IIP
Showing 209–224 of 336 results
-
Sunk costs: Attorneys’ fees in Lanham Act cases
April / May 2015
Newsletter: Ideas on Intellectual Property Law
Price: $225.00, Subscriber Price: $157.50
Word count: 426
Abstract: The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit has delivered some important news for any party that might contest attorneys’ fee claims in trademark infringement and other similar cases. As this article explains, the U.S. Supreme Court’s recently articulated standard for awarding attorneys’ fees in patent infringement decisions now also applies to Lanham Act cases. Fair Wind Sailing, Inc. v. Dempster, Nos. 13-3305 & 14-1572, Sept. 4, 2014 (3rd Cir.) Octane Fitness LLC v. Icon Health & Fitness Inc., No. 12-1184, April 29, 2014 (U.S. Supreme Court)
-
How long is too long? Delayed lawsuit filing preempts infringement claim
April / May 2015
Newsletter: Ideas on Intellectual Property Law
Price: $225.00, Subscriber Price: $157.50
Word count: 634
Abstract: Those who believe they’ve been the victim of patent infringement shouldn’t delay filing a claim. By waiting too long, an accused infringer may be able to build a defense called “laches” — which may lead to the claim’s dismissal. This article describes a case in which this very circumstance came to pass. SCA Hygiene Prods. AB v. First Quality Baby Prods., No. 2013-1564, Dec. 17, 2014 (Fed. Cir.)
-
Means-plus-function to an unfortunate end – How one patent failed the definiteness requirement
April / May 2015
Newsletter: Ideas on Intellectual Property Law
Price: $225.00, Subscriber Price: $157.50
Word count: 537
Abstract: Patent drafters sometimes turn to “means-plus-function” language to claim an invention based on its function rather than its underlying structure. This article covers a recent ruling showing that such language, in and of itself, may not satisfy intellectual property law’s definiteness requirement. Robert Bosch, LLC v. Snap-On, Inc., No. 2014-1040, Oct. 14, 2014 (Fed. Cir.)
-
Inequitable conduct crashes patent for car computer
April / May 2015
Newsletter: Ideas on Intellectual Property Law
Price: $225.00, Subscriber Price: $157.50
Word count: 959
Abstract: When it comes to patent applications, full disclosure is always best. This article tells the cautionary tale of how submitting an application that withholds critical information can kill a patent issued from that application. American Calcar, Inc. v. American Honda Motor Co., Inc., No. 2013-1061, Sept. 26, 2014 (Fed. Cir.)
-
What if … ? The very real case of a hypothetical license
February / March 2015
Newsletter: Ideas on Intellectual Property Law
Price: $225.00, Subscriber Price: $157.50
Word count: 614
Abstract: It’s hard enough to recover copyright damages under the clearest of circumstances. But this article looks at a particularly tricky case, in which the court answered the difficult question of whether a copyright holder could recover infringement damages based on a “hypothetical” license — that is, one it never granted. Oracle Corp. v. SAP AG, No. 12-16944, Aug. 29, 2014 (9th Cir.)
-
Another one bites the dust – Federal Circuit rejects business method claim
February / March 2015
Newsletter: Ideas on Intellectual Property Law
Price: $225.00, Subscriber Price: $157.50
Word count: 507
Abstract: The U.S. Supreme Court has long held that laws of nature, natural phenomena and abstract ideas — “no matter how groundbreaking, innovative or even brilliant” — aren’t patentable under Section 101. So, as this article explains, an appeals court wasn’t impressed by a patent that claimed methods and machine-readable media encoded to perform steps for guaranteeing a party’s performance of its end of an online transaction. The court concluded that the invocation of computers added no inventive concept to the idea of a transaction performance guaranty. Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int’l, No. 13-298, June 19, 2014 (Supreme Court) buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., No. 2013-1575, Sept. 3, 2014 (Fed. Cir.)
