IIP
Showing 161–176 of 336 results
-
Court shoots down trademark infringement defendant
April / May 2017
Newsletter: Ideas on Intellectual Property Law
Price: $225.00, Subscriber Price: $157.50
Word count: 421
Abstract: Two firearms manufacturers came out shooting when a dispute arose over which one had the right to use the mark “SCAR” for guns and related items. As this article relates, the Eleventh Circuit considered the common trademark issue of priority of use, as well as the less-common unlawful use doctrine. FN Herstal SA v. Clyde Armory Inc., No. 15-14040, Sept. 27, 2016 (11th Cir.)
-
Fair use doctrine – Comedy routine fails to get laughs from plaintiff — or court
April / May 2017
Newsletter: Ideas on Intellectual Property Law
Price: $225.00, Subscriber Price: $157.50
Word count: 608
Abstract: Imitation may be the sincerest form of flattery. But imitation can also be unlawful infringement if use of copyrighted material isn’t deemed “fair.” This article explains what happened when the fair use doctrine was applied to a theater company’s use of a famous Abbott and Costello comedy routine. Much to the surprise of the parties, the Second Circuit provided a twist ending. TCA Television Corp v. McCollum, No. 16-134, Oct. 11, 2016 (2d Cir.)
-
How the disavowal exception trashed a patent infringement claim
April / May 2017
Newsletter: Ideas on Intellectual Property Law
Price: $225.00, Subscriber Price: $157.50
Word count: 508
Abstract: Courts in infringement cases construe terms in patent claims by their plain and ordinary meaning — usually. This article explains why the Federal Circuit doesn’t take that approach when the disavowal of claim scope applies. It also highlights the importance of careful patent drafting. Poly-America, L.P. v. API Industries, Inc., No. 16-1200, Oct. 14, 2016 (Fed Cir.)
-
Can’t you hear me? Court turns deaf ear to wireless radio patent-holder
April / May 2017
Newsletter: Ideas on Intellectual Property Law
Price: $225.00, Subscriber Price: $157.50
Word count: 935
Abstract: When the Federal Circuit hears cases regarding the patent eligibility of abstract ideas, it subjects them to a two-part test established by the U.S. Supreme Court. Recently, the court found that two patented inventions failed both parts of the test. This article summarizes the facts of the case and the court’s opinion. A sidebar reviews a similar patent infringement claim that fell flat. Affinity Labs of Texas, LLC v. DIRECTV LLC, No. 2015-1845, -1846, -1847, -1848, Sept. 23, 2016 (Fed. Cir.) Mayo Collaborative Services v. Prometheus Laboratories, Inc., No. 10-1150, March 20, 2012 (U.S.) Alice Corp Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int’l, No. 13-298, June 19, 2014 (U.S.) Affinity Labs of Texas, LLC v. Amazon.com Inc., No. 2015-2080, Sept. 23, 2016 (Fed. Cir.)
-
The naked truth – Valid assignments and agreements determine trademark rights
February / March 2017
Newsletter: Ideas on Intellectual Property Law
Price: $225.00, Subscriber Price: $157.50
Word count: 414
Abstract: Recently, “Crazy Horse” was the subject of a complicated trademark dispute between adult entertainment venue owners. As this article details, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals found that, even in the world of strip clubs, trademark and contract law hold firm and valid assignments and agreements determine parties’ rights. Russell Road Food and Beverage, LLC v. Spencer, No. 14-16096, July 22, 2016 (9th Cir.)
-
When is automation of a manual process patentable?
February / March 2017
Newsletter: Ideas on Intellectual Property Law
Price: $225.00, Subscriber Price: $157.50
Word count: 611
Abstract: Cases involving the patent eligibility of computer-related methods have been flooding the Federal Circuit Court of Appeals. This article describes a case involving a method of animating lip synchronization sequences of 3-D animated characters. At issue was whether the invention simply automated an existing manual process or automated a new process. McRO, Inc. v. Bandai Namco Games America Inc., No. 2015-1080, Sept. 13, 2016 (Fed. Cir.)
