IIP

Showing 241–256 of 276 results

  • Can a patentee establish liability for joint infringement?

    June / July 2011
    Newsletter: Ideas on Intellectual Property Law

    Price: $225.00, Subscriber Price: $157.50

    Word count: 397

    Abstract: Direct infringement of a method patent requires a single party to perform every step of the claimed method. But what about when a patented method requires more than one party to perform the necessary steps? How can a patentee establish that a defendant is liable for such joint infringement? This article describes the answer given by the appeals court. Akamai Technologies, Inc. v. Limelight Networks, Inc., 09-1372, Dec. 20, 2010 (Fed Cir.)

    Read More

  • Facts > rules – Federal Circuit rejects familiar formula for patent damages

    June / July 2011
    Newsletter: Ideas on Intellectual Property Law

    Price: $225.00, Subscriber Price: $157.50

    Word count: 657

    Abstract: In patent damages cases, the “25% rule” has been widely used to estimate the reasonable royalty rate that the manufacturer of a product using the patent would be willing to offer the patentee in a hypothetical negotiation for a license. It suggests the licensee pay a royalty rate equaling 25% of its expected profits for the product that incorporates the patent. But this article describes one case in which a jury awarded damages based on this rule — an award that the district court deemed excessive. The appeals court concurred, making it clear that these awards must be based on the facts of the case, rather than an abstract formula. Uniloc USA Inc. v. Microsoft Corp., 2010-1035, Jan. 4, 2011 (Fed. Cir.)

    Read More

  • Eek! “Naked licensing” leads to lost trademarks

    June / July 2011
    Newsletter: Ideas on Intellectual Property Law

    Price: $225.00, Subscriber Price: $157.50

    Word count: 518

    Abstract: “Freecyclers” are people who encourage others to pass on their goods rather than disposing of them. But this generous approach to life doesn’t always fly in the world of intellectual property. This article describes a case in which an umbrella nonprofit organization ordered a member to cease using its trademarks. The member responded with a declaratory action seeking a finding of noninfringement based on a defense of “naked licensing,” in which the owner loses the right to enforce its marks after failing to enforce their quality. FreecycleSunnyvale v. The Freecycle Network, No. 08-16382, Nov. 24, 2010 (9th Cir.)

    Read More

  • Losing control – Ninth Circuit examines distribution’s role in copyright case

    June / July 2011
    Newsletter: Ideas on Intellectual Property Law

    Price: $225.00, Subscriber Price: $157.50

    Word count: 934

    Abstract: When copyright holders release their creations, they can retain some control through licensing agreements. So one music company sued the recipient of recordings it had sent to him, unsolicited and free of charge, when he then sold them on eBay. But the court ruled that the company’s “Promotional Use — Not for Sale” label was insufficient to establish a license. This article explains the court’s reasons, while a sidebar examines the role of the Unordered Merchandise statute in this case. UMG Recordings, Inc. v. Augusto, No. 08-55998, Jan. 4, 2011 (9th Cir.)

    Read More

  • Conception vs. copying: A patent case

    April / May 2011
    Newsletter: Ideas on Intellectual Property Law

    Price: $225.00, Subscriber Price: $157.50

    Word count: 425

    Abstract: It’s wrong to copy another’s work — but, when a patent is involved, the line between conception and copying can be blurred by various arrangements between the parties involved. This article discusses a patent infringement case in which the defendant argued that its copying made it a “prior inventor” and, thus, invalidated the patent claims at issue. Solvay S.A. v. Honeywell Int’l, Inc., 2009-1161, Oct. 13, 2010 (Fed. Cir.)

    Read More

  • Generic drug draws preliminary injunction

    April / May 2011
    Newsletter: Ideas on Intellectual Property Law

    Price: $225.00, Subscriber Price: $157.50

    Word count: 535

    Abstract: A label for an asthma drug indicated that it could be administered once or twice daily, but the patents described once-daily treatment. Another company sought FDA approval to manufacture and sell a generic version of the drug for twice-daily use. The original manufacturer sought a preliminary injunction barring the applicant from launching its version of the drug. The district court issued the injunction, and the applicant appealed. But, as this article details, the Federal Circuit affirmed the granting of the preliminary injunction. AstraZeneca LP v. Apotex, Inc., Nos. 2009-1381, 2009-1424, Nov. 1, 2010 (Fed. Cir.)

    Read More

  • A view to a trademark – Gun manufacturer turns to 007 for help

    April / May 2011
    Newsletter: Ideas on Intellectual Property Law

    Price: $225.00, Subscriber Price: $157.50

    Word count: 626

    Abstract: When a gun manufacturer filed an application for a trademark on the product configuration design of certain firearms, the trademark examiner rejected the registration on the grounds that the design wasn’t inherently distinctive — and the examiner wasn’t persuaded by the manufacturer’s argument that the handgun design had acquired distinctiveness. The manufacturer appealed to the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board (TTAB), citing evidence of distinctiveness in the public’s mind, including widespread recognition of the product’s use in the popular James Bond movies. This article looks at the TTAB’s decision. In re Carl Walther GmbH, No. 77096523, Oct. 26, 2010 (T.T.A.B.)

    Read More

  • Do online music providers need a license? The Second Circuit logs on and weighs in

    April / May 2011
    Newsletter: Ideas on Intellectual Property Law

    Price: $225.00, Subscriber Price: $157.50

    Word count: 905

    Abstract: Are music downloads also public performances of the musical work, for which the copyright owners must separately and additionally be compensated? That was the issue facing a U.S. Circuit Court after a district court held that they weren’t, and that public performance licenses for download services were not needed. This article shows how, in rendering its decision, the circuit court made a distinction between downloading and streaming — and a sidebar shows how the court determined what it felt to be a proper royalty rate for streaming music. U.S. v. ASCAP, 09-0539-cv (L), Sept. 28, 2010 (2nd Cir.)

