IIP
Showing 65–80 of 336 results
-
Objectively reasonable belief doesn’t preclude induced infringement liability
April / May 2021
Newsletter: Ideas on Intellectual Property Law
Price: $225.00, Subscriber Price: $157.50
Word count: 434
Abstract: An alleged patent infringer’s conduct may be objectively reasonable — but that doesn’t mean the conduct can’t support liability for induced infringement. This short article highlights this lesson from a recent decision by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, where the defendant relied on a favorable court ruling and a stipulation by the parties that the plaintiff couldn’t show induced infringement. TecSec, Inc. v. Adobe Inc. Nos. 19-2192, 2258 (Fed. Cir. Oct. 23, 2020)
-
USPTO responds to Booking.com ruling with revised guidelines
April / May 2021
Newsletter: Ideas on Intellectual Property Law
Price: $225.00, Subscriber Price: $157.50
Word count: 622
Abstract: In the wake of the U.S. Supreme Court ruling in the Booking.com case last year, the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) has updated its guidance for evaluating so-called “generic.com” marks for trademark registration. Although the Court’s ruling opened the door to registration for such marks, applicants nonetheless may find it an uphill battle. This article reviews the USPTO guidance.
-
Any way you slice it – Copyright Act requires domestic infringement
April / May 2021
Newsletter: Ideas on Intellectual Property Law
Price: $225.00, Subscriber Price: $157.50
Word count: 616
Abstract: In an opinion hot out of the oven, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit recently weighed in on a case that tested the extraterritorial limits of the federal Copyright Act. Unfortunately for the U.S.-based copyright owner, the court determined that its allegations of infringement fell short of what was necessary to sustain a case against foreign defendants. This article reviews that case and the international reach of the U.S. Copyright Act. IMAPizza, LLC v. At Pizza Ltd., No. 18-7168 (D.C. Cir. July 17, 2020)
-
Confusion reigns – Ninth Circuit addresses counterfeiting claims
April / May 2021
Newsletter: Ideas on Intellectual Property Law
Price: $225.00, Subscriber Price: $157.50
Word count: 824
Abstract: Counterfeiting is a form of trademark infringement, so you might naturally expect that it requires at least the same amount of evidence as an infringement claim to reach trial. One trademark holder, however, recently argued that counterfeiting claims don’t require a showing of a likelihood of consumer confusion. This article examines a recent case from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit that set the trademark holder straight. Arcona, Inc. v. Farmacy Beauty, LLC, No. 19-55586 (9th Cir. Oct. 1, 2020)
-
Who can file for trademark cancellation?
February / March 2021
Newsletter: Ideas on Intellectual Property Law
Price: $225.00, Subscriber Price: $157.50
Word count: 425
Abstract: The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit recently held that parties can pursue cancellation of a trademark even if they don’t show a proprietary interest in the contested mark. This article reviews the case and why owners of registered trademarks could see an uptick in attempts to cancel those marks. Australian Therapeutic Supplies Pty. Ltd. v. Naked TM, LLC, No. 19-1567 (Fed. Cir. July 27, 2020).
-
“Method of preparation” involving natural phenomenon is patent-eligible
February / March 2021
Newsletter: Ideas on Intellectual Property Law
Price: $225.00, Subscriber Price: $157.50
Word count: 559
Abstract: The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit has taken the unusual step of modifying and clarifying an earlier opinion considering whether an invention related to a natural phenomenon was patent-eligible. Although the case deals with a “method of preparation,” this article looks at why it may also provide some valuable clues on how best to structure diagnostic claims to increase the odds of patent eligibility. Illumina, Inc. v. Ariosa Diagnostics, Inc., No. 19-1419 (Fed. Cir. Aug. 3, 2020); Association for Molecular Pathology v. Myriad Genetics, Inc., 569 U.S. 576 (2013).