-
Third parties allowed to assert work-for-hire defense
February / March 2017
Newsletter: Ideas on Intellectual Property Law
Price: $225.00, Subscriber Price: $157.50
Word count: 470
Abstract: Work-for-hire agreements generally give the hiring party, instead of the creator, ownership of any work’s copyright. But as a recent Second Circuit case proves, third parties may be able to rely on the work-for-hire doctrine to crush a copyright infringement claim by a work’s creator. This article summarizes the case. Urbont v. Sony Music Entertainment, No. 15-1778, July 29, 2016 (2nd Cir.)
-
The Halo effect – Appeals court upholds enhanced damages for willful infringement
February / March 2017
Newsletter: Ideas on Intellectual Property Law
Price: $225.00, Subscriber Price: $157.50
Word count: 883
Abstract: The article discusses a Federal Circuit Court “test drive” of the U.S. Supreme Court’s June 2016 Halo Electronics, Inc. v. Pulse Electronics, Inc. ruling. Halo had rejected the notion that patent infringers can escape liability for enhanced damages if they muster a reasonable defense at trial. As the appeals court’s decision made clear, infringers can’t conjure defenses at trial to evade enhanced damages. A sidebar talks about how the same court clarified the potential weight of secondary considerations of nonobviousness. Halo Electronics, Inc. v. Pulse Electronics, Inc. No. 14-1513, June 13, 2016 (U.S.) WBIP, LLC v. Kohler Co., No. 15-1038, -1044, July 19, 2016 (Fed. Cir.)
-
Single factor preempts likelihood of trademark confusion claim
Year End 2016
Newsletter: Ideas on Intellectual Property Law
Price: $225.00, Subscriber Price: $157.50
Word count: 400
Abstract: When a trademark is challenged, courts generally turn to the DuPont factors to determine whether a likelihood of confusion exists between two marks. But, as in a 2016 Federal Circuit case, courts don’t necessarily consider all 13 DuPont factors. This article identifies the single factor considered — similarity of the marks — and how it affected the appeals court’s decision. Oakville Hills Cellar, Inc. v. Georgallis Holdings, LLC, No. 2016-1103, June 24, 2016 (Fed. Cir.)
-
Intent to infringe – Verdict goes against medical device maker
Year End 2016
Newsletter: Ideas on Intellectual Property Law
Price: $225.00, Subscriber Price: $157.50
Word count: 622
Abstract: When the Supreme Court agreed that a Federal Circuit infringement ruling should be reconsidered, it probably seemed like good news to the medical device maker that had been found liable. However, the new ruling that followed went against the company. As this article describes, the appeals court found the company’s defense position “objectively unreasonable.” Warsaw Orthopedic, Inc. v. NuVasive, Inc., No. 2013-1576, -1577, June 3, 2016 (Fed. Cir.) Commil USA, LLC v. Cisco Sys., Inc., No. 13-896, 2015 (U.S.)
-
Music to Internet service providers’ ears – Appellate court extends DMCA safe harbor
Year End 2016
Newsletter: Ideas on Intellectual Property Law
Price: $225.00, Subscriber Price: $157.50
Word count: 523
Abstract: The Second Circuit recently ruled on the hotly debated issue of whether the Digital Millennium Copyright Act’s (DMCA’s) safe harbor provision applies to sound recordings created before 1972. This article explains why the court’s opinion in Capitol Records, LLC v. Vimeo, LLC, is a relief to Internet service providers. Capitol Records, LLC v. Vimeo, LLC, No. 14-1048, June 16, 2016 (2d Cir.)
