IIP

Showing 225–240 of 328 results

  • Requirements for criminal copyright violations clarified

    April / May 2014
    Newsletter: Ideas on Intellectual Property Law

    Price: $225.00, Subscriber Price: $157.50

    Word count: 438

    Abstract: Not surprisingly, the level of guilt necessary to prove a criminal copyright violation is higher than that needed to establish civil liability for copyright infringement. But to precisely what lengths must the government go to secure a conviction? Some clarification was provided last fall in a case in which a plaintiff, having been sentenced for counterfeiting CDs and DVDs, argued to an appeals court that the district court had improperly instructed the jury on the meaning of the terms “willfulness” and “knowledge” under the relevant statutes. This article describes why the appellate court agreed, concluding that the instructions weren’t harmless errors. U.S. v. Liu, No. 10-10613, Oct. 1, 2013 (9th Cir.)

    Read More

  • Hard to swallow: Starbucks’ trademark dilution claim

    April / May 2014
    Newsletter: Ideas on Intellectual Property Law

    Price: $225.00, Subscriber Price: $157.50

    Word count: 618

    Abstract: This past November, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit ruled that coffee giant Starbucks wasn’t entitled to a preliminary injunction prohibiting the use of a competitor’s product names. This article explains why the Second Circuit affirmed a district court’s finding that the marks were only minimally similar, and why the circuit court determined that a survey Starbucks used in support of its trademark dilution claim was fundamentally flawed. Starbucks Corp. v. Wolfe’s Borough Coffee Inc. d/b/a Black Bear Micro Roastery, No. 12‐364‐cv, Nov. 15, 2013 (2nd Cir.)Abstract: This past November, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit ruled that coffee giant Starbucks wasn’t entitled to a preliminary injunction prohibiting the use of a competitor’s product names. This article explains why the Second Circuit affirmed a district court’s finding that the marks were only minimally similar, and why the circuit court determined that a survey…

    Read More

  • Does patent exhaustion require a sale?

    April / May 2014
    Newsletter: Ideas on Intellectual Property Law

    Price: $225.00, Subscriber Price: $157.50

    Word count: 519

    Abstract: It’s well-settled law that the authorized sale of a patented item will exhaust the patentee’s rights in that particular item. Until recently, however, it’s been unclear whether the patent exhaustion doctrine applies to items distributed for free. This article looks at one case in which a divided U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit tackled the matter head on. At issue was whether the rights in a device were exhausted when it was given away in hopes that doing so would spur sales of a complementary item. LifeScan Scotland, Ltd. v. Shasta Technologies, LLC, No. 2013-1271, Nov. 4, 2013 (Fed. Cir.)

    Read More

  • Egregious misconduct – Examining the behavior behind an unenforceable patent

    April / May 2014
    Newsletter: Ideas on Intellectual Property Law

    Price: $225.00, Subscriber Price: $157.50

    Word count: 926

    Abstract: In 2011, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit ruled that certain acts of “egregious misconduct” by a patent applicant can eventually render a subsequently issued patent unenforceable. This article examines one recent case that provided a clear example of this. When a telecommunications company sued another for patent infringement, the court held that the patents were unenforceable because the inventor had submitted to the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office a declaration with false statements. A sidebar looks at a different case with a different result. Intellect Wireless, Inc. v. HTC Corp., No. 2012-1658, Oct. 9, 2013 (Fed. Cir.) Therasense, Inc. v. Becton, Dickinson & Co., Nos. 2008-1511, -1512, -1513, -1514, -1595, May 25, 2011 (Fed. Cir.) Network Signatures, Inc. v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance, 2012-1492, Sept. 24, 2013 (Fed. Cir.)

    Read More

  • The missing link? Tenth Circuit weighs in on keyword advertising

    February / March 2014
    Newsletter: Ideas on Intellectual Property Law

    Price: $225.00, Subscriber Price: $157.50

    Word count: 428

    Abstract: The battle over the trademark implications of Google’s AdWords advertising program has been playing out in the courts for years. But a recent appeals court ruling may have dealt a death blow to the hopes of mark owners fighting to prevent competitors from using their marks as keywords to trigger-sponsored ads. This article explains why the court agreed with the district court that no likelihood of confusion existed in this case. 1-800 Contacts, Inc. v. Lens.com, No. 11-4114, 11-4204, 12-4022, July 16, 2013 (10th Cir.)

