IIP

Ideas on Intellectual Property Law

Showing 1–16 of 304 results

  • AI works shut out from copyright protection

    August / September 2022
    Newsletter: Ideas on Intellectual Property Law

    Price: $225.00, Subscriber Price: $157.50

    Word count: 422

    Abstract: Artificial intelligence (AI) has made inroads in a wide array of areas, but it has yet to break down the barriers to copyright protection. The U.S. Copyright Office continues to refuse to register a copyright on works created by AI. This article reviews a decision by the Review Board of the U.S. Copyright Office (board) explaining its reasoning earlier this year. Second Request for Reconsideration for Refusal to Register a Recent Entrance to Paradise (Copyright Review Board Feb. 14, 2022).

    Read More

  • Package it up – Bakery’s trade dress claim falls

    August / September 2022
    Newsletter: Ideas on Intellectual Property Law

    Price: $225.00, Subscriber Price: $157.50

    Word count: 515

    Abstract: When designing product packaging, companies generally want it to clearly identify their products. In Bimbo Bakeries USA, Inc. v. Sycamore, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit has ruled that a baking company’s trade dress used elements so customary in the industry that it was generic and not subject to trademark protection under the federal trademark law known as the Lanham Act. This articles summarizes the court’s findings. Bimbo Bakeries USA, Inc. v. Sycamore, No. 18-4062, -4031, -4040 (10th Cir. March 18, 2022).

    Read More

  • Patent’s on-sale bar drains damages

    August / September 2022
    Newsletter: Ideas on Intellectual Property Law

    Price: $225.00, Subscriber Price: $157.50

    Word count: 668

    Abstract: There can be a fine legal line between providing a quote and an offer for sale. An inventor recently learned this lesson the hard way in Junker v. Medical Components, Inc. — and it resulted in the invalidation of his patent and the reversal of a hefty infringement damages award. This article reviews the patent’s on-sale bar and how the patent holder ran afoul of it. Junker v. Medical Components, Inc., No. 21-1649 (Fed. Cir. Feb. 10, 2022).

    Read More

  • Isn’t it obvious? Presumption of obviousness knocks out patent

    August / September 2022
    Newsletter: Ideas on Intellectual Property Law

    Price: $225.00, Subscriber Price: $157.50

    Word count: 847

    Abstract: Patents that specify ranges ¬— for example, a range of concentrations in a topical composition — can run into a presumption of obviousness that results in their inventions being deemed unpatentable. This case reviews a case in which a pharmaceutical company ran into just that problem when the ranges cited in its patent for a skin treatment overlapped with those in some so-called “prior art.” A brief sidebar highlights the court’s conclusion that the requisite reasonable expectation of success can exist without “absolute predictability of success.” Almirall, LLC v. Amneal Pharmaceuticals, LLC, No. 20-2331 (Fed. Cir. March 14, 2022).

    Read More

  • Post-AIA patents aren’t immune to interference proceedings

    June / July 2022
    Newsletter: Ideas on Intellectual Property Law

    Price: $225.00, Subscriber Price: $157.50

    Word count: 446

    Abstract: When the America Invents Act changed the U.S. patent system from a “first to invent” to “first inventor to file for a patent” system, it created some confusion. For example, questions arose about the applicability of interference proceedings to patent applications filed after the “first to file” provision took effect on March 16, 2013. This article discusses SNIPR Tech. Ltd. v. The Rockefeller University, in which the Patent Trial and Appeal Board has attempted to provide some clarity. SNIPR Tech. Ltd. v. The Rockefeller University, Pat. Interf. No. 106,123 (PTAB Nov. 19, 2021).

    Read More

  • USPTO announces new trademark sanctions process

    June / July 2022
    Newsletter: Ideas on Intellectual Property Law

    Price: $225.00, Subscriber Price: $157.50

    Word count: 693

    Abstract: The U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) has taken another step in its ongoing campaign to protect the integrity of the trademark register. It recently announced a new administrative process it will wield to investigate improper submissions filed with the USPTO in trademark matters. This article summarizes the newest USPTO sanctions process.

    Read More

  • Off the leash – Design copyright case gets another life

    June / July 2022
    Newsletter: Ideas on Intellectual Property Law

    Price: $225.00, Subscriber Price: $157.50

    Word count: 565

    Abstract: A common phrase such as “I love you” written in a lower-case cursive, italicized font on garments can’t possibly be copyrightable, right? Probably not, but as this article shows in a ruling from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit in Cat and Dogma, LLC v. Target Corp. a design using such a phrase may gain copyright protection. Cat and Dogma, LLC v. Target Corp., No. 20-50674 (5th Cir. Oct. 8, 2021).

    Read More

  • A notable shift – Software survives patent-eligibility test

    June / July 2022
    Newsletter: Ideas on Intellectual Property Law

    Price: $225.00, Subscriber Price: $157.50

    Word count: 816

    Abstract: Patents covering software can face an uphill battle when challengers contend the software is actually a patent-ineligible abstract idea. In Mentone Solutions LLC v. Digi Int’l Inc., the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit recently upheld one such patent. This article sheds some light on how these patents can withstand judicial scrutiny. Mentone Solutions LLC v. Digi Int’l Inc., No. 21-1202 (Fed Cir. Nov. 15, 2021); Two-Way Media Ltd. v. Comcast Cable Communications, 874 F.3d 1329, 124 U.S.P.Q.2d 1521 (Fed. Cir. 2017); CosmoKey Solutions GmbH & Co. KG v. Duo Security LLC, No. 20-2043 (Fed Cir. Oct. 4, 2021).

