations — but some significant amendments have been made. A sidebar explains how U.S. patents and patent applications can reach back to a foreign priority date in certain circumstances.
-
Drilling down into the power of objective evidence
June / July 2013
Newsletter: Ideas on Intellectual Property Law
Price: $225.00, Subscriber Price: $157.50
Word count: 611
Abstract: When an invention is obvious on its face, one might think it can never be patented. But this article looks at a case in which the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit offered a reminder that objective evidence to the contrary can overcome an invention’s ostensible obviousness and make the invention patentable. It discusses seven types of objective evidence of nonobviousness. Deepwater Drilling, Inc. v. Maersk Contractors USA, Inc., No. 2011-1555, Nov. 15, 2012 (Fed. Cir.)
-
If the shoe doesn’t fit … Supreme Court steps into trademark validity case
June / July 2013
Newsletter: Ideas on Intellectual Property Law
Price: $225.00, Subscriber Price: $157.50
Word count: 526
Abstract: Trademark holders who file an infringement suit risk running into an unwelcome consequence: a counterclaim that the trademark in question is invalid. Athletic shoe giant Nike met this risk by issuing a “Covenant Not to Sue” a rival seller, and then moved to dismiss its own claims with prejudice and its rival’s counterclaim as moot. This article discusses the Supreme Court conclusion, which found the case moot, but cautioned that granting covenants not to sue might prove a risky long-term strategy for a trademark holder. Already, LLC v. Nike, Inc., No. 11-982, Jan. 9, 2013 (U.S. Supreme Court)