IIP

Showing 17–32 of 276 results

  • Supreme Court: Sovereign immunity sinks copyright claims

    October / November 2020
    Newsletter: Ideas on Intellectual Property Law

    Price: $225.00, Subscriber Price: $157.50

    Word count: 409

    Abstract: When copyrights are infringed by a state, copyright owners are likely out of luck. That’s the result of a unanimous decision from the U.S. Supreme Court striking down a federal law that allowed copyright owners to sue states in federal court for infringement. This brief article reviews the case and its implications. Allen v. Cooper, No. 18-877, March 23, 2020, U.S.

    Read More

  • Will they or won’t they? SCOTUS makes it easier to recover trademark infringer’s profits

    October / November 2020
    Newsletter: Ideas on Intellectual Property Law

    Price: $225.00, Subscriber Price: $157.50

    Word count: 630

    Abstract: In yet another eventful season of important U.S. Supreme Court rulings, one decision brings welcome news to trademark owners. The unanimous landmark decision resolved a split among the federal appellate courts. This article reviews the Supreme Court’s decision finding that, while willfulness isn’t a prerequisite to the issue of a profits remedy, the inquiry into willfulness isn’t irrelevant. Romag Fasteners, Inc. v. Fossil Group, Inc., No. 18-1233, April 23, 2020, U.S.

    Read More

  • The limits of artificial intelligence – PTO restricts “inventorship” to natural persons

    October / November 2020
    Newsletter: Ideas on Intellectual Property Law

    Price: $225.00, Subscriber Price: $157.50

    Word count: 564

    Abstract: Decades after “2001: A Space Odyssey” hit theaters, artificial intelligence (AI) is finally gaining ground in everyday life — but not without legal limits. The U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (PTO), for example, recently ruled that AI systems can’t be listed as an “inventor” on a patent application. This article discusses why the agency found that the application required identification of a natural person as inventor. In re Application of Application No.: 16/524,350, No. 50567-3-01-US, April 27, 2020, U.S.P.T.O.

    Read More

  • Federal Circuit cuts the line on patent-ineligible fishing method

    October / November 2020
    Newsletter: Ideas on Intellectual Property Law

    Price: $225.00, Subscriber Price: $157.50

    Word count: 840

    Abstract: The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit has thrown back yet another patent aimed at what it considers a patent-ineligible abstract idea. While many of the earlier cases in which the court has applied the so-called Alice/Mayo test for patent eligibility have involved computer-implemented processes or software, the recent case revolved around something much more simple. This article highlights the Federal Circuit’s continuing trend to deny patents for abstract ideas. In re: Rudy, No. 2019-2301, April 24, 2020, Fed. Cir.

    Read More

  • Use it or lose it: Protecting IP during a public health crisis

    August / September 2020
    Newsletter: Ideas on Intellectual Property Law

    Price: $225.00, Subscriber Price: $157.50

    Word count: 383

    Abstract: Owners of intellectual property (IP) — whether it’s a patent, trademark, copyright or something else — need to protect and enforce their rights, even during tumultuous times like the COVID-19 pandemic. Although the crisis forced the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (PTO), the U.S. Copyright Office and some courts to close to the public, this short article reminds IP owners that their rights must always be protected.

    Read More

  • Trademark licensee denied preliminary injunction – Court finds license isn’t “perpetual”

    August / September 2020
    Newsletter: Ideas on Intellectual Property Law

    Price: $225.00, Subscriber Price: $157.50

    Word count: 596

    Abstract: Preliminary injunctions generally are considered extraordinary remedies, as the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit recently reminded a popcorn manufacturer. The manufacturer had sought a preliminary injunction against a trademark licensor that terminated its agreement. This article reviews a district court’s finding that an injunction was warranted because the manufacturer held a “perpetual license,” and why the appellate court disagreed. Mrs. Fields Franchising LLC v. MFGPC, Nos. 19-4046, -4063, Nov. 7, 2019, Fed. Cir.

    Read More

  • Patentee misses the mark on pre-lawsuit infringement damages

    August / September 2020
    Newsletter: Ideas on Intellectual Property Law

    Price: $225.00, Subscriber Price: $157.50

    Word count: 655

    Abstract: Patent owners have to do more than simply obtain their patents if they want to recover full damages for patent infringement. This article reviews one case in which a patent owner’s infringement action was dismissed because the owner had failed to give the public notice of the patent by marking products that use the patented invention, thus dramatically limiting the amount of recoverable damages. Arctic Cat Inc. v. Bombardier Recreational Products Inc., No. 2019-1080, Feb. 19, 2020, Fed. Cir.

    Read More

  • Stairway to litigation – Led Zeppelin prevails in copyright case

    August / September 2020
    Newsletter: Ideas on Intellectual Property Law

    Price: $225.00, Subscriber Price: $157.50

    Word count: 920

    Abstract: The copyright infringement case involving Led Zeppelin’s classic rock anthem “Stairway to Heaven” may finally be over. In finding in favor of the band, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reversed some of its long-standing precedent — and this could significantly impact other copyright cases. This article reviews the appellate decision and its determination not to use the inverse ratio rule. A short sidebar covers the court’s decision that a deposit copy limited the scope of the copyright under the 1909 Copyright Act. Skidmore v. Led Zeppelin, Nos. 16-56057, -56287, March 9, 2020, 9th Cir.

