IIP
Showing 129–144 of 336 results
-
Giving trade dress infringement claim a shot
August / September 2018
Newsletter: Ideas on Intellectual Property Law
Price: $225.00, Subscriber Price: $157.50
Word count: 435
Abstract: The hurdle for proving trade dress infringement is high because a plaintiff must produce evidence of nonfunctionality — and product design often serves purposes beyond mere identification of the product’s source. This article reviews a case from the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals where the court determined the plaintiff had succeeded. Leapers, Inc. v. SMTS, LLC, No. 17-1007, Jan. 10, 2018, 6th Cir.
-
How the on-sale bar can threaten a patent
August / September 2018
Newsletter: Ideas on Intellectual Property Law
Price: $225.00, Subscriber Price: $157.50
Word count: 572
Abstract: It’s easy to understand an inventor’s urge to get a new product to market. But that urge can backfire if a patent application hasn’t yet been filed. Under the on-sale bar, the inventor could lose patent protection altogether. This article examines a case in which a pharmaceutical company learned this the hard way. The Medicines Co. v. Hospira, Inc., No. 14-1469, Feb. 6, 2018, Fed. Cir.
-
Breaking news – Selling access to clips of copyrighted programming isn’t fair use
August / September 2018
Newsletter: Ideas on Intellectual Property Law
Price: $225.00, Subscriber Price: $157.50
Word count: 679
Abstract: In an era that features hundreds of television channels and interactive, interconnected media, video clips have become a hot item. Not surprisingly, though, the sale of such clips by third parties raises copyright infringement concerns, as demonstrated by a recent case heard by the Second Circuit Court of Appeals and summarized in this article. Fox News Network, LLC v. TVEyes, Inc., No. 15-3885, Feb. 27, 2018, 2d Cir.
-
Can licenses limit competitors’ use? Copyright ruling hits third-party software support providers
August / September 2018
Newsletter: Ideas on Intellectual Property Law
Price: $225.00, Subscriber Price: $157.50
Word count: 834
Abstract: Purchasers of software know that it’s not just the license that can take a bite out of their wallets — it’s also the costly maintenance contracts. Third-party providers have begun offering licensees cheaper maintenance and support alternatives. But as this article shows, one software company has struck back, and the favorable ruling it obtained in its copyright infringement lawsuit against a third-party provider may make it harder for such businesses to compete. A short sidebar looks at the defense of copyright misuse and why it failed in this case. Oracle USA, Inc. v. Rimini Street, Inc., No. 16-16832, -16905, Jan. 8, 2018, 9th Cir.
-
Bar fight – Court knocks down prohibition against immoral or scandalous marks
June / July 2018
Newsletter: Ideas on Intellectual Property Law
Price: $225.00, Subscriber Price: $157.50
Word count: 485
Abstract: Just last year, in Matal v. Tam, the U.S. Supreme Court opened the door to the registration of trademarks that could be considered offensive when it ruled that the disparagement clause in the federal trademark law was unconstitutional. This article discusses a decision from the U.S. Federal Circuit Court of Appeals that struck down the bar against the registration of trademarks that are “immoral or scandalous.” In re Brunetti, No. 15-1109, Dec. 13, 2017, Fed. Cir. Matal v. Tam, No. 15-1293, June 19, 2017 (U.S.)
-
What makes a patent invalid due to “indefiniteness”? The role of functional language in patent applications
June / July 2018
Newsletter: Ideas on Intellectual Property Law
Price: $225.00, Subscriber Price: $157.50
Word count: 602
Abstract: Although in 2014 the U.S. Supreme Court announced a standard for assessing whether patent language is fatally indefinite, the limits of the Court’s decision are still being determined. This article reviews a decision from the U.S. Federal Circuit Court of Appeals that provided additional guidance — and it seems to favor patentees. BASF Corp. v. Johnson Matthey Inc., No. 16-1770, Nov. 20, 2017, Fed. Cir. Nautilus, Inc. v. Biosig Instruments, Inc., No. 13-369, June 2, 2014, S.Ct.
-
Will innocent, immaterial inaccuracies defeat copyright registration?
June / July 2018
Newsletter: Ideas on Intellectual Property Law
Price: $225.00, Subscriber Price: $157.50
Word count: 545
Abstract: Mistakes happen — but, thanks to a new ruling by the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals, mistakes in a copyright registration application don’t necessarily doom the resulting registration. This article summarizes a case finding that the registration will be upheld unless it contains material inaccuracies and the registrant intended to conceal relevant information from the Copyright Office. Roberts, II v. Gordy, No. 16-12284, Dec. 15, 2017, 11th Cir.
-
Case closed – Federal Circuit confirms expansion of liability for divided patent infringement
June / July 2018
Newsletter: Ideas on Intellectual Property Law
Price: $225.00, Subscriber Price: $157.50
Word count: 847
Abstract: Patentees have long struggled when trying to enforce method patents in “divided infringement” cases, where multiple parties carried out the required steps. The Federal Circuit Court of Appeals seems to have come to their rescue, though. This article reviews a case in which the court made clear that it’s applying a looser standard when it comes to establishing direct infringement liability in divided infringement cases. A sidebar notes the court’s rejection of the argument that the conditioning required to attribute the actions of a third party to an alleged infringer can’t occur if the third party isn’t obligated to perform part of the patented method. Travel Sentry, Inc. v. Tropp, No. 16-2386, Dec. 19, 2017, Fed. Cir. Akamai Technologies, Inc. v. Limelight Networks, Inc. (Akamai V), Nos. 2009-1372, 2009-1380, 2009-1416, 2009-1417. Aug. 13, 2015, Fed. Cir.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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).
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.