IIP

Ideas on Intellectual Property Law

Showing 1–16 of 276 results

  • Language matters: Grammar guides court’s patent interpretation

    June / July 2021
    Newsletter: Ideas on Intellectual Property Law

    Price: $225.00, Subscriber Price: $157.50

    Word count: 435

    Abstract: Grammar nerds can delight in a new ruling from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, which hears all appeals involving patent litigation. Asked to interpret the meaning of the phrase “a plurality of” when it precedes a list of components in a patent, the court relied in part on a source likely to be found on the bookshelf of every English major at some point. This short article covers the court’s finding of noninfringement based on the meaning of the phrase “a plurality of.” SIMO Holdings Inc. v. Hong Kong uCloudlink Network Technology Ltd., No. 2019-2411 (Fed. Cir. Jan. 5, 2021).

    Read More

  • Federal Circuit diverges from PTAB on analogous art ruling

    June / July 2021
    Newsletter: Ideas on Intellectual Property Law

    Price: $225.00, Subscriber Price: $157.50

    Word count: 629

    Abstract: As patent owners are well aware, sometimes overcoming invalidating prior art can be difficult. Prior art — which makes an invention known and/or obvious, and therefore unpatentable — includes existing patents that are “analogous art.” But what makes an existing patent analogous? This article reviews a case from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, which handles all patent-related appeals, that explains the concept of analogous art. Donner Technology, LLC v. Pro Stage Gear, LLC, No. 20-1104 (Fed. Cir. Nov. 9, 2020).

    Read More

  • Take two – Court revives trademark infringement claim

    June / July 2021
    Newsletter: Ideas on Intellectual Property Law

    Price: $225.00, Subscriber Price: $157.50

    Word count: 622

    Abstract: Using the exact words of a competitor’s trademark in a mark would pretty clearly constitute infringement, but a trial court evaluating such a situation disagreed. However, on review of what it described as a “somewhat unusual” trademark case, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit didn’t concur, based on several factors. This article reviews the court’s discussion of the likelihood of confusion test as it applied to the facts. Car-Freshner Corp. v. American Covers, LLC, No. 19-2750 (2d Cir. Nov. 19, 2020).

    Read More

  • Oh, the places you won’t go – Fair use defense fails for mashup

    June / July 2021
    Newsletter: Ideas on Intellectual Property Law

    Price: $225.00, Subscriber Price: $157.50

    Word count: 850

    Abstract: The fair use defense to copyright infringement traces its roots back to an 1841 case involving the use of George Washington’s writings for a biography. To say things have become more complicated is an understatement, as demonstrated by a recent fair use case that considered a “mashup” combining elements of Dr. Seuss with elements of the TV show “Star Trek.” This article reviews the case and the fair use defense, while a short sidebar reveals why the plaintiff lost its trademark claim. Dr. Seuss Enterprises, L.P. v. ComicMix LLC, No. 19-55348 (9th Cir. Dec. 18, 2020).

    Read More

  • Objectively reasonable belief doesn’t preclude induced infringement liability

    April / May 2021
    Newsletter: Ideas on Intellectual Property Law

    Price: $225.00, Subscriber Price: $157.50

    Word count: 434

    Abstract: An alleged patent infringer’s conduct may be objectively reasonable — but that doesn’t mean the conduct can’t support liability for induced infringement. This short article highlights this lesson from a recent decision by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, where the defendant relied on a favorable court ruling and a stipulation by the parties that the plaintiff couldn’t show induced infringement. TecSec, Inc. v. Adobe Inc. Nos. 19-2192, 2258 (Fed. Cir. Oct. 23, 2020)

    Read More

  • USPTO responds to Booking.com ruling with revised guidelines

    April / May 2021
    Newsletter: Ideas on Intellectual Property Law

    Price: $225.00, Subscriber Price: $157.50

    Word count: 622

    Abstract: In the wake of the U.S. Supreme Court ruling in the Booking.com case last year, the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) has updated its guidance for evaluating so-called “generic.com” marks for trademark registration. Although the Court’s ruling opened the door to registration for such marks, applicants nonetheless may find it an uphill battle. This article reviews the USPTO guidance.

    Read More

  • Any way you slice it – Copyright Act requires domestic infringement

    April / May 2021
    Newsletter: Ideas on Intellectual Property Law

    Price: $225.00, Subscriber Price: $157.50

    Word count: 616

    Abstract: In an opinion hot out of the oven, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit recently weighed in on a case that tested the extraterritorial limits of the federal Copyright Act. Unfortunately for the U.S.-based copyright owner, the court determined that its allegations of infringement fell short of what was necessary to sustain a case against foreign defendants. This article reviews that case and the international reach of the U.S. Copyright Act. IMAPizza, LLC v. At Pizza Ltd., No. 18-7168 (D.C. Cir. July 17, 2020)

    Read More

  • Confusion reigns – Ninth Circuit addresses counterfeiting claims

    April / May 2021
    Newsletter: Ideas on Intellectual Property Law

    Price: $225.00, Subscriber Price: $157.50

    Word count: 824

    Abstract: Counterfeiting is a form of trademark infringement, so you might naturally expect that it requires at least the same amount of evidence as an infringement claim to reach trial. One trademark holder, however, recently argued that counterfeiting claims don’t require a showing of a likelihood of consumer confusion. This article examines a recent case from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit that set the trademark holder straight. Arcona, Inc. v. Farmacy Beauty, LLC, No. 19-55586 (9th Cir. Oct. 1, 2020)

    Read More

  • Who can file for trademark cancellation?

