IIP

Showing 17–32 of 328 results

  • PTO makes genericness refusals for marks more likely

    Year End 2022
    Newsletter: Ideas on Intellectual Property Law

    Price: $225.00, Subscriber Price: $157.50

    Word count: 412

    Abstract: The U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (PTO) recently issued Examination Guide 1-22, “Clarification of Examination Evidentiary Standard for Marks Refused as Generic.” In it, the PTO clarifies its previous position on the evidentiary burden when a trademark examining attorney seeks to refuse to register a mark in the Principal or Supplemental Register because the mark is generic. This article briefly explains the new standard, which diverges from longstanding practice. Examination Guide 1-22, “Clarification of Examination Evidentiary Standard for Marks Refused as Generic.”

    Read More

  • Computer Fraud and Abuse Act – “Scraping” public data probably doesn’t violate CFAA

    Year End 2022
    Newsletter: Ideas on Intellectual Property Law

    Price: $225.00, Subscriber Price: $157.50

    Word count: 626

    Abstract: The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit has again determined that the automated “scraping” of an online networking platform’s publicly available data probably doesn’t violate the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (CFAA). The U.S. Supreme Court had directed the appellate court to reconsider its earlier determination based on a subsequent high court ruling on the CFAA. But, in the end, the Ninth Circuit found that it was right all along. This article reviews the court’s determination that when a computer network generally permits public access to its data, a user’s accessing of that data likely won’t qualify as unauthorized access under the CFAA. hiQ Labs, Inc. v. LinkedIn Corp., No. 17-16783, -2038 (9th Cir. April 18, 2022).

    Read More

  • Silence isn’t always golden – Patent specification doesn’t adequately describe negative limitation

    Year End 2022
    Newsletter: Ideas on Intellectual Property Law

    Price: $225.00, Subscriber Price: $157.50

    Word count: 557

    Abstract: If at first you don’t succeed, try again. The old bromide proved surprisingly meaningful for a pharmaceutical company challenging a competitor’s patent on a treatment method. The claim that the patent lacked an adequate written description of the method’s “negative limitation” was initially rejected by a three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. This article looks at how the tables turned when the company requested a rehearing before the panel after one judge retired and was replaced. Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corp. v. Accord Healthcare, Inc., No. 21-1070 (Fed. Cir. June 21, 2022).

    Read More

  • Typo spells the end of patent challenge

    Year End 2022
    Newsletter: Ideas on Intellectual Property Law

    Price: $225.00, Subscriber Price: $157.50

    Word count: 862

    Abstract: What happens when a patent is challenged as being obvious based on a previous patent, but the earlier patent contains a typographical error? It depends on how obvious the error is. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit recently found such a patent error obvious — even though the error wasn’t discovered until an expert conducted extensive analysis 20 years after the error was first published. The result: The earlier patent didn’t disclose the subsequent invention, and the later patent wasn’t invalidated in view of the prior, errant disclosure. This article discusses the law governing typographical errors in patents. A brief sidebar highlights the dissenting judge’s opinion that, while agreeing that the majority applied the proper standard, the error at issue was not only typographical. LG Electronics Inc. v. ImmerVision, No. 21-2037, -2038 (Fed. Cir. July 11, 2022).

    Read More

  • How “generic skepticism” affects the motivation to combine

    October / November 2022
    Newsletter: Ideas on Intellectual Property Law

    Price: $225.00, Subscriber Price: $157.50

    Word count: 448

    Abstract: The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit gave new life to a challenge of a robotic surgery patent after rejecting the relevance of surgeons’ skepticism for robotic surgery. This article examines a decision holding that the U.S. Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) improperly found such generic skepticism about a field — as opposed to skepticism about a specific invention — rendered the patented invention nonobvious. Auris Health, Inc. v. Intuitive Surgical Operations, Inc., No. 21-1732 (Fed. Cir. April 29, 2022).

    Read More

  • Court revives patent case – Descriptive terms weren’t “indefinite” after all

    October / November 2022
    Newsletter: Ideas on Intellectual Property Law

    Price: $225.00, Subscriber Price: $157.50

    Word count: 571

    Abstract: Coming up with a new and useful invention is only part of the battle when it comes to obtaining a patent. Patent applicants also need to choose their words carefully when drafting the application. This article looks at a recent ruling from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit that highlights one of the most important considerations: what a patent’s words communicate to skilled artisans in the relevant field. Niazi Licensing Corp. v. St. Jude Medical S.C., Inc., No. 21-1864 (Fed. Cir. April 11, 2022).

    Read More

  • Copyright infringement ruling strikes a chord

    October / November 2022
    Newsletter: Ideas on Intellectual Property Law

    Price: $225.00, Subscriber Price: $157.50

    Word count: 621

    Abstract: The music world is sitting up and taking note of another significant court ruling on the availability of copyright protection for elements of songs. The court’s decision emphasizes that common “building blocks” of music aren’t copyrightable. This article covers the court’s application of a two-part test with “extrinsic” and “intrinsic” components and its conclusion that no individual component of the plaintiff’s ostinato (a repeating instrumental figure) was copyrightable. Gray v. Hudson, No. 20-55401 (9th Cir. March 10, 2022).

    Read More

  • Better late than never – When tardiness bars trademark infringement claims

    October / November 2022
    Newsletter: Ideas on Intellectual Property Law

    Price: $225.00, Subscriber Price: $157.50

    Word count: 887

    Abstract: A lack of haste can make waste when it comes to filing a lawsuit. But some delays are excusable. This article reviews a dispute over the use of a trademark by two players in the insurance industry. It provides useful insight into when a trademark holder’s delay will — or won’t — bar its claims. A short sidebar highlights the appellate court’s rejection of the trial court’s reliance on a cease-and-desist letter to show how long the plaintiff was aware of the risk of consumer confusion between the trademarks at issue. A.I.G. Agency, Inc. v. American Int’l Group, Inc., No. 21-1948 (8th Cir. May 13, 2022).