    Read More

  • Bam! Pow! Smash! The demise of a comic book artist’s copyright

    February / March 2014
    Newsletter: Ideas on Intellectual Property Law

    Price: $225.00, Subscriber Price: $157.50

    Word count: 619

    Abstract: The heirs of an artist who had created several comic book heroes served various entities of the publisher with notices purporting to exercise statutory termination rights under the Copyright Act. The publisher claimed that the heirs had no termination rights because all of the drawings were “made for hire” for the company. The question was whether this was true, since it would entitle the employer to be the author for purposes of copyright ownership. This article looks at the appeals court’s application of the “instance and expense test” to make this determination. Marvel Characters, Inc. v. Kirby, No. 11-3333-cv, Aug. 8, 2013 (2nd Cir.)

    Read More

  • Learning a tough lesson on how to write patent descriptions

    February / March 2014
    Newsletter: Ideas on Intellectual Property Law

    Price: $225.00, Subscriber Price: $157.50

    Word count: 509

    Abstract: In one recent case, the holder of a patent on some modified enzymes learned a tough lesson on how to write a patent description. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit determined that the plaintiff’s 2000 application didn’t adequately demonstrate that, by the filing date, it had invented and possessed the particular variant enzymes that it claimed almost a decade later. The case shows that it’s not enough to list the various claims one hopes an invention will end up with; it’s necessary to show current possession of such an invention. Novozymes A/S v. DuPont Nutrition Biosciences APS, No. 2012-1433, July 22, 2013 (Fed. Cir.)

    Read More

  • Patent obviousness analysis fails with Federal Circuit

    February / March 2014
    Newsletter: Ideas on Intellectual Property Law

    Price: $225.00, Subscriber Price: $157.50

    Word count: 925

    Abstract: One company holding a design patent for “the ornamental design for a slipper” sued another for patent infringement. The district court found the patent invalid because the design was obvious from prior art. But the Federal Circuit found that that court had made multiple errors in its obviousness analysis. This article describes those mistakes, while a sidebar notes that the appeals court also found fault with the district court’s judgment that the patent was invalid because the design was primarily functional rather than primarily ornamental. High Point Design LLC v. Buyer’s Direct, Inc., No. 2012-1455, Sept. 11, 2013 (Fed. Cir.)

    Read More

  • Dodging patent infringement liability in good faith

    Year End 2013
    Newsletter: Ideas on Intellectual Property Law

    Price: $225.00, Subscriber Price: $157.50

    Word count: 422

    Abstract: In what could be a tough break for patent holders, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit has given parties accused of induced patent infringement another way of defending themselves. They may now be able to escape liability by showing a good-faith belief that the patent was invalid — even if the patent was, in fact, valid. This article examines the case. Commil USA, LLC v. Cisco Systems, Inc., No. 2012-1042, June 25, 2013 (Fed. Cir.)

    Read More

  • Oprah’s next chapter – Court allows trademark infringement case to continue

    Year End 2013
    Newsletter: Ideas on Intellectual Property Law

    Price: $225.00, Subscriber Price: $157.50

    Word count: 530

    Abstract: The owner of a motivational services business holds events and releases publications under the federally registered service mark “Own Your Power.” After Oprah Winfrey and various other defendants began using this same mark, the owner sued. The district court found fair use. This article explains why the appeals court disagreed, vacating the district court’s judgment and remanding the case for further proceedings. Kelly-Brown v. Winfrey, No. 12-1207-cv, May 31, 2013 (2nd Cir.)

    Read More

  • Should royalties end when a patent expires?

