Intellectual Property

Showing 33–48 of 276 results

  • Third Circuit rejects copyright presumption in favor of permanent injunctions

    February / March 2020
    Newsletter: Ideas on Intellectual Property Law

    Price: $225.00, Subscriber Price: $157.50

    Word count: 398

    Abstract: After securing a copyright infringement verdict, it should be easier to obtain a permanent injunction against the infringing party, right? Not so in several jurisdictions. This article summarizes a decision from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit that has now made it harder for copyright holders to get injunctive relief, even after prevailing in court. TD Bank N.A. v. Hill, No. 16-2897, July 1, 2019, 3d Cir.; eBay Inc. v. MercExchange, LLC, 547 U.S. 388 (2006)

    Read More

  • Beyond words – Federal Circuit faults PTAB’s written description analysis

    February / March 2020
    Newsletter: Ideas on Intellectual Property Law

    Price: $225.00, Subscriber Price: $157.50

    Word count: 635

    Abstract: The Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) doesn’t always get it right. This was demonstrated once again in a case where the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit found that the board had improperly failed to consider some vital factors when evaluating whether a patent application contained the requisite written description of the invention. This article highlights the disagreement between the PTAB and the appellate court. In re: Global IP Holdings LLC, No. 18-1426, July 5, 2019, Fed. Cir.

    Read More

  • Actual consumer confusion irrelevant in trademark profits determination

    February / March 2020
    Newsletter: Ideas on Intellectual Property Law

    Price: $225.00, Subscriber Price: $157.50

    Word count: 581

    Abstract: It’s easy to understand why willful infringement deserves a harsher punishment than nonwillful infringement. But it’s not always so easy to understand the type of conduct that gives rise to the level of “willful.” This article discusses a case from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit that provided some helpful guidance on this issue, as well as the evidence required to justify an award of the infringer’s profits. 4 Pillar Dynasty LLC v. New York & Co., Inc., No. 17-2398, July 5, 2019, 2d Cir.

    Read More

  • Auto parts’ aesthetic appeal doesn’t invalidate design patents

    February / March 2020
    Newsletter: Ideas on Intellectual Property Law

    Price: $225.00, Subscriber Price: $157.50

    Word count: 834

    Abstract: Holders of design patents received some welcome news recently from a case in which some auto parts distributors sought declaratory judgment for invalidity of design patents to sell parts that were covered by a major vehicle manufacturer’s designs. This article reviews a case from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit that sheds some valuable light on the type of functionality that can render a design patent invalid — and the type that won’t — as well as the importance of design patents. A short sidebar reviews the exhaustion and repair doctrines’ roles in the case. Automotive Body Parts Ass’n v. Ford Global Techs., LLC, No. 18-1613, July 11, 2019, Fed. Cir.

    Read More

  • SCOTUS strikes down ban on immoral or scandalous trademark registration

    Year End 2019
    Newsletter: Ideas on Intellectual Property Law

    Price: $225.00, Subscriber Price: $157.50

    Word count: 441

    Abstract: Just two years after ruling that a ban against the registration of disparaging trademarks was a violation of the First Amendment and thus unconstitutional, the U.S. Supreme Court has proven that it wasn’t a fluke. It recently held that a ban against registration of immoral or scandalous trademarks is unconstitutional as well. This article summarizes the case and how the decision implicates previously rejected and pending trademarks found to have violated the bar. Iancu v. Brunetti, No. 18-302, June 24, 2019, U.S.

    Read More

  • Limited protection – Inaccurate statement forfeits copyright infringement claim

    Year End 2019
    Newsletter: Ideas on Intellectual Property Law

    Price: $225.00, Subscriber Price: $157.50

    Word count: 684

    Abstract: Creative works are generally subject to copyright protection even without registration with the U.S. Copyright Office. But there are a number of important advantages to securing Copyright Registration — including the ability to file suit for copyright infringement. Normally, a registration certificate provides sufficient evidence of a valid registered copyright. However, inaccurate information in the certificate can invalidate the registration. This article examines a recent case in which the holder of one such certificate not only lost out on its ability to pursue an infringement claim, but also ended up on the hook for the would-be defendants’ attorneys’ fees and costs. Gold Value Int’l Textile, Inc. v. Sanctuary Clothing, LLC, No. 17-55818, June 4, 2019, 9th Cir.

    Read More

  • It’s official – Supreme Court says government isn’t a person ― for patent purposes

    Year End 2019
    Newsletter: Ideas on Intellectual Property Law

    Price: $225.00, Subscriber Price: $157.50

    Word count: 551

    Abstract: Patentees welcomed a recent U.S. Supreme Court decision that significantly reduces the pool of potential challengers to the validity of existing patents. This article highlights a ruling finding that federal governmental agencies can’t take advantage of three patent review processes created less than a decade ago — because the federal government isn’t a “person” under patent law. Return Mail, Inc. v. U.S. Postal Service, No. 17-1594, June 10, 2019, U.S.

    Read More

  • Sink or swim: Precise patent language scuttles infringement lawsuit

    Year End 2019
    Newsletter: Ideas on Intellectual Property Law

    Price: $225.00, Subscriber Price: $157.50

    Word count: 845

    Abstract: Generally, using precise and careful language in a patent application is wise. But providing a precise numerical value can work against a patentee when it comes time to bring an infringement claim. This article discusses a recent case in which a boat manufacturer learned this lesson the hard way when it sued a rival for infringement. A short sidebar covers the doctrine of equivalents and whether this doctrine could save the patent. Cobalt Boats, LLC v. Brunswick Corp., No. 18-1376, May 31, 2019, Fed. Cir.