-
Deliberate deception in a false advertising case
February / March 2015
Newsletter: Ideas on Intellectual Property Law
Price: $225.00, Subscriber Price: $157.50
Word count: 493
Abstract: Demonstrating the competitive injury and lost sales required to recover damages on a false advertising claim often proves difficult in court. But doing so just got a little bit easier, thanks to a recent ruling in a case in which the court clarified some presumptions that may be made in false advertising claims where deliberate deception is established. This article explains why the defendant’s arguments were found wanting. Merck Eprova AG v. Gnosis S.p.A., Nos. 12‐4218‐cv(L), 13‐513‐cv(Con), July 29, 2014 (2nd Cir.)
-
Definitely not: Patent rejected for indefiniteness
February / March 2015
Newsletter: Ideas on Intellectual Property Law
Price: $225.00, Subscriber Price: $157.50
Word count: 876
Abstract: To satisfy the definiteness standard, a patent must provide objective boundaries that convey the invention’s scope to those skilled in the field with reasonable certainty. But how do courts make such a determination? This article discusses an infringement case in which a district court found the patents invalid because terms used in the patent claims’ language — “in an unobtrusive manner” and “does not distract” — were indefinite. The appeals court noted that, while terms of degree aren’t inherently indefinite, the ones used in this case were indeed too subjective. A sidebar explains how the simple use of the term “e.g.,” instead of “i.e.,” played a role in the outcome. Interval Licensing LLC v. AOL, Inc., Nos. 2013-1282, -1283, -1284, -1285, Sept. 10, 2014 (Fed. Cir.) Nautilus, Inc. v. Biosig Instruments, Inc., No. 13-369, June 2, 2014 (Supreme Court)
-
Can an obscure online post constitute prior art?
Year End 2014
Newsletter: Ideas on Intellectual Property Law
Price: $225.00, Subscriber Price: $157.50
Word count: 436
Abstract: Years ago, the go-to online hangouts were Usenet newsgroups. These discussion forums have now been largely usurped by social networking sites. Nonetheless, this article looks at a case in which an appeals court considered whether a post on an obscure Usenet newsgroup could constitute prior art and, therefore, invalidate a patent. Suffolk Technologies, LLC v. AOL, Inc., No. 2013-1392, May 27, 2014 (Fed. Cir.)
-
Juicy decision – FD&C Act doesn’t bar Lanham Act claims
Year End 2014
Newsletter: Ideas on Intellectual Property Law
Price: $225.00, Subscriber Price: $157.50
Word count: 516
Abstract: When is a pomegranate-blueberry juice not a pomegranate-blueberry juice? That’s what a district court will get to decide now that the U.S. Supreme Court has issued a ruling clarifying that the federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic (FD&C) Act doesn’t prohibit lawsuits brought by a competitor under the Lanham Act. The article observes that the Court’s ruling could lead to a rise in false advertising lawsuits over product labels on food and beverages. POM Wonderful LLC v. Coca-Cola Co., No. 12-761, June 12, 2014 (Supreme Court)
-
Developing story on the validity of digital-imaging patents
Year End 2014
Newsletter: Ideas on Intellectual Property Law
Price: $225.00, Subscriber Price: $157.50
Word count: 646
Abstract: In June of this year, the U.S. Supreme Court decided that merely requiring generic computer implementation of a business process doesn’t transform that abstract idea into a patent-eligible invention. Less than a month later, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit put this decision to work in a case addressing whether an “improved device profile” involved in digital image processing was patent eligible. This article looks at the details. Digitech Image Technologies, LLC v. Electronics for Imaging, Inc., Nos. 2013-1600, -1601, -1602, -1603, -1604, -1605, -1606, -1607, -1608, -1609, -1610, -1611, -1612, -1613, -1614, -1615, -1616, -1617, -1618, July 11, 2014 (Fed. Cir.) Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int’l, No. 13-298, June 19, 2014 (Supreme Court)
-
Go ask Alice – Patentees have a new Supreme Court precedent to consider
Year End 2014
Newsletter: Ideas on Intellectual Property Law
Price: $225.00, Subscriber Price: $157.50
Word count: 977
