IIP

Showing 209–224 of 280 results

  • Willful patent infringement standard redefined

    Year End 2012
    Newsletter: Ideas on Intellectual Property Law

    Price: $225.00, Subscriber Price: $157.50

    Word count: 533

    Abstract: A recent ruling from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit significantly reshapes the test for willful infringement — and could make it harder to prove. This article discusses the case, which establishes that a court must first make a threshold determination of objective recklessness that considers the reasonableness of the potential defenses. Only if the asserted defenses aren’t reasonable can the jury consider the question of subjective recklessness. Citation: Bard Peripheral Vascular, Inc. v. W.L. Gore & Assocs., 2010-1510, June 14, 2012 (Fed. Cir.)

    Read More

  • The suit must go on — Copyright Act doesn’t preempt TV contract claim

    Year End 2012
    Newsletter: Ideas on Intellectual Property Law

    Price: $225.00, Subscriber Price: $157.50

    Word count: 632

    Abstract: The Copyright Act can provide much protection. But, as a recent case in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit illustrates, it has its limits. This article discusses the case, in which the court didn’t uphold preemptive protections for a defendant being sued for breach of contract related to copyrightable material. The court concluded that a breach of contract claim including a promise to pay is qualitatively different from a lawsuit to vindicate a right included in the Copyright Act. Therefore, the claim isn’t preempted. Citation: Forest Park Pictures v. Universal Television Network, No. 11-2011-cv, June 26, 2012 (2nd Cir.)

    Read More

  • Barking up the wrong tree: A trademark case

    Year End 2012
    Newsletter: Ideas on Intellectual Property Law

    Price: $225.00, Subscriber Price: $157.50

    Word count: 581

    Abstract: The owner of a trademark for pet food and treats took issue when a competitor tried to register a similar mark for its own products. The article explains why an appeals court concluded that the marks were sufficiently similar in their overall commercial impression to deny registration. It explains that the court focused on three of 13 “DuPont” factors in reaching its conclusion. Citation: Midwestern Pet Foods, Inc. v. Societe des Produits Nestle S.A., No. 2011-1482, July 9, 2012 (Fed. Cir.)

    Read More

  • A more permissive approach? — New patent test issued for computer-based inventions

    Year End 2012
    Newsletter: Ideas on Intellectual Property Law

    Price: $225.00, Subscriber Price: $157.50

    Word count: 1159

    Abstract: In the eyes of some, an early 2012 Supreme Court decision seemed to make it harder for the holders of business-method patents to overcome challenges asserting that their inventions are unpatentable abstract ideas. But the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, in a recent case, appears to indicate a more permissive approach in favor of patentability. This article examines the case, which discusses the question of what constitutes an unpatentable “abstract idea.” But a sidebar looks at a case immediately following in which the Federal Circuit ruled differently. Citations: Mayo Collaborative Svcs. v. Prometheus Laboratories, Inc., No. 10-1150, March 20, 2012 (Supreme Court); CLS Bank Int’l v. Alice Corp. Party Ltd., No. 2011-1301, July 9, 2012 (Fed. Cir.); Bancorp Svcs., LLC v. Sun Life Assurance Co. of Canada, No. 2011-1467, July 26, 2012 (Fed. Cir.)

    Read More

  • What’s in a name? — Google takes a hit over keyword ads

    October / November 2012
    Newsletter: Ideas on Intellectual Property Law

    Price: $225.00, Subscriber Price: $157.50

    Word count: 677

    Abstract: In the ongoing battle over the trademark implications of Google’s AdWords advertising program, the brand owners have scored a victory with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit. The district court had granted summary judgment against the plaintiff, but the appeals court found that that court had improperly evaluated the plaintiff’s evidence of three likelihood of confusion factors. This article shows how the recent ruling sheds some light on how trademark holders might be able to protect their marks online. Citation: Rosetta Stone Ltd. v. Google, Inc., No. 10-2007, April 9, 2012 (4th Cir.)