-
Don’t let patent licensing missteps cost you
February / March 2021
Newsletter: Ideas on Intellectual Property Law
Price: $225.00, Subscriber Price: $157.50
Word count: 620
Abstract: The owner of three software-related patents can attest to the highs and lows of patent litigation after the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit ruled in its case. Unlike other patents challenged as patent-ineligible under the so-called Alice test, its patents were upheld — but the patentee lost out on millions in pre-suit damages due to a licensing misstep. This article examines the case and reminds readers not to make the same mistake. Packet Intelligence LLC v. Netscout Systems, Inc., No. 19-2041 (Fed. Cir. July 14, 2020).
-
Behind the curtain – “Jersey Boys” doesn’t violate copyright on autobiography
February / March 2021
Newsletter: Ideas on Intellectual Property Law
Price: $225.00, Subscriber Price: $157.50
Word count: 814
Abstract: The long-running Broadway musical “Jersey Boys” chronicles the history of the band known as the Four Seasons — and spawned copyright litigation that has run nearly as long as the play itself. This article discusses the latest ruling from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, which found that because facts can’t form the basis for a copyright claim, and all of the alleged similarities were based on elements that were treated as fact in the manuscript, the plaintiff’s manuscript was unprotected. Corbello v. Valli, No. 17-1637 (9th Cir. Sept. 8, 2020).
-
Court affirms PTAB’s common sense obviousness analysis
Year End 2020
Newsletter: Ideas on Intellectual Property Law
Price: $225.00, Subscriber Price: $157.50
Word count: 415
Abstract: Common sense can go a long way. And patent litigants shouldn’t be surprised at just how far it can go when a court determines whether a patent is invalid for being obvious. This article discusses a case in which the court found that, while common sense shouldn’t be used as a wholesale substitute for reasoned analysis and evidentiary support, the Patent Trial and Appeal Board’s use of common sense was accompanied by the necessary analysis and support. B/E Aerospace, Inc. v. C&D Zodiac, Inc., No. 19-1935, June 26, 2020, Fed. Cir.; KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., No. 04–1350, Supreme Court (2007).
-
Cosmetic differences – Copyright Act preempts state law claims over makeup artistry
Year End 2020
Newsletter: Ideas on Intellectual Property Law
Price: $225.00, Subscriber Price: $157.50
Word count: 646
Abstract: To qualify for copyright protection, works must be “fixed in a tangible medium of expression.” Does human skin count as a tangible medium of expression? The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit considered that question in a recent case — but in the end held off on a decision. This article reviews the court’s decision to find a different basis for ruling against the plaintiff. Mourabit v. Klein, No. 19-2142, June 8, 2020, 2d Cir.
-
There’s no “I” in team – Court adds co-inventors to patents
Year End 2020
Newsletter: Ideas on Intellectual Property Law
Price: $225.00, Subscriber Price: $157.50
Word count: 583
Abstract: Some types of inventions are the result of extensive collaboration, but not every collaborator qualifies as an inventor for patent purposes. The exclusion or inclusion of individuals as inventors can have significant implications, financially and otherwise. This article highlights a recent case involving a cancer treatment reviewing the concept of joint inventorship. Dana-Farber Cancer Institute v. Ono Pharm. Co., Ltd., No. 19-2050, July 14, 2020, Fed. Cir.
-
SCOTUS has no reservations about Booking.com trademark
Year End 2020
Newsletter: Ideas on Intellectual Property Law
Price: $225.00, Subscriber Price: $157.50
Word count: 819
Abstract: The U.S. Supreme Court recently sided with digital travel company Booking.com in a much-anticipated trademark ruling. The Court’s holding, which makes the combination of a generic word with “.com” eligible for federal trademark registration, reportedly has already led to a wave of registration applications for such terms. This article reviews the Court’s reasoning and a short sidebar discusses its discussion regarding relevant evidence such as dictionaries, usage by consumers and competitors, and consumer surveys. USPTO v. Booking.com, No. 19-46, June 30, 2020, U.S.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.