IIP
Showing 97–112 of 336 results
-
SCOTUS strikes down ban on immoral or scandalous trademark registration
Year End 2019
Newsletter: Ideas on Intellectual Property Law
Price: $225.00, Subscriber Price: $157.50
Word count: 441
Abstract: Just two years after ruling that a ban against the registration of disparaging trademarks was a violation of the First Amendment and thus unconstitutional, the U.S. Supreme Court has proven that it wasn’t a fluke. It recently held that a ban against registration of immoral or scandalous trademarks is unconstitutional as well. This article summarizes the case and how the decision implicates previously rejected and pending trademarks found to have violated the bar. Iancu v. Brunetti, No. 18-302, June 24, 2019, U.S.
-
Limited protection – Inaccurate statement forfeits copyright infringement claim
Year End 2019
Newsletter: Ideas on Intellectual Property Law
Price: $225.00, Subscriber Price: $157.50
Word count: 684
Abstract: Creative works are generally subject to copyright protection even without registration with the U.S. Copyright Office. But there are a number of important advantages to securing Copyright Registration — including the ability to file suit for copyright infringement. Normally, a registration certificate provides sufficient evidence of a valid registered copyright. However, inaccurate information in the certificate can invalidate the registration. This article examines a recent case in which the holder of one such certificate not only lost out on its ability to pursue an infringement claim, but also ended up on the hook for the would-be defendants’ attorneys’ fees and costs. Gold Value Int’l Textile, Inc. v. Sanctuary Clothing, LLC, No. 17-55818, June 4, 2019, 9th Cir.
-
It’s official – Supreme Court says government isn’t a person ― for patent purposes
Year End 2019
Newsletter: Ideas on Intellectual Property Law
Price: $225.00, Subscriber Price: $157.50
Word count: 551
Abstract: Patentees welcomed a recent U.S. Supreme Court decision that significantly reduces the pool of potential challengers to the validity of existing patents. This article highlights a ruling finding that federal governmental agencies can’t take advantage of three patent review processes created less than a decade ago — because the federal government isn’t a “person” under patent law. Return Mail, Inc. v. U.S. Postal Service, No. 17-1594, June 10, 2019, U.S.
-
Sink or swim: Precise patent language scuttles infringement lawsuit
Year End 2019
Newsletter: Ideas on Intellectual Property Law
Price: $225.00, Subscriber Price: $157.50
Word count: 845
Abstract: Generally, using precise and careful language in a patent application is wise. But providing a precise numerical value can work against a patentee when it comes time to bring an infringement claim. This article discusses a recent case in which a boat manufacturer learned this lesson the hard way when it sued a rival for infringement. A short sidebar covers the doctrine of equivalents and whether this doctrine could save the patent. Cobalt Boats, LLC v. Brunswick Corp., No. 18-1376, May 31, 2019, Fed. Cir.
-
PTAB rejects inherently obvious finding
October / November 2019
Newsletter: Ideas on Intellectual Property Law
Price: $225.00, Subscriber Price: $157.50
Word count: 378
Abstract: What’s obvious to one person isn’t always obvious to another, and the same is true when it comes to patents. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit demonstrated this principle in rejecting the Patent Trial and Appeal Board’s (PTAB’s) determination that a patent was inherently obvious. This article reviews the court’s decision shedding light on what factors establish when a claimed feature of a patented invention was “inherent” in an earlier invention. PersonalWeb Technologies, LLC v. Apple, Inc., No. 18-1599, March 8, 2019, Fed. Cir.
-
Supreme Court ruling leaves a mark – Trademark right survives licensor’s bankruptcy
October / November 2019
Newsletter: Ideas on Intellectual Property Law
Price: $225.00, Subscriber Price: $157.50
Word count: 642
Abstract: It’s never good news for a business when a company that the business has contracted with files for bankruptcy. But, according to a new U.S. Supreme Court ruling, there’s some good news for trademark licensees. This article summarizes a decision that resolves a split among federal courts of appeal, in which the Court held that in some circumstances a licensee can continue to use the licensed marks despite the licensor’s rejection of their agreement during the bankruptcy process. Mission Product Holdings, Inc. v. Tempnology, LLC, No. 17-1657, May 20, 2019, U.S.
-
Vehicle charging station patents short-circuit under Alice analysis
October / November 2019
Newsletter: Ideas on Intellectual Property Law
Price: $225.00, Subscriber Price: $157.50
Word count: 575
Abstract: The U.S. Federal Circuit Court of Appeals continues to wield the so-called Alice test to knock down patents for abstract ideas. This article reviews one such decision, in which the court explained that abstract ideas aren’t patent-eligible in the absence of an inventive concept that makes a claim “significantly more” than just the abstract idea — and the underlying abstract idea can’t provide that inventive concept. ChargePoint, Inc. v. SemaConnect, Inc., No. 18-1739, March 28, 2019, Fed. Cir.
-
Active or passive? What makes website operators directly liable for copyright infringement
October / November 2019
Newsletter: Ideas on Intellectual Property Law
Price: $225.00, Subscriber Price: $157.50
Word count: 854
Abstract: As many copyright holders have learned the hard way, the Internet opened a whole new frontier in the world of infringement, particularly when it comes to pinning liability on the appropriate parties. This article discusses a recent case involving the unauthorized use of thousands of copyrighted photographs, where the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit laid out the types of behaviors that will — and won’t — make a website operator directly liable for copyright infringement on their sites. A short sidebar discusses the application of the fair use defense. VHT, Inc. v. Zillow Group, Inc., No. 17-35587, March 15, 2019, Ninth Cir.
