Intellectual Property
Showing 81–96 of 336 results
-
Use it or lose it: Protecting IP during a public health crisis
August / September 2020
Newsletter: Ideas on Intellectual Property Law
Price: $225.00, Subscriber Price: $157.50
Word count: 383
Abstract: Owners of intellectual property (IP) — whether it’s a patent, trademark, copyright or something else — need to protect and enforce their rights, even during tumultuous times like the COVID-19 pandemic. Although the crisis forced the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (PTO), the U.S. Copyright Office and some courts to close to the public, this short article reminds IP owners that their rights must always be protected.
-
Trademark licensee denied preliminary injunction – Court finds license isn’t “perpetual”
August / September 2020
Newsletter: Ideas on Intellectual Property Law
Price: $225.00, Subscriber Price: $157.50
Word count: 596
Abstract: Preliminary injunctions generally are considered extraordinary remedies, as the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit recently reminded a popcorn manufacturer. The manufacturer had sought a preliminary injunction against a trademark licensor that terminated its agreement. This article reviews a district court’s finding that an injunction was warranted because the manufacturer held a “perpetual license,” and why the appellate court disagreed. Mrs. Fields Franchising LLC v. MFGPC, Nos. 19-4046, -4063, Nov. 7, 2019, Fed. Cir.
-
Patentee misses the mark on pre-lawsuit infringement damages
August / September 2020
Newsletter: Ideas on Intellectual Property Law
Price: $225.00, Subscriber Price: $157.50
Word count: 655
Abstract: Patent owners have to do more than simply obtain their patents if they want to recover full damages for patent infringement. This article reviews one case in which a patent owner’s infringement action was dismissed because the owner had failed to give the public notice of the patent by marking products that use the patented invention, thus dramatically limiting the amount of recoverable damages. Arctic Cat Inc. v. Bombardier Recreational Products Inc., No. 2019-1080, Feb. 19, 2020, Fed. Cir.
-
Stairway to litigation – Led Zeppelin prevails in copyright case
August / September 2020
Newsletter: Ideas on Intellectual Property Law
Price: $225.00, Subscriber Price: $157.50
Word count: 920
Abstract: The copyright infringement case involving Led Zeppelin’s classic rock anthem “Stairway to Heaven” may finally be over. In finding in favor of the band, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reversed some of its long-standing precedent — and this could significantly impact other copyright cases. This article reviews the appellate decision and its determination not to use the inverse ratio rule. A short sidebar covers the court’s decision that a deposit copy limited the scope of the copyright under the 1909 Copyright Act. Skidmore v. Led Zeppelin, Nos. 16-56057, -56287, March 9, 2020, 9th Cir.
-
Supreme Court slaps down PTO pursuit of attorneys’ fees
June / July 2020
Newsletter: Ideas on Intellectual Property Law
Price: $225.00, Subscriber Price: $157.50
Word count: 462
Abstract: The U.S. Supreme Court has weighed in on a new U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (PTO) practice when patent applicants appeal adverse decisions in district court. This article reviews why the Court’s conclusion is welcome news for applicants who want to go this route to contest the denial of their applications. Peter v. NantKwest, Inc., No. 18-801, Dec. 11, 2019, U.S.
-
Attorneys’ fees awards in trademark cases – Appellate court lowers the bar
June / July 2020
Newsletter: Ideas on Intellectual Property Law
Price: $225.00, Subscriber Price: $157.50
Word count: 583
Abstract: When most people think about what it takes to qualify as “exceptional,” they probably imagine a fairly high bar. That’s not how the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit sees it, though — at least when it comes to the standard for awarding attorneys’ fees to prevailing defendants in trademark litigation. This article discusses a recent trademark law case, in which the court joined most federal courts of appeal in applying a looser test in the wake of a 2014 U.S. Supreme Court ruling, which had arisen in a patent case. LHO Chicago River, LLC v. Perillo, No. 19-1848, Nov. 8, 2019, 7th Cir.
-
Prescription for copyright protection: Register stat!