-
When is a sale not a sale? Federal Circuit narrows on-sale bar to patents
Year End 2016
Newsletter: Ideas on Intellectual Property Law
Price: $225.00, Subscriber Price: $157.50
Word count: 930
Abstract: In a recent ruling, the Federal Circuit Court of Appeals provided guidance on what constitutes a sale for purposes of the on-sale bar to patent validity. This article summarizes the case, explaining that the appeals court focused on the first prong — the subject of a commercial offer for sale — of the Supreme Court’s two-prong test. A sidebar notes the court’s rejection of the “supplier exception” in the same case. The Medicines Co. v. Hospira, Inc., No. 2014-1469, -1504, July 11, 2016 (Fed. Cir.)
-
Court denies trademark holder’s damages award
October / November 2016
Newsletter: Ideas on Intellectual Property Law
Price: $225.00, Subscriber Price: $157.50
Word count: 387
Abstract: What a jury gives, a court can take away. That’s the lesson of Romag Fasteners, Inc. v. Fossil, Inc., where two courts rejected a jury award of almost $7 million against an infringer because the infringement wasn’t “willful.” This article discusses the case and the willfulness requirement. Romag Fasteners, Inc. v. Fossil, Inc., Nos. 2014-1856, 2014-1857, March 31, 2016 (Fed. Cir.)
-
Law of nature: Some genetic diagnostic methods are patent-ineligible
October / November 2016
Newsletter: Ideas on Intellectual Property Law
Price: $225.00, Subscriber Price: $157.50
Word count: 538
Abstract: Another patent covering genetic diagnostic methods has failed the U.S. Supreme Court’s two-step test for determining whether a patent related to a law of nature is patent-eligible. This article discusses Genetic Technologies Ltd. v. Merial L.L.C. The Federal Circuit Court weighed whether the claim at issue related to a patent-ineligible concept and whether the patent included an “inventive concept.” Genetic Technologies Ltd. v. Merial L.L.C., Nos. 2015-1202, 2015-1203, April 8, 2016 (Fed. Cir.) Ariosa v. Sequenom, Nos. 2014-1139, 2014-1144, June 12, 2015 (Fed. Cir.) Mayo Collaborative Services v. Prometheus Laboratories, Inc., No. 10–1150, March 20, 2012 (U.S.)
-
Scope of design determines whether patent infringement challenge stays afloat
October / November 2016
Newsletter: Ideas on Intellectual Property Law
Price: $225.00, Subscriber Price: $157.50
Word count: 638
Abstract: Design patents increasingly have become subject to attack by parties that fear they’ll be accused of infringement. This article looks at the recent Federal Circuit ruling in Sport Dimension, Inc. v. The Coleman Co. Inc., which provides guidance about what to expect when a court considers the scope of design patent claims. Sport Dimension, Inc. v. The Coleman Co. Inc., No. 2015-1553, April 19, 2016 (Fed. Cir.)
-
Supreme Court throws Seagate test overboard – Ruling loosens standard for enhanced patent infringement damages
October / November 2016
Newsletter: Ideas on Intellectual Property Law
Price: $225.00, Subscriber Price: $157.50
Word count: 866
Abstract: The U.S. Supreme Court has released its long-awaited decision on the proper criteria for enhanced damages awards in patent infringement cases. This article summarizes two patent infringement cases and reviews the two-part test for determining damages adopted in In re Seagate Technology, LLC. It explains why the Court vacated the Federal Circuit’s decisions in the two cases and sent them back for reconsideration under a new standard. A sidebar discusses how the Court’s ruling eases the burden of proof for enhanced damages. Halo Electronics, Inc. v. Pulse Electronics, Inc., No. 14-1513, June 13, 2016 (U.S.) Stryker Corporation v. Zimmer, Inc., No. 14-1513, June 13, 2016 (U.S.) Octane Fitness, LLC v. ICON Health & Fitness, Inc., No. 12-1184, April 29, 2014 (U.S.) In re Seagate Technology, LLC, 497 F. 3d 1360, Aug. 20, 2007 (Fed. Cir.)