    Read More

  • PTAB rejects inherently obvious finding

    October / November 2019
    Newsletter: Ideas on Intellectual Property Law

    Price: $225.00, Subscriber Price: $157.50

    Word count: 378

    Abstract: What’s obvious to one person isn’t always obvious to another, and the same is true when it comes to patents. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit demonstrated this principle in rejecting the Patent Trial and Appeal Board’s (PTAB’s) determination that a patent was inherently obvious. This article reviews the court’s decision shedding light on what factors establish when a claimed feature of a patented invention was “inherent” in an earlier invention. PersonalWeb Technologies, LLC v. Apple, Inc., No. 18-1599, March 8, 2019, Fed. Cir.

    Read More

  • Supreme Court ruling leaves a mark – Trademark right survives licensor’s bankruptcy

    October / November 2019
    Newsletter: Ideas on Intellectual Property Law

    Price: $225.00, Subscriber Price: $157.50

    Word count: 642

    Abstract: It’s never good news for a business when a company that the business has contracted with files for bankruptcy. But, according to a new U.S. Supreme Court ruling, there’s some good news for trademark licensees. This article summarizes a decision that resolves a split among federal courts of appeal, in which the Court held that in some circumstances a licensee can continue to use the licensed marks despite the licensor’s rejection of their agreement during the bankruptcy process. Mission Product Holdings, Inc. v. Tempnology, LLC, No. 17-1657, May 20, 2019, U.S.

    Read More

  • Vehicle charging station patents short-circuit under Alice analysis

    October / November 2019
    Newsletter: Ideas on Intellectual Property Law

    Price: $225.00, Subscriber Price: $157.50

    Word count: 575

    Abstract: The U.S. Federal Circuit Court of Appeals continues to wield the so-called Alice test to knock down patents for abstract ideas. This article reviews one such decision, in which the court explained that abstract ideas aren’t patent-eligible in the absence of an inventive concept that makes a claim “significantly more” than just the abstract idea — and the underlying abstract idea can’t provide that inventive concept. ChargePoint, Inc. v. SemaConnect, Inc., No. 18-1739, March 28, 2019, Fed. Cir.

    Read More

  • Active or passive? What makes website operators directly liable for copyright infringement

    October / November 2019
    Newsletter: Ideas on Intellectual Property Law

    Price: $225.00, Subscriber Price: $157.50

    Word count: 854

    Abstract: As many copyright holders have learned the hard way, the Internet opened a whole new frontier in the world of infringement, particularly when it comes to pinning liability on the appropriate parties. This article discusses a recent case involving the unauthorized use of thousands of copyrighted photographs, where the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit laid out the types of behaviors that will — and won’t — make a website operator directly liable for copyright infringement on their sites. A short sidebar discusses the application of the fair use defense. VHT, Inc. v. Zillow Group, Inc., No. 17-35587, March 15, 2019, Ninth Cir.

    Read More

  • Court of Appeals revives denied trademark application

    August / September 2019
    Newsletter: Ideas on Intellectual Property Law

    Price: $225.00, Subscriber Price: $157.50

    Word count: 423

    Abstract: Two companies with similar marks operated in the same region for more than 40 years without any actual confusion arising for consumers. Nonetheless, the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board (TTAB) found a disqualifying likelihood of confusion when one company tried to register its mark. This article looks at why it can prove worthwhile to not just accept the board’s rulings. In re: Guild Mortgage Co., No. 17-2620, Jan. 14, 2019, Fed. Cir.

    Read More

  • Obviousness doesn’t require motivation to combine prior art

    August / September 2019
    Newsletter: Ideas on Intellectual Property Law

    Price: $225.00, Subscriber Price: $157.50

    Word count: 690

    Abstract: When a party challenging a patent’s validity alleges that multiple prior references made the invention obvious, it may need to show that someone would have been motivated to combine those references into the invention. This article highlights a recent case from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit finding that no motivation to combine is required where a secondary reference is used only to explain the primary reference. Realtime Data, LLC v. Iancu, No. 18-1154, Jan. 10, 2019, Fed. Cir.

    Read More

  • Extra! Extra! – SCOTUS clarifies copyright infringement lawsuit prerequisite

    August / September 2019
    Newsletter: Ideas on Intellectual Property Law

    Price: $225.00, Subscriber Price: $157.50

    Word count: 548

    Abstract: Authors of work obtain exclusive rights — copyrights — in their works immediately on creation of the work. But they generally can’t file a civil lawsuit for infringement of those rights until they register the work with the U.S. Copyright Office. The federal courts of appeal have split, however, as to when a copyright infringement suit could be filed — on filing the application for copyright registration with the Copyright Office or on grant of the copyright registration by that office. This article reviews a unanimous decision by the U.S. Supreme Court resolving the issue once and for all. Fourth Estate Public Benefit Corp. v. Wall-Street.com, LLC, No. 17-571, Jan. 8, 2019, U.S.S.C.

    Read More

  • Testing truths – Experimental use preempts public use, on-sale bars to patentability

    August / September 2019
    Newsletter: Ideas on Intellectual Property Law

    Price: $225.00, Subscriber Price: $157.50

    Word count: 938

    Abstract: Common sense might seem to dictate that a new invention would require testing before an inventor moves ahead with it. But could such testing trigger the public use or on-sale bar to patentability? Not necessarily. This article reviews a U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit case in which the court explained that the experimental use exception may negate both bars. Barry v. Medtronic, Inc., No. 17-2463, Jan. 24, 2019, Fed. Cir.

    Read More