    Read More

  • Federal Circuit limits disqualifying prior art for design patents

    April / May 2022
    Newsletter: Ideas on Intellectual Property Law

    Price: $225.00, Subscriber Price: $157.50

    Word count: 443

    Abstract: Can the existence of a similar-looking art tool anticipate or render obvious a patent for the design of an item used in plastic surgery? Fortunately for a design patent applicant in In re: SurgiSil, L.L.P., the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit found that the Patent Trial and Appeal Board erred in finding that the art tool anticipated a lip implant, rendering the implant’s design unpatentable. This article summarizes the case and the concept of “anticipation.” In re: SurgiSil, L.L.P., No. 20-1940 (Fed Cir. Oct. 4, 2021).

    Read More

  • Potential trademark injury not enough for federal jurisdiction

    April / May 2022
    Newsletter: Ideas on Intellectual Property Law

    Price: $225.00, Subscriber Price: $157.50

    Word count: 656

    Abstract: For the first time, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit recently considered what a trademark challenger must show to establish the standing required under the U.S. Constitution to appeal a decision of the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board (TTAB). This article summarizes the court’s conclusion in Brooklyn Brewery Corp. v. Brooklyn Brew Shop, LLC, which resulted in a mixed bag for one challenger. Brooklyn Brewery Corp. v. Brooklyn Brew Shop, LLC, No. 20-2277 (Fed Cir. Oct. 27, 2021).

    Read More

  • Failures of “prior art” undermine obviousness challenge to patent

    April / May 2022
    Newsletter: Ideas on Intellectual Property Law

    Price: $225.00, Subscriber Price: $157.50

    Word count: 600

    Abstract: “Prior art” can make a patent obvious and therefore unpatentable. But what about previous research that fails? Does it defeat a patent for an invention that succeeded? This article reviews a decision from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, which found that where the prior art shows only failures to achieve what the inventor accomplished, the court couldn’t find an expectation of success based on that prior art. University of Strathclyde v. Clear-Vu Lighting, LLC, No. 20-2243 (Fed Cir. Nov. 4, 2021).

    Read More

  • Screenwriter’s copyright returns from the dead – Labor law doesn’t control work-for-hire determination

    April / May 2022
    Newsletter: Ideas on Intellectual Property Law

    Price: $225.00, Subscriber Price: $157.50

    Word count: 862

    Abstract: Employee or independent contractor? The answer is critical for a variety of rights, and multiple tests have been developed under employment law. But, in Horror, Inc. v. Miller, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit found those tests aren’t determinative when it comes to copyright issues. This article reviews the employment status — and thus copyright ownership — of a screenwriter for the successful “Friday the 13th” movies. Horror, Inc. v. Miller, No. 18-3123 (2d Cir. Sept. 30, 2021).

    Read More

  • TTAB still constitutional post-Arthrex

    February / March 2022
    Newsletter: Ideas on Intellectual Property Law

    Price: $225.00, Subscriber Price: $157.50

    Word count: 422

    Abstract: Last year, the U.S. Supreme Court found that the Patent Trial and Appeal Board’s administrative patent judges could constitutionally perform their duties only if they were appointed by the president and confirmed by the Senate. This case summarizes the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit’s finding on whether this reasoning applies to the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board’s administrative trademark judges. Piano Factory Group, Inc. v. Schiedmayer Celesta GMBH, No. 20-1196 (Fed. Cir. Sept. 1, 2021).

    Read More

  • Words matter – NDA language doesn’t protect trade secrets indefinitely

    February / March 2022
    Newsletter: Ideas on Intellectual Property Law

    Price: $225.00, Subscriber Price: $157.50

    Word count: 683

    Abstract: Most owners of a trade secret would want to keep it, well, secret. But the wording in a nondisclosure agreement (NDA) can inadvertently undermine that goal. This article discusses a case in which the court reviewed this potentially very costly lesson. BladeRoom Group Ltd. v. Emerson Electric Co., No. 19-16583 (9th Cir. Aug. 30, 2021).

    Read More

  • Failure to mark reduces patentee’s infringement recovery

    February / March 2022
    Newsletter: Ideas on Intellectual Property Law

    Price: $225.00, Subscriber Price: $157.50

    Word count: 534

    Abstract: Patent holders may think that their patents mean they can recover reasonable royalty damages on all infringers’ sales of their infringing products. But this isn’t necessarily the case. This article reviews a case in which the court notes that a patent holder who hasn’t complied with the marking requirement of the federal Patent Act may be awarded limited damages — even if the defendant admits it was aware of the patent. Lubby Holdings LLC v. Chung, No. 19-2286 (Fed. Cir. Sept. 1, 2021).

    Read More

  • Is limited online access to copyrighted work a “public display”?

    February / March 2022
    Newsletter: Ideas on Intellectual Property Law

    Price: $225.00, Subscriber Price: $157.50

    Word count: 852

    Abstract: If no one sees an unauthorized online copy of a photo, has it truly been “publicly displayed” as required for a copyright infringement lawsuit? The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit recently answered that question in the affirmative in a case brought by a plaintiff who one judge characterized as a “copyright troll.” Bell v. Wilmott Storage Svcs., LLC, No. 19-5582, -56181 (9th Cir. Sept. 9, 2021).

    Read More