-
Court of Appeals revives denied trademark application
August / September 2019
Newsletter: Ideas on Intellectual Property Law
Price: $225.00, Subscriber Price: $157.50
Word count: 423
Abstract: Two companies with similar marks operated in the same region for more than 40 years without any actual confusion arising for consumers. Nonetheless, the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board (TTAB) found a disqualifying likelihood of confusion when one company tried to register its mark. This article looks at why it can prove worthwhile to not just accept the board’s rulings. In re: Guild Mortgage Co., No. 17-2620, Jan. 14, 2019, Fed. Cir.
-
Obviousness doesn’t require motivation to combine prior art
August / September 2019
Newsletter: Ideas on Intellectual Property Law
Price: $225.00, Subscriber Price: $157.50
Word count: 690
Abstract: When a party challenging a patent’s validity alleges that multiple prior references made the invention obvious, it may need to show that someone would have been motivated to combine those references into the invention. This article highlights a recent case from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit finding that no motivation to combine is required where a secondary reference is used only to explain the primary reference. Realtime Data, LLC v. Iancu, No. 18-1154, Jan. 10, 2019, Fed. Cir.
-
Extra! Extra! – SCOTUS clarifies copyright infringement lawsuit prerequisite
August / September 2019
Newsletter: Ideas on Intellectual Property Law
Price: $225.00, Subscriber Price: $157.50
Word count: 548
Abstract: Authors of work obtain exclusive rights — copyrights — in their works immediately on creation of the work. But they generally can’t file a civil lawsuit for infringement of those rights until they register the work with the U.S. Copyright Office. The federal courts of appeal have split, however, as to when a copyright infringement suit could be filed — on filing the application for copyright registration with the Copyright Office or on grant of the copyright registration by that office. This article reviews a unanimous decision by the U.S. Supreme Court resolving the issue once and for all. Fourth Estate Public Benefit Corp. v. Wall-Street.com, LLC, No. 17-571, Jan. 8, 2019, U.S.S.C.
-
Testing truths – Experimental use preempts public use, on-sale bars to patentability
August / September 2019
Newsletter: Ideas on Intellectual Property Law
Price: $225.00, Subscriber Price: $157.50
Word count: 938
Abstract: Common sense might seem to dictate that a new invention would require testing before an inventor moves ahead with it. But could such testing trigger the public use or on-sale bar to patentability? Not necessarily. This article reviews a U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit case in which the court explained that the experimental use exception may negate both bars. Barry v. Medtronic, Inc., No. 17-2463, Jan. 24, 2019, Fed. Cir.
-
Confidential sales can trigger the on-sale bar to patentability
June / July 2019
Newsletter: Ideas on Intellectual Property Law
Price: $225.00, Subscriber Price: $157.50
Word count: 420
Abstract: The U.S. Supreme Court has unanimously defeated an attempt to limit the on-sale bar in cases where an invention was sold under a confidentiality agreement. This article looks at why the secrecy about the details might keep the sale from public knowledge, but it can still block a patent under the America Invents Act (AIA). Helsinn Healthcare S.A. v. Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc., No. 17-1229, Jan. 22, 2019, U.S. Sup. Ct.
-
Music platform hits a sour note – Resale of digital music violates Copyright Act
June / July 2019
Newsletter: Ideas on Intellectual Property Law
Price: $225.00, Subscriber Price: $157.50
Word count: 587
Abstract: The introduction of digital works has raised a variety of questions about how the Copyright Act applies in the modern age. But one thing is now clear: Neither the first-sale doctrine nor the fair use defense allows the resale of copyrighted digital music files. This article summarizes a recent case that tackled these doctrines. Capitol Records, LLC v. ReDigi Inc., No. 16-2321, Dec. 18, 2018, 2d Cir.
-
Lens manufacturer loses the blame game – Circumstantial evidence seals induced patent infringement liability
June / July 2019
Newsletter: Ideas on Intellectual Property Law
Price: $225.00, Subscriber Price: $157.50
Word count: 637
Abstract: It may seem apparent to patentees when someone is inducing third parties to infringe their patents, but it’s not always easy to prove in a court of law. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, which hears all patent-related appeals, recently provided a welcome reminder that sometimes circumstantial evidence can go a long way. This article reviews the court’s discussion regarding evidence requirements, as well as the proper calculation of lump-sum reasonable royalty damages. Enplas Display Device Corp. v. Seoul Semiconductor Co., Ltd., No. 16-2599, Nov. 19, 2018, Fed. Cir.
-
When a surname can be registered as a trademark
June / July 2019
Newsletter: Ideas on Intellectual Property Law
Price: $225.00, Subscriber Price: $157.50
Word count: 862
Abstract: Family businesses often like to use their surname as a mark for their products and services, whether as a point of pride or simply because they feel the name is memorable. These businesses can run into obstacles, though, when it comes time to register trademarks with the surname. This article summarizes a prolonged court battle over one such mark showing how problems can arise — and how businesses can overcome them. A short sidebar discusses why the opposers’ First and Fifth Amendment claims also failed. Schlafly v. St. Louis Brewery, LLC, No. 17-1468, Nov. 26, 2018, Fed. Cir.