Intellectual Property
Showing 257–272 of 336 results
-
Progressive encroachment vs. a tardy claim
April / May 2013
Newsletter: Ideas on Intellectual Property Law
Price: $225.00, Subscriber Price: $157.50
Word count: 440
Abstract: In many areas of law, taking too much time to file a lawsuit could end up preempting a claim. When progressive encroachment is involved, however, preemption may not occur. This article looks at a recent trademark ruling by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit, in which the court maintained that the progressive encroachment doctrine barred the defendant’s use of the “laches” defense to claim that the plaintiff had taken too long to sue. Oriental Financial Group, Inc. v. Cooperativa De Ahorro y Crédito Oriental, Nos. 11-1473, 11-1476, Oct. 18, 2012 (1st Cir.)
-
Location is everything … or is it? Trademark case looks at relevance of geographic connection
April / May 2013
Newsletter: Ideas on Intellectual Property Law
Price: $225.00, Subscriber Price: $157.50
Word count: 518
Abstract: Does the place name actually mean anything in a product with a geographic location in its trademark? This article discusses a recent case in which a designer of fashion accessories claimed that the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board, in denying his application for trademark registration, had erred when it found that his goods didn’t originate in Paris even though he had significant ties to the city. In re Miracle Tuesday LLC, No. 2011-1373, Oct. 4, 2012 (Fed. Cir.)
-
Federal Circuit raises the bar for inequitable conduct defense
April / May 2013
Newsletter: Ideas on Intellectual Property Law
Price: $225.00, Subscriber Price: $157.50
Word count: 629
Abstract: Like the proverbial child caught stealing cookies from the jar, patent infringement defendants sometimes try to squirm out of the tough situation at hand by accusing their accusers. Many charge that a court should render the patent in question unenforceable because of wrongful conduct by the patentee during prosecution. This article discusses a case in which the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit made it more difficult for defendants to use this tactic. Therasense, Inc. v. Becton, Dickinson and Co., Nos. 2008-1511, 2008-1512, 2008-1513, 2008-1514, 2008-1595, May 25, 2011 (Fed. Cir.) 1st Media, LLC v. Electronic Arts, Inc., No. 2010-1435, Sept. 13, 2012 (Fed. Cir.)
-
Apple falls too far from tree – Irreparable harm won’t stop Samsung sales
April / May 2013
Newsletter: Ideas on Intellectual Property Law
Price: $225.00, Subscriber Price: $157.50
Word count: 942
Abstract: To minimize their losses during long patent infringement lawsuits, patentees sometimes seek preliminary injunctions to stop the alleged infringement while the case is ongoing. In one recent case involving Apple vs. Samsung, however, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit made it more difficult to obtain preliminary injunctions. This article looks at the case and its discussion of the relationship between “irreparable harm” and “causal nexus.” A sidebar explains why the court rejected three documents Apple submitted as evidence. Apple Inc. v. Samsung Electronics Co, No. 2012-1507, Oct. 11, 2012 (Fed. Cir.)
-
Trademark: Canceled
February / March 2013
Newsletter: Ideas on Intellectual Property Law
Price: $225.00, Subscriber Price: $157.50
Word count: 631
Abstract: Under trademark law, a mark’s nonuse in commerce for three consecutive years constitutes evidence of abandonment. This article discusses a case in which one company attempted to cancel another’s registration, claiming that the latter hadn’t actually used the mark as registered because it didn’t offer software to consumers as a good in trade. The court’s ruling demonstrates that trademarking in a digital marketplace may not be as straightforward as it was in the past. Citation: Lens.com, Inc. v. 1-800 Contacts, Inc., 2011-1258, Aug. 3, 2012 (7th Cir.)