Abstract: In a recent decision, a unanimous U.S. Supreme Court continued its trend of finding business methods to be patent-ineligible abstract ideas. The Court, however, declined to squarely define “abstract ideas.” This article examines the Court’s reasoning, while a sidebar describes guidance issued by the United States Patent and Trademark Office in response. Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int’l, No. 13-298, June 19, 2014 (Supreme Court) Mayo Collaborative Services v. Prometheus Laboratories, Inc., No. 10-1150, March 20, 2012 (Supreme Court) Gottschalk v. Benson, No. 71-485, Nov. 20, 1972 (Supreme Court) Parker v. Flook, No. 77-642, June 22, 1978 (Supreme Court) Bilski v. Kappos, No. 08-964, June 28, 2010 (Supreme Court) Diamond v. Diehr, No. 79-1112, March 3, 1981 (Supreme Court)
-
Blocked! Court finds doggy jerseys obvious
October / November 2014
Newsletter: Ideas on Intellectual Property Law
Price: $225.00, Subscriber Price: $157.50
Word count: 428
Abstract: After a souring of the business relationship between the holder of a patent on a design for a football jersey for dogs and a retailer of licensed pet jerseys, the retailer hired another supplier. The patent holder sued for infringement. The district court dismissed the case before trial, finding that the design patent was invalid as obvious. This article explains how courts analyze the obviousness of a design patent and why the appeals court sided with the retailer. MRC Innovations, Inc. v. Hunter Mfg., No. 2013-1433, April 2, 2014 (Fed Cir.)
-
More false advertising claims on the way? Plaintiff pool may widen following Supreme Court decision
October / November 2014
Newsletter: Ideas on Intellectual Property Law
Price: $225.00, Subscriber Price: $157.50
Word count: 539
Abstract: A lawsuit between two parties involved in printer cartridge manufacturing has trudged on with little notice for more than a decade. But the most recent ruling in the case has gotten quite a bit of attention. That’s because it was made by the U.S. Supreme Court, which resolved a split among the federal courts of appeals over which parties can bring claims for false advertising. After noting that three competing approaches have developed for determining whether a plaintiff has standing to sue under the Lanham Act, the Court adopted an entirely new two-part test. This article concludes that the ruling could embolden more indirect competitors to pursue false advertising claims. Lexmark Int’l, Inc. v. Static Control Components, Inc., No. 12-873, March 25, 2014 (Supreme Court)
-
Raising the bar on the standard for patent definiteness
October / November 2014
Newsletter: Ideas on Intellectual Property Law
Price: $225.00, Subscriber Price: $157.50
Word count: 684
Abstract: One of the purposes of a patent is to notify the public that certain inventions have already been claimed and that their unauthorized use could result in liability for patent infringement. But how precise — or “definite” — must the language in a patent be to provide sufficient notice? This article looks at the U.S. Supreme Court’s unanimous decision adopting a new standard for patent definiteness that raises the bar for patent holders. Nautilus, Inc. v. Biosig Instruments, Inc., No. 13-369, June 2, 2014 (Supreme Court)
-
Step to it – Supreme Court tightens standard for induced patent infringement
October / November 2014
Newsletter: Ideas on Intellectual Property Law
Price: $225.00, Subscriber Price: $157.50
Word count: 771
Abstract: In recent years, patent holders have increasingly pursued lawsuits against defendants who didn’t necessarily directly infringe the patents themselves. Those cases just became a lot harder to win, thanks to a unanimous ruling by the U.S. Supreme Court. In a recent case involving a patent for a method of delivering electronic data using a content delivery network, the Supreme Court held that liability for inducement must be based on direct infringement. In the absence of direct infringement, there could be no inducement of infringement. This article examines the Court’s reasoning, while a sidebar discusses the outcome of the defendant’s request to have the Court review the lower court’s rule for direct infringement. Limelight Networks, Inc. v. Akamai Technologies, Inc., No. 12-786, June 2, 2014 (Supreme Court) Muniauction, Inc. v. Thomson Corp., No. 2007-1485, July 14, 2008 (Fed. Cir.)