    Year End 2013
    Newsletter: Ideas on Intellectual Property Law

    Price: $225.00, Subscriber Price: $157.50

    Word count: 616

    Abstract: After an inventor sued Marvel Enterprises for patent infringement and breach of a verbal contract in regard to a Spider-Man toy, an agreement was reached — but it had no expiration date. After several disagreements cropped up, the inventor filed a breach of contract action concerning the calculation of royalty payments. But the district court ruled that the royalties ended when the patent expired. The appeals court affirmed the decision, relying on a Supreme Court case known as Brulotte. This article explains why the appeals court felt it applied in this case. Kimble v. Marvel Enterprises, Inc., No. 11-15605, July 16, 2013 (9th Cir.) Brulotte v. Thys Co., No. 20, Nov. 16, 1964 (Supreme Court)

    Read More

  • Patent eligibility for software – Fractured Federal Circuit provides little clarity

    Year End 2013
    Newsletter: Ideas on Intellectual Property Law

    Price: $225.00, Subscriber Price: $157.50

    Word count: 937

    Abstract: Many have understandably been befuddled by the sometimes conflicting recent court decisions regarding the patent eligibility of computer-implemented inventions. Unfortunately, the 135-page decision from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in CLS Bank Int’l v. Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. provides little clarity. This article discusses the divided opinions among the 10 judges, who produced six opinions as well as conflicting tests for patent eligibility. Given this uncertainty, a sidebar suggests how it might be best to proceed when drafting patent claims. CLS Bank Int’l v. Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd., 2011-1301, May 10, 2013 (Fed. Cir.)

    Read More

  • Case dismissed: “ibooks” mark isn’t protected

    October / November 2013
    Newsletter: Ideas on Intellectual Property Law

    Price: $225.00, Subscriber Price: $157.50

    Word count: 434

    Abstract: After Apple announced it would be offering e-reader software called “iBooks,” a small publisher of an imprint labeled “ibooks” sued. But, as this article explains, the district court held that the plaintiff had failed to present sufficient evidence to show that its mark was entitled to trademark protection or was likely to suffer from reverse confusion with the “iBooks” mark.

    Read More

  • You reap what you sow – Patent exhaustion defense doesn’t stir Supreme Court

    October / November 2013
    Newsletter: Ideas on Intellectual Property Law

    Price: $225.00, Subscriber Price: $157.50

    Word count: 621

    Abstract: After a farmer went to great lengths to devise a complex planting and harvesting practice to evade the terms of a licensing agreement, the seed manufacturer sued him. Although the farmer had violated the license terms by planting the purchased seed over eight seasons instead of just one, he claimed that he was protected by the “patent exhaustion” doctrine, which gives the purchaser of a patented article, or any subsequent owner, the right to use or resell that article. This article explains why the Court rejected that defense — at least in this case.

    Read More

  • Are wireless carriers liable for user infringement?

    October / November 2013
    Newsletter: Ideas on Intellectual Property Law

    Price: $225.00, Subscriber Price: $157.50

    Word count: 506

    Abstract: Today’s technology makes it easier than ever to infringe copyrighted material. But can the providers of that technology be found liable for its users’ infringement? This article looks at a case in which a seller of commercial multimedia-messaging content, after finding that users were resharing content without permission or compensation, alleged that the carrier vicariously infringed its content and induced others to do so. But the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit determined that, because the plaintiff had failed to establish the necessary specific knowledge of infringement, its contributory copyright infringement claim also failed.

    Read More

  • The final round – Supreme Court addresses patentability of genes

    October / November 2013
    Newsletter: Ideas on Intellectual Property Law

    Price: $225.00, Subscriber Price: $157.50

    Word count: 939

    Abstract: It’s a case that had the biotech industry on pins and needles for years. At stake was whether naturally occurring DNA segments were patentable. In the final round, the U.S. Supreme Court found that they were not. But the finding didn’t apply to synthetic, man-made DNA. This article examines the case as it proceeded through the district and circuit courts, and ultimately the Supreme Court, which found that synthetically created “cDNA” didn’t present the same obstacles to patentability as naturally occurring, isolated DNA segments did. A sidebar discusses the circuit court’s ruling on the lawsuit’s method claims, which weren’t pursued before the high court.

    Read More