IIP

Showing 81–96 of 280 results

  • Federal Circuit clarifies surname test for trademarks

    April / May 2018
    Newsletter: Ideas on Intellectual Property Law

    Price: $225.00, Subscriber Price: $157.50

    Word count: 437

    Abstract: What’s in a name? The answer to that question might determine whether a mark that includes someone’s surname is eligible for trademark registration. This article reviews a Federal Circuit Court of Appeals case that sheds some light on when a mark with a surname is — and isn’t — registrable as a trademark. Earnhardt v. Kerry Earnhardt, Inc., No. 16-1939, July 27, 2017, Fed. Cir.

    Read More

  • Proving infringement of system patents – Court rejects jury’s infringement finding in phone case

    April / May 2018
    Newsletter: Ideas on Intellectual Property Law

    Price: $225.00, Subscriber Price: $157.50

    Word count: 662

    Abstract: Some might think it would be easier to prove infringement of a patented system having multiple components. The more parts, the more opportunity to prove infringement. Not so. But this article summarizes a case in which one patentee learned the hard way that more parts means more to prove. Intellectual Ventures LLC v. Motorola Mobility LLC, No. 16-1795, Sept. 13, 2017, Fed. Cir.

    Read More

  • Who owns the copyright of stock photos?

    April / May 2018
    Newsletter: Ideas on Intellectual Property Law

    Price: $225.00, Subscriber Price: $157.50

    Word count: 565

    Abstract: Thanks in part to the proliferation of websites over the past couple of decades, the use of stock photography is more widespread than ever. And the posting of photos online — as well as in print — has created a copyright infringement bonanza. But who has the right to enforce copyright claims involving use of stock photographs? This article looks at a Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals case that recently tackled this question. DRK Photo v. McGraw-Hill Global Education Holdings, LLC, No. 15-15106, Sept. 12, 2017, 9th Cir.

    Read More

  • Train in vain – Patents for mass transit fare systems struck down

    April / May 2018
    Newsletter: Ideas on Intellectual Property Law

    Price: $225.00, Subscriber Price: $157.50

    Word count: 840

    Abstract: The Federal Circuit Court of Appeals continues to engage in abstract thinking — thinking about the patent-eligibility of abstract ideas, that is. The Federal Circuit has repeatedly reviewed whether patents are invalid because they covered patent-ineligible inventions. This article discusses a case in which the plaintiff ended up having four patents wiped out as invalid on this basis. A short sidebar discusses how improvements can preclude the abstract idea bar. Smart Systems Innovations, LLC v. Chicago Transit Authority, No. 16-1233, Oct. 18, 2017, Fed. Cir.; Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank Int’l, 573 U.S. __, 134 S.Ct. 2347 (2014).

    Read More

  • Failure to prove obviousness revives patent application

    February / March 2018
    Newsletter: Ideas on Intellectual Property Law

    Price: $225.00, Subscriber Price: $157.50

    Word count: 415

    Abstract: A patent applicant’s first round of appeals is to the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB). But if a patent applicant receives a negative ruling from the PTAB, it isn’t necessarily the end of the road. This brief article reviews a Federal Circuit Court of Appeals case that made this clear when it faulted the Board for failing to adequately lay out just why an invention was obvious and therefore unpatentable. In re Stepan Co., No. 16-1811, Aug. 25, 2017, Fed. Cir.

    Read More

  • Why facts matter when using the fair use defense in trademark cases

    February / March 2018
    Newsletter: Ideas on Intellectual Property Law

    Price: $225.00, Subscriber Price: $157.50

    Word count: 521

    Abstract: The fair use defense can prove to be the bane of a trademark holder’s infringement claim. The good news for trademark holders, though, is that the defense is difficult to establish before trial, giving them the opportunity to prove their cases to juries. This article examines a recent case in which this happened. Marketquest Group, Inc. v. BIC Corp., No. 15-55755, July 7, 2017, 9th Cir.

    Read More

  • Beat it – Heart disease diagnostic method isn’t patent-eligible

    February / March 2018
    Newsletter: Ideas on Intellectual Property Law

    Price: $225.00, Subscriber Price: $157.50

    Word count: 647

    Abstract: Inventors in the pursuit of “personalized medicine” patents were likely discouraged by the Federal Circuit Court of Appeals’ ruling in The Cleveland Clinic Foundation v. True Health Diagnostics LLC, which involved a diagnostic method. This article reviews the court’s ruling highlighting the difficulty of obtaining patents for such methods. The Cleveland Clinic Foundation v. True Health Diagnostics LLC, No. 16-1766, June 16, 2017, Fed. Cir.

    Read More

  • Whose home is it? House designs avoid copyright infringement

    February / March 2018
    Newsletter: Ideas on Intellectual Property Law

    Price: $225.00, Subscriber Price: $157.50

    Word count: 814

    Abstract: A recent case decided by the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals illustrates the competitiveness in the world of affordable home design. And, as the plaintiff learned, copyright law provides only limited protection. This article discusses the court’s decision to deny the plaintiff’s claim of copyright infringement. A short sidebar covers why the existence of copyrighted materials on the Internet couldn’t, by itself, justify an inference that the defendants had accessed them. Design Basics, LLC v. Lexington Homes, Inc., No. 16-3817, June 6, 2017, 7th Cir.