June / July 2020
Newsletter: Ideas on Intellectual Property Law
Price: $225.00, Subscriber Price: $157.50
Word count: 601
Abstract: Copyright protection generally takes effect as soon as an original work is created, but it might not be as extensive as some think. To get the full protection, including the ability to sue for infringement, the work must be registered with the U.S. Copyright Office — ASAP. This article covers a recent case in which the copyright holder learned the risks of delaying registration the hard way. Southern Credentialing Support Svcs., LLC v. Hammond Surgical Hosp., LLC, No. 18-31169, Jan. 9, 2020, 5th Cir.
-
Look before you leap – Foreign publication leads to patent invalidation
June / July 2020
Newsletter: Ideas on Intellectual Property Law
Price: $225.00, Subscriber Price: $157.50
Word count: 852
Abstract: Even after a patent is granted, an owner can find the patent’s validity challenged if it hasn’t thoroughly searched for “prior art.” That’s what happened to one telecommunications company: in an inter partes review (IPR) proceeding, the competitor alleged that prior art anticipated the invention, invalidating the patent. This article highlights a case that illustrates the low standard for the admission of late evidence in IPR proceedings and provides guidance on when a printed publication qualifies as potentially invalidating prior art. A short sidebar discusses the plaintiff’s claim that, even if the prior art was publicly available at the relevant time, it actually “taught away” from the patented invention. Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson v. TCL Corp., No. 18-801, Nov. 7, 2019, Fed. Cir.
-
Timing matters in inter partes review
April / May 2020
Newsletter: Ideas on Intellectual Property Law
Price: $225.00, Subscriber Price: $157.50
Word count: 469
Abstract: Inter partes review (IPR) offers parties an expedited opportunity to challenge the validity of a patent outside of court. But, as one challenger recently learned the hard way, it’s critical that arguments against patentability be raised at the proper time. This article reviews the court’s finding that an IPR petitioner may not raise in reply an entirely new rationale for why a claim would have been obvious. Henny Penny Corp. v. Frymaster LLC, No. 18-1596, Sept. 12, 2019, Fed. Cir.
-
No harm, no foul – Fair use defense wins trademark infringement case
April / May 2020
Newsletter: Ideas on Intellectual Property Law
Price: $225.00, Subscriber Price: $157.50
Word count: 625
Abstract: Athletes are known for “leaving it all on the field,” or going all out in competition. A nutritional consultant firm for athletes recently took the same mindset to a trademark battle — but it didn’t emerge victorious, because a court found its opponent’s use of its mark was fair. This article examines the fair use defense and how the defendant used it to overcome a claim of trademark infringement. SportFuel, Inc., v. PepsiCo, Inc., No. 18-3010, Aug. 2, 2019, 7th Cir.
-
Back to the future – Federal Circuit rejects narrow approach to relation back doctrine
April / May 2020
Newsletter: Ideas on Intellectual Property Law
Price: $225.00, Subscriber Price: $157.50
Word count: 631
Abstract: The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, the appellate court that hears all patent-related appeals, recently revived an infringement lawsuit based on the relation back doctrine. This article examines why the court found the trial court’s application of the doctrine, which resulted in the case being dismissed because of the statute of limitations, “overly restrictive.” Anza Technology, Inc. v. Mushkin, Inc., No. 19-1045, Aug. 16, 2019, Fed. Cir.
-
Food for thought: Court rules banana costume is copyrightable
April / May 2020
Newsletter: Ideas on Intellectual Property Law
Price: $225.00, Subscriber Price: $157.50
Word count: 846
Abstract: In 2017, the U.S. Supreme Court in Star Athletica, L.L.C. v. Varsity Brands, Inc., established a two-part test for analyzing which elements of a piece of clothing are design elements protectable by copyright and which are nonprotectable functional elements. This article reviews a recent case from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit that has applied the fruit of the high court’s labors in that case for the first time in its jurisdiction. A brief sidebar covers the application of the merger and “scènes à faire” doctrines to the case. Silvertop Associates Inc. v. Kangaroo Mfg. Inc., No. 18-2266, Aug. 1, 2019, 3d Cir., Star Athletica, L.L.C. v. Varsity Brands, Inc., 137 S. Ct. 1002 (2017).
-
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)
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.