    February / March 2021
    Newsletter: Ideas on Intellectual Property Law

    Price: $225.00, Subscriber Price: $157.50

    Word count: 425

    Abstract: The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit recently held that parties can pursue cancellation of a trademark even if they don’t show a proprietary interest in the contested mark. This article reviews the case and why owners of registered trademarks could see an uptick in attempts to cancel those marks. Australian Therapeutic Supplies Pty. Ltd. v. Naked TM, LLC, No. 19-1567 (Fed. Cir. July 27, 2020).

    Read More

  • “Method of preparation” involving natural phenomenon is patent-eligible

    February / March 2021
    Newsletter: Ideas on Intellectual Property Law

    Price: $225.00, Subscriber Price: $157.50

    Word count: 559

    Abstract: The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit has taken the unusual step of modifying and clarifying an earlier opinion considering whether an invention related to a natural phenomenon was patent-eligible. Although the case deals with a “method of preparation,” this article looks at why it may also provide some valuable clues on how best to structure diagnostic claims to increase the odds of patent eligibility. Illumina, Inc. v. Ariosa Diagnostics, Inc., No. 19-1419 (Fed. Cir. Aug. 3, 2020); Association for Molecular Pathology v. Myriad Genetics, Inc., 569 U.S. 576 (2013).

    Read More

  • Don’t let patent licensing missteps cost you

    February / March 2021
    Newsletter: Ideas on Intellectual Property Law

    Price: $225.00, Subscriber Price: $157.50

    Word count: 620

    Abstract: The owner of three software-related patents can attest to the highs and lows of patent litigation after the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit ruled in its case. Unlike other patents challenged as patent-ineligible under the so-called Alice test, its patents were upheld — but the patentee lost out on millions in pre-suit damages due to a licensing misstep. This article examines the case and reminds readers not to make the same mistake. Packet Intelligence LLC v. Netscout Systems, Inc., No. 19-2041 (Fed. Cir. July 14, 2020).

    Read More

  • Behind the curtain – “Jersey Boys” doesn’t violate copyright on autobiography

    February / March 2021
    Newsletter: Ideas on Intellectual Property Law

    Price: $225.00, Subscriber Price: $157.50

    Word count: 814

    Abstract: The long-running Broadway musical “Jersey Boys” chronicles the history of the band known as the Four Seasons — and spawned copyright litigation that has run nearly as long as the play itself. This article discusses the latest ruling from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, which found that because facts can’t form the basis for a copyright claim, and all of the alleged similarities were based on elements that were treated as fact in the manuscript, the plaintiff’s manuscript was unprotected. Corbello v. Valli, No. 17-1637 (9th Cir. Sept. 8, 2020).

    Read More

  • Court affirms PTAB’s common sense obviousness analysis

    Year End 2020
    Newsletter: Ideas on Intellectual Property Law

    Price: $225.00, Subscriber Price: $157.50

    Word count: 415

    Abstract: Common sense can go a long way. And patent litigants shouldn’t be surprised at just how far it can go when a court determines whether a patent is invalid for being obvious. This article discusses a case in which the court found that, while common sense shouldn’t be used as a wholesale substitute for reasoned analysis and evidentiary support, the Patent Trial and Appeal Board’s use of common sense was accompanied by the necessary analysis and support. B/E Aerospace, Inc. v. C&D Zodiac, Inc., No. 19-1935, June 26, 2020, Fed. Cir.; KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., No. 04–1350, Supreme Court (2007).

    Read More

  • Cosmetic differences – Copyright Act preempts state law claims over makeup artistry

    Year End 2020
    Newsletter: Ideas on Intellectual Property Law

    Price: $225.00, Subscriber Price: $157.50

    Word count: 646

    Abstract: To qualify for copyright protection, works must be “fixed in a tangible medium of expression.” Does human skin count as a tangible medium of expression? The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit considered that question in a recent case — but in the end held off on a decision. This article reviews the court’s decision to find a different basis for ruling against the plaintiff. Mourabit v. Klein, No. 19-2142, June 8, 2020, 2d Cir.

    Read More

  • There’s no “I” in team – Court adds co-inventors to patents

    Year End 2020
    Newsletter: Ideas on Intellectual Property Law

    Price: $225.00, Subscriber Price: $157.50

    Word count: 583

    Abstract: Some types of inventions are the result of extensive collaboration, but not every collaborator qualifies as an inventor for patent purposes. The exclusion or inclusion of individuals as inventors can have significant implications, financially and otherwise. This article highlights a recent case involving a cancer treatment reviewing the concept of joint inventorship. Dana-Farber Cancer Institute v. Ono Pharm. Co., Ltd., No. 19-2050, July 14, 2020, Fed. Cir.

    Read More

  • SCOTUS has no reservations about Booking.com trademark

    Year End 2020
    Newsletter: Ideas on Intellectual Property Law

    Price: $225.00, Subscriber Price: $157.50

    Word count: 819

    Abstract: The U.S. Supreme Court recently sided with digital travel company Booking.com in a much-anticipated trademark ruling. The Court’s holding, which makes the combination of a generic word with “.com” eligible for federal trademark registration, reportedly has already led to a wave of registration applications for such terms. This article reviews the Court’s reasoning and a short sidebar discusses its discussion regarding relevant evidence such as dictionaries, usage by consumers and competitors, and consumer surveys. USPTO v. Booking.com, No. 19-46, June 30, 2020, U.S.

    Read More