    Read More

  • AI works shut out from copyright protection

    August / September 2022
    Newsletter: Ideas on Intellectual Property Law

    Price: $225.00, Subscriber Price: $157.50

    Word count: 422

    Abstract: Artificial intelligence (AI) has made inroads in a wide array of areas, but it has yet to break down the barriers to copyright protection. The U.S. Copyright Office continues to refuse to register a copyright on works created by AI. This article reviews a decision by the Review Board of the U.S. Copyright Office (board) explaining its reasoning earlier this year. Second Request for Reconsideration for Refusal to Register a Recent Entrance to Paradise (Copyright Review Board Feb. 14, 2022).

    Read More

  • Package it up – Bakery’s trade dress claim falls

    August / September 2022
    Newsletter: Ideas on Intellectual Property Law

    Price: $225.00, Subscriber Price: $157.50

    Word count: 515

    Abstract: When designing product packaging, companies generally want it to clearly identify their products. In Bimbo Bakeries USA, Inc. v. Sycamore, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit has ruled that a baking company’s trade dress used elements so customary in the industry that it was generic and not subject to trademark protection under the federal trademark law known as the Lanham Act. This articles summarizes the court’s findings. Bimbo Bakeries USA, Inc. v. Sycamore, No. 18-4062, -4031, -4040 (10th Cir. March 18, 2022).

    Read More

  • Patent’s on-sale bar drains damages

    August / September 2022
    Newsletter: Ideas on Intellectual Property Law

    Price: $225.00, Subscriber Price: $157.50

    Word count: 668

    Abstract: There can be a fine legal line between providing a quote and an offer for sale. An inventor recently learned this lesson the hard way in Junker v. Medical Components, Inc. — and it resulted in the invalidation of his patent and the reversal of a hefty infringement damages award. This article reviews the patent’s on-sale bar and how the patent holder ran afoul of it. Junker v. Medical Components, Inc., No. 21-1649 (Fed. Cir. Feb. 10, 2022).

    Read More

  • Isn’t it obvious? Presumption of obviousness knocks out patent

    August / September 2022
    Newsletter: Ideas on Intellectual Property Law

    Price: $225.00, Subscriber Price: $157.50

    Word count: 847

    Abstract: Patents that specify ranges ¬— for example, a range of concentrations in a topical composition — can run into a presumption of obviousness that results in their inventions being deemed unpatentable. This case reviews a case in which a pharmaceutical company ran into just that problem when the ranges cited in its patent for a skin treatment overlapped with those in some so-called “prior art.” A brief sidebar highlights the court’s conclusion that the requisite reasonable expectation of success can exist without “absolute predictability of success.” Almirall, LLC v. Amneal Pharmaceuticals, LLC, No. 20-2331 (Fed. Cir. March 14, 2022).

    Read More

  • Post-AIA patents aren’t immune to interference proceedings

    June / July 2022
    Newsletter: Ideas on Intellectual Property Law

    Price: $225.00, Subscriber Price: $157.50

    Word count: 446

    Abstract: When the America Invents Act changed the U.S. patent system from a “first to invent” to “first inventor to file for a patent” system, it created some confusion. For example, questions arose about the applicability of interference proceedings to patent applications filed after the “first to file” provision took effect on March 16, 2013. This article discusses SNIPR Tech. Ltd. v. The Rockefeller University, in which the Patent Trial and Appeal Board has attempted to provide some clarity. SNIPR Tech. Ltd. v. The Rockefeller University, Pat. Interf. No. 106,123 (PTAB Nov. 19, 2021).

    Read More

  • USPTO announces new trademark sanctions process

    June / July 2022
    Newsletter: Ideas on Intellectual Property Law

    Price: $225.00, Subscriber Price: $157.50

    Word count: 693

    Abstract: The U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) has taken another step in its ongoing campaign to protect the integrity of the trademark register. It recently announced a new administrative process it will wield to investigate improper submissions filed with the USPTO in trademark matters. This article summarizes the newest USPTO sanctions process.

    Read More

  • Off the leash – Design copyright case gets another life

    June / July 2022
    Newsletter: Ideas on Intellectual Property Law

    Price: $225.00, Subscriber Price: $157.50

    Word count: 565

    Abstract: A common phrase such as “I love you” written in a lower-case cursive, italicized font on garments can’t possibly be copyrightable, right? Probably not, but as this article shows in a ruling from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit in Cat and Dogma, LLC v. Target Corp. a design using such a phrase may gain copyright protection. Cat and Dogma, LLC v. Target Corp., No. 20-50674 (5th Cir. Oct. 8, 2021).

    Read More

  • A notable shift – Software survives patent-eligibility test

    June / July 2022
    Newsletter: Ideas on Intellectual Property Law

    Price: $225.00, Subscriber Price: $157.50

    Word count: 816

    Abstract: Patents covering software can face an uphill battle when challengers contend the software is actually a patent-ineligible abstract idea. In Mentone Solutions LLC v. Digi Int’l Inc., the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit recently upheld one such patent. This article sheds some light on how these patents can withstand judicial scrutiny. Mentone Solutions LLC v. Digi Int’l Inc., No. 21-1202 (Fed Cir. Nov. 15, 2021); Two-Way Media Ltd. v. Comcast Cable Communications, 874 F.3d 1329, 124 U.S.P.Q.2d 1521 (Fed. Cir. 2017); CosmoKey Solutions GmbH & Co. KG v. Duo Security LLC, No. 20-2043 (Fed Cir. Oct. 4, 2021).

    Read More