    Read More

  • Nothing’s patently obvious, says the Federal Circuit

    October / November 2012
    Newsletter: Ideas on Intellectual Property Law

    Price: $225.00, Subscriber Price: $157.50

    Word count: 621

    Abstract: According to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, there’s nothing obvious about how to determine whether a patent is invalid for obviousness. This article examines a recent case involving alleged infringement of a patent on a casing structure for encasing meat products. The appeals court vacated the district court’s ruling that the patent was invalid for obviousness, but, as it turned out, the plaintiff could take little comfort. Citation: Mintz v. Dietz & Watson, Inc., No. 2010-1341, May 30, 2012 (Fed. Cir.)

    Read More

  • Inequitable conduct dooms drug patents

    October / November 2012
    Newsletter: Ideas on Intellectual Property Law

    Price: $225.00, Subscriber Price: $157.50

    Word count: 564

    Abstract: A drug company holding two pharmaceutical patents on a chemotherapy cancer drug sued three other companies for infringement when they applied for FDA approval to market generic versions. But the district court ruled that the patents were unenforceable for inequitable conduct because the inventor intentionally withheld from the PTO two prior art references that were material to the drug’s patentability. It also held that the patents were invalid for obviousness. This article explains why this verdict survived on appeal, along with the lessons to be learned. Citation: Aventis Pharma S.A. v. Hospira, Inc., No. 2011-1018, April 9, 2012 (Fed. Cir.); Therasense, Inc. v. Becton, Dickinson Co., 2008-1511, -1512, -1513, -1514, -1595, May 25, 2011 (Fed. Cir.)

    Read More

  • Clipping YouTube — Second Circuit explains limits of DMCA safe harbors

    October / November 2012
    Newsletter: Ideas on Intellectual Property Law

    Price: $225.00, Subscriber Price: $157.50

    Word count: 1028

    Abstract: Is an online service provider liable when it hosts content that’s copyrighted by another party without that copyright owner’s permission? Providers have claimed protection from copyright infringement liability under the safe harbor provisions of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA). But this article looks at a recent decision by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit which explained the limits of that protection. A sidebar shows how the court addressed application of the “willful blindness” doctrine to the DMCA. Citation: Viacom Int’l, Inc. v. YouTube, Inc., No. 10-3270, April 5, 2012 (2nd Cir.)

    Read More

  • Too abstract — Court invalidates patent of automated auto loan service

    August / September 2012
    Newsletter: Ideas on Intellectual Property Law

    Price: $225.00, Subscriber Price: $157.50

    Word count: 597

    Abstract: A company held two patents for a computer-aided method for processing credit applications over electronic networks. After it filed an infringement lawsuit against several parties, the defendants moved to dismiss the case, asserting that the computer-aided method wasn’t eligible for a patent. In finding for the defendants, the Federal Circuit made one thing certain: Merely appending the phrase “computer-aided” to a would-be patent won’t cut it. Citation: Dealertrack, Inc. v. Huber, Nos. 2009-1566, -1588, Jan. 20, 2012 (Fed. Cir.); Bilski et al v. Kappos, No. 08-964, June 28, 2010 (Supreme Court)

    Read More

  • Psychic didn’t see trademark loss coming

    August / September 2012
    Newsletter: Ideas on Intellectual Property Law

    Price: $225.00, Subscriber Price: $157.50

    Word count: 518

    Abstract: In 1995, a popular psychic and astrologer entered into a contract for the production and distribution of materials featuring his services. Under the agreement, he granted the company the right to use his name as a trademark. In 2006, a legal dispute arose when he ceased providing services, and the company ceased to pay him. A jury found that he had violated the agreement. After he was later enjoined from using his name as a trademark, he appealed. This article explains why the subtleties of contract language resulted in the rejection of his claim. Citation: Mercado-Salinas v. Bart Enterprises Int’l, Ltd., No. 10–2359, Dec. 20, 2011 (1st Cir.)

    Read More

  • Federal Circuit clarifies “co-inventor” test

    August / September 2012
    Newsletter: Ideas on Intellectual Property Law

    Price: $225.00, Subscriber Price: $157.50

    Word count: 702

    Abstract: What defines a “co-inventor”? It’s a critical question, since a co-inventor has the right to exploit an invention without the permission of the other inventors, as well as to license or sell that right without permission or sharing the proceeds. This article examines the case of a researcher who developed a synthesis protocol for making a novel genus of chemical compounds. Later, another researcher synthesized a compound using the first researcher’s protocol. When the latter was not named as an inventor, he sued, and the court found in his favor. Citation: Falana v. Kent State University, No. 2011-1198, Jan. 23, 2012 (Fed. Cir.)