-
One, singular sensation … Using indefinite articles in patent language
February / March 2013
Newsletter: Ideas on Intellectual Property Law
Price: $225.00, Subscriber Price: $157.50
Word count: 537
Abstract: When one technology company sued another for patent infringement, the district court dismissed the case, concluding that, for infringement to have occurred, the location facility — which performed multiple functions — must be contained on a single computer. The plaintiff appealed, arguing that the location facility could be distributed among multiple locator server computers. This article shows that the court’s ruling came down to whether the indefinite articles “a” and “an” in a patent mean “one or more” or “one only.” Citation: 01 Communique Laboratory, Inc. v. LogMeIn, Inc., No. 2011-1403, July 31, 2012 (Fed. Cir.)
-
Does “social bookmarking” infringe on copyright holders?
February / March 2013
Newsletter: Ideas on Intellectual Property Law
Price: $225.00, Subscriber Price: $157.50
Word count: 693
Abstract: The Internet allows materials to be more easily and economically distributed to a mass audience, but it also allows the public a ready means of copying and sharing that content without payment. This article looks at a case in which a social bookmarking site was sued for copyright infringement because it allows people to provide one another access to online materials. At issue was whether the defendant was a contributory infringer. Citation: Flava Works, Inc. v. Gunter, No. 11-3190, Aug. 2, 2012 (7th Cir.)
-
Doubling down — The latest on patentability of “isolated” DNA molecule
February / March 2013
Newsletter: Ideas on Intellectual Property Law
Price: $225.00, Subscriber Price: $157.50
Word count: 1054
Abstract: Members of the biotech industry were much relieved in 2011 when a three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit held that an “isolated” DNA molecule is patentable. However, in another case, the U.S. Supreme Court held that the methods at the heart of a diagnostic test weren’t patentable. Taking this into account, the Federal Circuit issued a second ruling that was once again positive news for the biotech industry. This article examines the case, but a sidebar notes that further review may be on the horizon. Citation: Association for Molecular Pathology v. U.S. Patent and Trademark Office and Myriad Genetics Inc., No. 2010-1406, Aug. 16, 2012 (Fed. Cir.); Mayo Collaborative Svcs. v. Prometheus Laboratories, Inc., No. 10-1150, March 20, 2012 (Supreme Court)
-
Willful patent infringement standard redefined
Year End 2012
Newsletter: Ideas on Intellectual Property Law
Price: $225.00, Subscriber Price: $157.50
Word count: 533
Abstract: A recent ruling from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit significantly reshapes the test for willful infringement — and could make it harder to prove. This article discusses the case, which establishes that a court must first make a threshold determination of objective recklessness that considers the reasonableness of the potential defenses. Only if the asserted defenses aren’t reasonable can the jury consider the question of subjective recklessness. Citation: Bard Peripheral Vascular, Inc. v. W.L. Gore & Assocs., 2010-1510, June 14, 2012 (Fed. Cir.)
-
The suit must go on — Copyright Act doesn’t preempt TV contract claim
Year End 2012
Newsletter: Ideas on Intellectual Property Law
Price: $225.00, Subscriber Price: $157.50
Word count: 632
Abstract: The Copyright Act can provide much protection. But, as a recent case in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit illustrates, it has its limits. This article discusses the case, in which the court didn’t uphold preemptive protections for a defendant being sued for breach of contract related to copyrightable material. The court concluded that a breach of contract claim including a promise to pay is qualitatively different from a lawsuit to vindicate a right included in the Copyright Act. Therefore, the claim isn’t preempted. Citation: Forest Park Pictures v. Universal Television Network, No. 11-2011-cv, June 26, 2012 (2nd Cir.)
-
Barking up the wrong tree: A trademark case
Year End 2012
Newsletter: Ideas on Intellectual Property Law
Price: $225.00, Subscriber Price: $157.50
Word count: 581
Abstract: The owner of a trademark for pet food and treats took issue when a competitor tried to register a similar mark for its own products. The article explains why an appeals court concluded that the marks were sufficiently similar in their overall commercial impression to deny registration. It explains that the court focused on three of 13 “DuPont” factors in reaching its conclusion. Citation: Midwestern Pet Foods, Inc. v. Societe des Produits Nestle S.A., No. 2011-1482, July 9, 2012 (Fed. Cir.)
