IIP
Showing 177–192 of 336 results
-
At the Federal Circuit – Some patentees might receive preissuance damages
August / September 2016
Newsletter: Ideas on Intellectual Property Law
Price: $225.00, Subscriber Price: $157.50
Word count: 421
Abstract: Owners of infringed patents typically are limited to recovering damages that occur after the patent was issued. However, as this article explores, they may also be entitled to damages for infringing conduct that occurs preissuance, but after publication, of the patent application if the accused infringer had “actual notice” of it. The case, Rosebud LMS Inc. v. Adobe Systems Inc., was decided by the Federal Circuit. Rosebud LMS Inc. v. Adobe Systems Inc. 2015-1428, Feb. 9, 2016 (Fed. Cir.)
-
Copyright law defeats right-of-publicity claims
August / September 2016
Newsletter: Ideas on Intellectual Property Law
Price: $225.00, Subscriber Price: $157.50
Word count: 620
Abstract: The right to copyright protection is bestowed by federal law, while the right of publicity from the use of one’s name or likeness is bestowed by state law. So which prevails when these rights come into conflict? This article describes how the Eighth Circuit answered this question in Dryer v. The National Football League and illustrates the limits on individuals to wield their right of publicity to undermine copyright holders’ rights. Dryer v. The National Football League, No. 14-3428, Feb. 26, 2016 (8th Cir.)
-
How to outhustle a hustler – Court modifies the terms of a permanent injunction
August / September 2016
Newsletter: Ideas on Intellectual Property Law
Price: $225.00, Subscriber Price: $157.50
Word count: 549
Abstract: In a recent decision, LFP IP, LLC v. Hustler Cincinnati, Inc., the Sixth Circuit proved that a court can modify an injunction’s terms in certain circumstances. This article summarizes a case that pitted brother against brother and explains that, while an injunction against a trademark infringer may be permanent, it doesn’t mean its terms are necessarily final. LFP IP, LLC v. Hustler Cincinnati, Inc., No. 15-3135, Jan. 13, 2016 (6th Cir.)
-
Playing with fire – Inequitable conduct results in outsized antitrust award
August / September 2016
Newsletter: Ideas on Intellectual Property Law
Price: $225.00, Subscriber Price: $157.50
Word count: 807
Abstract: Bringing a patent infringement lawsuit always comes with certain financial risks — but such suits rarely conclude with the patent holder being ordered to pay $26 million in antitrust damages. This article provides details on the Federal Circuit case TransWeb, LLC v. 3M Innovative Properties Co. and shows how the patent holder’s inequitable conduct backfired. A sidebar discusses how the same court found a proper basis for damages. TransWeb, LLC v. 3M Innovative Properties Co., No. 14-1646, Feb. 10, 2016 (Fed. Cir.)
-
Computerized lending method found patent-ineligible, again
June / July 2016
Newsletter: Ideas on Intellectual Property Law
Price: $225.00, Subscriber Price: $157.50
Word count: 412
Abstract: Patentees hoping to establish that inventions involving an abstract idea are patent-eligible generally must have an inventive concept. That’s the lesson the plaintiff learned in a recent case before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit involving computer-implemented business methods. This article summarizes the case and discusses Section 101 of the Patent Act. Mortgage Grader, Inc. v. First Choice Loan Services, Inc., Nov. 4, 2015, No. 15-1415 (Fed. Cir.)
-
Price disparity does not preempt lost profits damages
June / July 2016
Newsletter: Ideas on Intellectual Property Law
Price: $225.00, Subscriber Price: $157.50
Word count: 496
Abstract: This article covers the latest appellate court ruling in a long-running and wide-ranging patent infringement case, Akamai Technologies v. Limelight Networks, Inc. Specifically, the court found that lost profits damages were available, despite the fact that the infringing product sold for half the price of the patentee’s product. Akamai Technologies, Inc. v. Limelight Networks, Inc., Nov. 16, 2015, Nos. 09-1372, 09-1380, 09-1416, 09-1417 (Fed. Cir.)
-
Stop, thief! Court lowers bar for injunctions against infringers
June / July 2016
Newsletter: Ideas on Intellectual Property Law
Price: $225.00, Subscriber Price: $157.50
Word count: 601
Abstract: Recently, the Federal Circuit ruled in a patent infringement case that, to establish irreparable harm, an infringing feature doesn’t have to be the exclusive driver of demand for the infringing product. This article summarizes the case and explains why showing infringement can be difficult — if not impossible — when dealing with technological devices with thousands of features. Apple Inc. v. Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd., Dec. 16, 2015, Nos. 2015-1171, 2015-1195, 2015-1994 (Fed. Cir.)