    Read More

  • Copy that — or not — Congress can restore copyrights to public domain works

    August / September 2012
    Newsletter: Ideas on Intellectual Property Law

    Price: $225.00, Subscriber Price: $157.50

    Word count: 1041

    Abstract: One might think that, once a copyrighted work enters the public domain, it’s unconditionally available for use from there on out. But the U.S. Supreme Court has held that Congress can restore copyright protection to works that had been in the public domain. This article looks at the legal challenge posed by those who had previously enjoyed free access to such works, and why the Court rejected their arguments. A sidebar discusses the majority opinion’s rejection of the dissent’s concerns about “orphan works” — older and more obscure works that have copyright owners who are difficult or impossible to track down. Citation: Golan v. Holder, No. 10-545, Jan. 18, 2012 (Supreme Court)

    Read More

  • Too abstract — Court invalidates patent of automated auto loan service

    June / July 2012
    Newsletter: Ideas on Intellectual Property Law

    Price: $225.00, Subscriber Price: $157.50

    Word count: 597

    Abstract: A company held two patents for a computer-aided method for processing credit applications over electronic networks. After it filed an infringement lawsuit against several parties, the defendants moved to dismiss the case, asserting that the computer-aided method wasn’t eligible for a patent. In finding for the defendants, the Federal Circuit made one thing certain: Merely appending the phrase “computer-aided” to a would-be patent won’t cut it. Citation: Dealertrack, Inc. v. Huber, Nos. 2009-1566, -1588, Jan. 20, 2012 (Fed. Cir.); Bilski et al v. Kappos, No. 08-964, June 28, 2010 (Supreme Court)

    Read More

  • Psychic didn’t see trademark loss coming

    June / July 2012
    Newsletter: Ideas on Intellectual Property Law

    Price: $225.00, Subscriber Price: $157.50

    Word count: 518

    Abstract: In 1995, a popular psychic and astrologer entered into a contract for the production and distribution of materials featuring his services. Under the agreement, he granted the company the right to use his name as a trademark. In 2006, a legal dispute arose when he ceased providing services, and the company ceased to pay him. A jury found that he had violated the agreement. After he was later enjoined from using his name as a trademark, he appealed. This article explains why the subtleties of contract language resulted in the rejection of his claim. Citation: Mercado-Salinas v. Bart Enterprises Int’l, Ltd., No. 10–2359, Dec. 20, 2011 (1st Cir.)

    Read More

  • Federal Circuit clarifies “co-inventor” test

    June / July 2012
    Newsletter: Ideas on Intellectual Property Law

    Price: $225.00, Subscriber Price: $157.50

    Word count: 702

    Abstract: What defines a “co-inventor”? It’s a critical question, since a co-inventor has the right to exploit an invention without the permission of the other inventors, as well as to license or sell that right without permission or sharing the proceeds. This article examines the case of a researcher who developed a synthesis protocol for making a novel genus of chemical compounds. Later, another researcher synthesized a compound using the first researcher’s protocol. When the latter was not named as an inventor, he sued, and the court found in his favor. Citation: Falana v. Kent State University, No. 2011-1198, Jan. 23, 2012 (Fed. Cir.)

    Read More

  • Copy that — or not — Congress can restore copyrights to public domain works

    June / July 2012
    Newsletter: Ideas on Intellectual Property Law

    Price: $225.00, Subscriber Price: $157.50

    Word count: 1041

    Abstract: One might think that, once a copyrighted work enters the public domain, it’s unconditionally available for use from there on out. But the U.S. Supreme Court has held that Congress can restore copyright protection to works that had been in the public domain. This article looks at the legal challenge posed by those who had previously enjoyed free access to such works, and why the Court rejected their arguments. A sidebar discusses the majority opinion’s rejection of the dissent’s concerns about “orphan works” — older and more obscure works that have copyright owners who are difficult or impossible to track down. Citation: Golan v. Holder, No. 10-545, Jan. 18, 2012 (Supreme Court)

    Read More