    Read More

  • Supreme Court slaps down PTO pursuit of attorneys’ fees

    June / July 2020
    Newsletter: Ideas on Intellectual Property Law

    Price: $225.00, Subscriber Price: $157.50

    Word count: 462

    Abstract: The U.S. Supreme Court has weighed in on a new U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (PTO) practice when patent applicants appeal adverse decisions in district court. This article reviews why the Court’s conclusion is welcome news for applicants who want to go this route to contest the denial of their applications. Peter v. NantKwest, Inc., No. 18-801, Dec. 11, 2019, U.S.

    Read More

  • Attorneys’ fees awards in trademark cases – Appellate court lowers the bar

    June / July 2020
    Newsletter: Ideas on Intellectual Property Law

    Price: $225.00, Subscriber Price: $157.50

    Word count: 583

    Abstract: When most people think about what it takes to qualify as “exceptional,” they probably imagine a fairly high bar. That’s not how the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit sees it, though — at least when it comes to the standard for awarding attorneys’ fees to prevailing defendants in trademark litigation. This article discusses a recent trademark law case, in which the court joined most federal courts of appeal in applying a looser test in the wake of a 2014 U.S. Supreme Court ruling, which had arisen in a patent case. LHO Chicago River, LLC v. Perillo, No. 19-1848, Nov. 8, 2019, 7th Cir.

    Read More

  • Prescription for copyright protection: Register stat!

    June / July 2020
    Newsletter: Ideas on Intellectual Property Law

    Price: $225.00, Subscriber Price: $157.50

    Word count: 601

    Abstract: Copyright protection generally takes effect as soon as an original work is created, but it might not be as extensive as some think. To get the full protection, including the ability to sue for infringement, the work must be registered with the U.S. Copyright Office — ASAP. This article covers a recent case in which the copyright holder learned the risks of delaying registration the hard way. Southern Credentialing Support Svcs., LLC v. Hammond Surgical Hosp., LLC, No. 18-31169, Jan. 9, 2020, 5th Cir.

    Read More

  • Look before you leap – Foreign publication leads to patent invalidation

    June / July 2020
    Newsletter: Ideas on Intellectual Property Law

    Price: $225.00, Subscriber Price: $157.50

    Word count: 852

    Abstract: Even after a patent is granted, an owner can find the patent’s validity challenged if it hasn’t thoroughly searched for “prior art.” That’s what happened to one telecommunications company: in an inter partes review (IPR) proceeding, the competitor alleged that prior art anticipated the invention, invalidating the patent. This article highlights a case that illustrates the low standard for the admission of late evidence in IPR proceedings and provides guidance on when a printed publication qualifies as potentially invalidating prior art. A short sidebar discusses the plaintiff’s claim that, even if the prior art was publicly available at the relevant time, it actually “taught away” from the patented invention. Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson v. TCL Corp., No. 18-801, Nov. 7, 2019, Fed. Cir.

    Read More

  • Timing matters in inter partes review

    April / May 2020
    Newsletter: Ideas on Intellectual Property Law

    Price: $225.00, Subscriber Price: $157.50

    Word count: 469

    Abstract: Inter partes review (IPR) offers parties an expedited opportunity to challenge the validity of a patent outside of court. But, as one challenger recently learned the hard way, it’s critical that arguments against patentability be raised at the proper time. This article reviews the court’s finding that an IPR petitioner may not raise in reply an entirely new rationale for why a claim would have been obvious. Henny Penny Corp. v. Frymaster LLC, No. 18-1596, Sept. 12, 2019, Fed. Cir.

    Read More

  • No harm, no foul – Fair use defense wins trademark infringement case

    April / May 2020
    Newsletter: Ideas on Intellectual Property Law

    Price: $225.00, Subscriber Price: $157.50

    Word count: 625

    Abstract: Athletes are known for “leaving it all on the field,” or going all out in competition. A nutritional consultant firm for athletes recently took the same mindset to a trademark battle — but it didn’t emerge victorious, because a court found its opponent’s use of its mark was fair. This article examines the fair use defense and how the defendant used it to overcome a claim of trademark infringement. SportFuel, Inc., v. PepsiCo, Inc., No. 18-3010, Aug. 2, 2019, 7th Cir.

    Read More

  • Back to the future – Federal Circuit rejects narrow approach to relation back doctrine

    April / May 2020
    Newsletter: Ideas on Intellectual Property Law

    Price: $225.00, Subscriber Price: $157.50

    Word count: 631

    Abstract: The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, the appellate court that hears all patent-related appeals, recently revived an infringement lawsuit based on the relation back doctrine. This article examines why the court found the trial court’s application of the doctrine, which resulted in the case being dismissed because of the statute of limitations, “overly restrictive.” Anza Technology, Inc. v. Mushkin, Inc., No. 19-1045, Aug. 16, 2019, Fed. Cir.

    Read More

  • Food for thought: Court rules banana costume is copyrightable

    April / May 2020
    Newsletter: Ideas on Intellectual Property Law

    Price: $225.00, Subscriber Price: $157.50

    Word count: 846

    Abstract: In 2017, the U.S. Supreme Court in Star Athletica, L.L.C. v. Varsity Brands, Inc., established a two-part test for analyzing which elements of a piece of clothing are design elements protectable by copyright and which are nonprotectable functional elements. This article reviews a recent case from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit that has applied the fruit of the high court’s labors in that case for the first time in its jurisdiction. A brief sidebar covers the application of the merger and “scènes à faire” doctrines to the case. Silvertop Associates Inc. v. Kangaroo Mfg. Inc., No. 18-2266, Aug. 1, 2019, 3d Cir., Star Athletica, L.L.C. v. Varsity Brands, Inc., 137 S. Ct. 1002 (2017).

    Read More