-
Game changer – Federal Circuit rejects ban on disparaging trademarks
June / July 2016
Newsletter: Ideas on Intellectual Property Law
Price: $225.00, Subscriber Price: $157.50
Word count: 915
Abstract: This article talks about a case involving the so-called disparagement provision of the Lanham Act, which concerns federal trademark law. The Federal Circuit rejected the government’s argument that the provision didn’t implicate the First Amendment. Among other things, the court found that trademark registration conveys rights unavailable without registration and that the government’s processing of trademark registrations doesn’t transform private speech into government speech. A sidebar discusses the “intermediate scrutiny” standard also applied by the court. In re Tam, No. 14-1203, Dec. 28, 2015 (Fed. Cir.)
-
Court finds yoga-related copyright claim to be a stretch
April / May 2016
Newsletter: Ideas on Intellectual Property Law
Price: $225.00, Subscriber Price: $157.50
Word count: 434
Abstract: This article summarizes Ninth Circuit case Bikram’s Yoga College of India, L.P. v. Evolation Yoga, LLC, in which the plaintiff sought copyright infringement damages for a sequence of yoga poses. However, the court decided against the plaintiff, finding that, while a work itself may be protected, the ideas, systems and similar content it holds are not.
-
Thanks for the memory – Clarifying the patent description requirement
April / May 2016
Newsletter: Ideas on Intellectual Property Law
Price: $225.00, Subscriber Price: $157.50
Word count: 539
Abstract: Section 112 of the federal Patent Act generally requires that a patent specification include a written description of the invention. However, according to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in Inphi Corp. v. Netlist, Inc., the requirement can be satisfied simply by describing alternative features not included in the invention. This article summarizes the case and its ramifications.
-
Whom are you confusing? Clear labeling precludes trademark infringement claim
April / May 2016
Newsletter: Ideas on Intellectual Property Law
Price: $225.00, Subscriber Price: $157.50
Word count: 835
Abstract: The eight-factor Sleekcraft test typically is used to determine whether a mark accused of trademark infringement gives rise to a likelihood of confusion. But as this article shows, the test isn’t always applicable — especially in the context of Internet search engines. It examines why the Ninth Circuit handed the defendant in Multi-Time Machine, Inc. v. Amazon.com, Inc. a victory. A sidebar explains that, unlike Multi-Time Machine Inc., most trademark infringement cases go to trial.
-
Defendant damaged: A patent infringement case
April / May 2016
Newsletter: Ideas on Intellectual Property Law
Price: $225.00, Subscriber Price: $157.50
Word count: 623
Abstract: Design patent damages can far exceed the reasonable royalties often associated with utility patent infringement because design patentees can recover the infringer’s total profits from the infringing product. That’s what happened in recent Federal Circuit court case Nordock, Inc. v. Systems Inc. This article discusses the facts and opinions of the case, including why the court found the defense expert’s methods of calculating damages “improper.”
-
Consider fair use before issuing a takedown notice
February / March 2016
Newsletter: Ideas on Intellectual Property Law
Price: $225.00, Subscriber Price: $157.50
Word count: 435
Abstract: The Internet presents a challenging environment for copyright owners trying to control their content. This brief article reviews a case in which a court decreed that, under the Digital Millennium Copyright Act, copyright holders must consider fair use before issuing a takedown notice.
-
Peace and love? Not when it comes to trademarks
February / March 2016
Newsletter: Ideas on Intellectual Property Law
Price: $225.00, Subscriber Price: $157.50
Word count: 543
Abstract: “Peace and love” is such a heart-warming sentiment — until it becomes the subject of a trademark dispute. This article describes an appeals court’s decision that demonstrates the limits of trademark protections, even for registered marks.
-
Back in the limelight – Federal Circuit expands liability for patent infringement
February / March 2016
Newsletter: Ideas on Intellectual Property Law
Price: $225.00, Subscriber Price: $157.50
Word count: 649
Abstract: In some welcome news for patent owners, an appeals court recently issued a unanimous decision that expands liability for direct infringement. The ruling should make it easier for patentees to establish liability for infringement of patented methods when multiple parties carry out a method’s steps. This article traces the history of this important case and notes that further liability expansion could lie ahead.
-
Playing the ratings game – Ninth Circuit provides RAND rate guidance
February / March 2016
Newsletter: Ideas on Intellectual Property Law
Price: $225.00, Subscriber Price: $157.50
Word count: 930
Abstract: The interoperability of today’s technological devices requires many behind-the-scenes license agreements. For evidence, one need look no further than a recent appellate court decision regarding the proper rate Microsoft must pay another tech company to use its ubiquitous patented technology. This article explores the case, which provides valuable guidance on how such “reasonable and nondiscriminatory” (RAND) rates should be set. A sidebar looks at the role of jurisdiction in the case.