-
A more permissive approach? — New patent test issued for computer-based inventions
Year End 2012
Newsletter: Ideas on Intellectual Property Law
Price: $225.00, Subscriber Price: $157.50
Word count: 1159
Abstract: In the eyes of some, an early 2012 Supreme Court decision seemed to make it harder for the holders of business-method patents to overcome challenges asserting that their inventions are unpatentable abstract ideas. But the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, in a recent case, appears to indicate a more permissive approach in favor of patentability. This article examines the case, which discusses the question of what constitutes an unpatentable “abstract idea.” But a sidebar looks at a case immediately following in which the Federal Circuit ruled differently. Citations: Mayo Collaborative Svcs. v. Prometheus Laboratories, Inc., No. 10-1150, March 20, 2012 (Supreme Court); CLS Bank Int’l v. Alice Corp. Party Ltd., No. 2011-1301, July 9, 2012 (Fed. Cir.); Bancorp Svcs., LLC v. Sun Life Assurance Co. of Canada, No. 2011-1467, July 26, 2012 (Fed. Cir.)
-
What’s in a name? — Google takes a hit over keyword ads
October / November 2012
Newsletter: Ideas on Intellectual Property Law
Price: $225.00, Subscriber Price: $157.50
Word count: 677
Abstract: In the ongoing battle over the trademark implications of Google’s AdWords advertising program, the brand owners have scored a victory with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit. The district court had granted summary judgment against the plaintiff, but the appeals court found that that court had improperly evaluated the plaintiff’s evidence of three likelihood of confusion factors. This article shows how the recent ruling sheds some light on how trademark holders might be able to protect their marks online. Citation: Rosetta Stone Ltd. v. Google, Inc., No. 10-2007, April 9, 2012 (4th Cir.)
-
Nothing’s patently obvious, says the Federal Circuit
October / November 2012
Newsletter: Ideas on Intellectual Property Law
Price: $225.00, Subscriber Price: $157.50
Word count: 621
Abstract: According to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, there’s nothing obvious about how to determine whether a patent is invalid for obviousness. This article examines a recent case involving alleged infringement of a patent on a casing structure for encasing meat products. The appeals court vacated the district court’s ruling that the patent was invalid for obviousness, but, as it turned out, the plaintiff could take little comfort. Citation: Mintz v. Dietz & Watson, Inc., No. 2010-1341, May 30, 2012 (Fed. Cir.)
-
Inequitable conduct dooms drug patents
October / November 2012
Newsletter: Ideas on Intellectual Property Law
Price: $225.00, Subscriber Price: $157.50
Word count: 564
Abstract: A drug company holding two pharmaceutical patents on a chemotherapy cancer drug sued three other companies for infringement when they applied for FDA approval to market generic versions. But the district court ruled that the patents were unenforceable for inequitable conduct because the inventor intentionally withheld from the PTO two prior art references that were material to the drug’s patentability. It also held that the patents were invalid for obviousness. This article explains why this verdict survived on appeal, along with the lessons to be learned. Citation: Aventis Pharma S.A. v. Hospira, Inc., No. 2011-1018, April 9, 2012 (Fed. Cir.); Therasense, Inc. v. Becton, Dickinson Co., 2008-1511, -1512, -1513, -1514, -1595, May 25, 2011 (Fed. Cir.)
-
Clipping YouTube — Second Circuit explains limits of DMCA safe harbors
October / November 2012
Newsletter: Ideas on Intellectual Property Law
Price: $225.00, Subscriber Price: $157.50
Word count: 1028
Abstract: Is an online service provider liable when it hosts content that’s copyrighted by another party without that copyright owner’s permission? Providers have claimed protection from copyright infringement liability under the safe harbor provisions of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA). But this article looks at a recent decision by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit which explained the limits of that protection. A sidebar shows how the court addressed application of the “willful blindness” doctrine to the DMCA. Citation: Viacom Int’l, Inc. v. YouTube, Inc., No. 10-3270, April 5, 2012 (2nd Cir.)