    Read More

  • Defining “seller” for copyright infringement liability

    Year End 2017
    Newsletter: Ideas on Intellectual Property Law

    Price: $225.00, Subscriber Price: $157.50

    Word count: 482

    Abstract: What’s a copyright holder to do when counterfeit products show up on the massive online marketplace Amazon.com? Well, one thing it probably can’t do is successfully sue Amazon for infringement. This article reviews why, in one case, the company wasn’t considered a “seller” for purposes of the Copyright Act. Milo & Gabby LLC v. Amazon.com, Inc., No. 2016-1290, May 23, 2017 (U.S.)

    Read More

  • A road map for patent obviousness

    Year End 2017
    Newsletter: Ideas on Intellectual Property Law

    Price: $225.00, Subscriber Price: $157.50

    Word count: 620

    Abstract: It probably comes as no surprise that inventions that are obvious aren’t eligible for patents. Yet arguments over obviousness land in the courts all the time. This article reviews a recent ruling that illustrates several arguments that can arise when the obviousness of an invention — and therefore the validity of its patent — is at issue. Millennium Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v. Sandoz Inc., No. 2015-2066, July 17, 2017 (Fed. Cir.)

    Read More

  • Exhausted yet? SCOTUS clarifies doctrine limiting patent rights

    Year End 2017
    Newsletter: Ideas on Intellectual Property Law

    Price: $225.00, Subscriber Price: $157.50

    Word count: 629

    Abstract: Anyone who has ever tried to avoid the high prices of toner cartridges by purchasing refills from remanufacturers will be interested in a recent ruling from the U.S. Supreme Court — and many patent owners should be interested, too. This article reviews the U.S. Supreme Court’s clarifications to a relevant case involving the patent exhaustion doctrine, which limits a patentee’s rights. Impression Products, Inc. v. Lexmark Int’l, Inc., No. 15-1189, May 30, 2017 (U.S.)

    Read More

  • Supreme Court disparages ban on offensive trademarks

    Year End 2017
    Newsletter: Ideas on Intellectual Property Law

    Price: $225.00, Subscriber Price: $157.50

    Word count: 848

    Abstract: What’s offensive is often in the eye of the beholder. Where federal trademark registration is sought, this has long meant that registration could be denied if the mark was considered disparaging. This article examines a landmark 8-0 decision in which the U.S. Supreme Court struck down the so-called “disparagement clause” in federal trademark law, opening the door to the registration of marks that may have been rejected as offensive in the past. A sidebar looks at how the Court handled the question of whether trademarks are commercial speech. Matal v. Tam, No. 15-1293, June 19, 2017 (U.S.)

    Read More

  • Coding error: Court rejects software patent

    October / November 2017
    Newsletter: Ideas on Intellectual Property Law

    Price: $225.00, Subscriber Price: $157.50

    Word count: 430

    Abstract: The Federal Circuit Court of Appeals has rejected yet another software patent. The court, which hears all appeals involving patents, found that the patent was for a patent-ineligible invention. This brief article discusses why software patents face such hurdles to securing protection. RecogniCorp, LLC v. Nintendo Co., Ltd., No. 16-1499, April 28, 2017 (Fed. Cir.)

    Read More

  • Supreme Court limits venue for patent lawsuits

    October / November 2017
    Newsletter: Ideas on Intellectual Property Law

    Price: $225.00, Subscriber Price: $157.50

    Word count: 591

    Abstract: In a landmark decision, the U.S. Supreme Court has dramatically tightened the restrictions on where patent owners can file infringement lawsuits. The court’s unanimous ruling is expected to rein in the “forum shopping” that so often occurs in patent infringement cases, where patentees try to file in judicial districts considered to be more plaintiff-friendly. This article reviews the relevant federal statutes involved and the Court’s decision. TC Heartland LLC v. Kraft Foods Group Brand LLC, No. 16-341, May 22, 2017 (U.S.)

    Read More

  • A uniform standard for copyright for industrial designs

    October / November 2017
    Newsletter: Ideas on Intellectual Property Law

    Price: $225.00, Subscriber Price: $157.50

    Word count: 631

    Abstract: Fashion and apparel have long existed in a cloud of copyright confusion. Clothing often incorporates design elements, which may be protectable, and functional elements, which aren’t. This article examines a recent U.S. Supreme Court case that established a two-part test intended to resolve “widespread disagreement” regarding copyright protection for such “industrial designs.” Star Athletica, LLC v. Varsity Brands, Inc., No. 15-866, March 22, 2017 (U.S.)

    Read More

  • Manufacturer vs. distributor – Who owns that unregistered trademark?

    October / November 2017
    Newsletter: Ideas on Intellectual Property Law

    Price: $225.00, Subscriber Price: $157.50

    Word count: 815

    Abstract: Manufacturers that let their distributors use their unregistered trademarks may later find themselves in a fight over the marks’ ownership. This article highlights how one federal court of appeals recently addressed such ownership disputes and adopted a different test for determining ownership of common law trademarks where there is no agreement addressing the issue. A brief sidebar reviews the defense of acquiescence in patent cases. Covertech Fabricating, Inc. v. TVM Building Products, Inc., No. 15-3893, April 18, 2017 (3d Cir.)

    Read More