    Read More

  • When patent > trademark

    February / March 2011
    Newsletter: Ideas on Intellectual Property Law

    Price: $225.00, Subscriber Price: $157.50

    Word count: 412

    Abstract: When a manufacturer of round beach towels learned that a distributor was selling similar towels, the owner sued two of the distributor’s retailer customers for unauthorized use of his trademark. On behalf of these customers, the distributor sued the plaintiff to invalidate the mark. The district court ruled in the distributor’s favor, finding that the round beach towel was functional and, therefore, not eligible for trade dress protection. This article explains why the decision was upheld on appeal, and explains that trademark protection is not as strong as patent protection. Jay Franco & Sons, Inc. v. Franek, No. 09-2155, August 11, 2010 (7th Cir.)

    Read More

  • Can a private party enforce a federal statute?

    February / March 2011
    Newsletter: Ideas on Intellectual Property Law

    Price: $225.00, Subscriber Price: $157.50

    Word count: 377

    Abstract: A patent attorney purchased bow ties marked with numbers for two patents that expired in 1954 and 1955. He brought a qui tam action against the clothier under the false marking statute, which prohibits marking an unpatented article, in a way that indicates the article is patented, for purposes of deceiving the public. But the district court dismissed this particular action, finding that the attorney lacked standing to bring the claim because he’d failed to show that the government had suffered an injury. This article discusses the particulars of the qui tam provision. Stauffer v. Brooks Bros., Inc., Nos. 2009-1428, 2009-1430, 2009-1453, August 31, 2010 (Fed. Cir.)

    Read More

  • Patentability after Bilski – USPTO issues interim guidance on process claims

    February / March 2011
    Newsletter: Ideas on Intellectual Property Law

    Price: $225.00, Subscriber Price: $157.50

    Word count: 772

    Abstract: In a landmark decision last year, the U.S. Supreme Court held that the machine-or-transformation test isn’t the sole test for determining whether a business method or similar process is patentable. In light of that ruling, the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) issued interim guidance providing valuable insight on the types of claims that might qualify for patents. This article discusses the factors that favor patentability, along with those factors that oppose it. Bilski v. Kappos, No. 08-964, June 28, 2010 (Supreme Court)

    Read More

  • Any given Sunday – Fourth Circuit makes the call on fair use

    February / March 2011
    Newsletter: Ideas on Intellectual Property Law

    Price: $225.00, Subscriber Price: $157.50

    Word count: 919

    Abstract: When an artist’s drawing was “mistakenly” used in the production of a professional football team’s logo during the team’s first seasons, the Fourth Circuit affirmed a jury’s verdict that the artist’s copyright had been infringed. The artist subsequently sought an injunction prohibiting all current uses of the logo and requiring destruction of all items with it, including several highlight films. The defendants claimed fair use. This article discusses the four factors that may be used to determine whether a particular use is fair. Although the court decided in favor of the plaintiff, a sidebar discusses how it ruled differently regarding use of the logo in the team’s headquarters. Bouchat v. Baltimore Ravens Limited Partnership, No. 08-2381, Sept. 2, 2010 (4th Cir.)

    Read More

  • 6 updated exemptions for permissible copyright circumvention

    Year End 2010
    Newsletter: Ideas on Intellectual Property Law

    Price: $225.00, Subscriber Price: $157.50

    Word count: 438

    Abstract: The Librarian of Congress recently released an updated list of exemptions to the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA). The DMCA generally prohibits the circumvention of access-control technologies used by copyright owners to protect their works. But the exemptions allow users of certain types of works to circumvent such controls to make noninfringing uses of such works. This article describes the six exemptions from this year’s updated list.

    Read More

  • Fair enough? How the nominative fair use doctrine can apply to domain names

    Year End 2010
    Newsletter: Ideas on Intellectual Property Law

    Price: $225.00, Subscriber Price: $157.50

    Word count: 535

    Abstract: Since practically the dawn of the Internet, trademark holders have had to contend with third parties using their marks in domain names to draw traffic to nonaffiliated Web sites. Unfortunately for the mark holders, some of these third parties can wield the “nominative fair use” doctrine as a defense to infringement liability. This article covers the case of Toyota Motor Sales v. Tabari, in which the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reiterated how the doctrine can apply to domain names.

    Read More

  • Absolutely crust fallen – Court blocks trade secret defendant from new job

    Year End 2010
    Newsletter: Ideas on Intellectual Property Law

    Price: $225.00, Subscriber Price: $157.50

    Word count: 981

    Abstract: As long as a departing employee isn’t bound by a noncompete agreement, he or she is free to work wherever he or she chooses, right? Not according to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit in Bimbo Bakeries USA, Inc. v. Botticella. This article elaborates on the details.

    Read More

  • Supreme Court rules on process patentability tests

    Year End 2010
    Newsletter: Ideas on Intellectual Property Law

    Price: $225.00, Subscriber Price: $157.50

    Word count: 665

    Abstract: The question of the appropriate test for determining whether a business method or similar process is patentable finally made its way to the U.S. Supreme Court this year. But anyone hoping for a bright-line rule is in for a letdown. This article looks at the case of Bilski v. Kappos, in which the Court refused to hold the machine-or-transformation test put forth by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in 2008 as the sole test for patentability of a business method claim.

    Read More