Intellectual Property
Showing 273–288 of 336 results
-
Too abstract — Court invalidates patent of automated auto loan service
August / September 2012
Newsletter: Ideas on Intellectual Property Law
Price: $225.00, Subscriber Price: $157.50
Word count: 597
Abstract: A company held two patents for a computer-aided method for processing credit applications over electronic networks. After it filed an infringement lawsuit against several parties, the defendants moved to dismiss the case, asserting that the computer-aided method wasn’t eligible for a patent. In finding for the defendants, the Federal Circuit made one thing certain: Merely appending the phrase “computer-aided” to a would-be patent won’t cut it. Citation: Dealertrack, Inc. v. Huber, Nos. 2009-1566, -1588, Jan. 20, 2012 (Fed. Cir.); Bilski et al v. Kappos, No. 08-964, June 28, 2010 (Supreme Court)
-
Psychic didn’t see trademark loss coming
August / September 2012
Newsletter: Ideas on Intellectual Property Law
Price: $225.00, Subscriber Price: $157.50
Word count: 518
Abstract: In 1995, a popular psychic and astrologer entered into a contract for the production and distribution of materials featuring his services. Under the agreement, he granted the company the right to use his name as a trademark. In 2006, a legal dispute arose when he ceased providing services, and the company ceased to pay him. A jury found that he had violated the agreement. After he was later enjoined from using his name as a trademark, he appealed. This article explains why the subtleties of contract language resulted in the rejection of his claim. Citation: Mercado-Salinas v. Bart Enterprises Int’l, Ltd., No. 10–2359, Dec. 20, 2011 (1st Cir.)
-
Federal Circuit clarifies “co-inventor” test
August / September 2012
Newsletter: Ideas on Intellectual Property Law
Price: $225.00, Subscriber Price: $157.50
Word count: 702
Abstract: What defines a “co-inventor”? It’s a critical question, since a co-inventor has the right to exploit an invention without the permission of the other inventors, as well as to license or sell that right without permission or sharing the proceeds. This article examines the case of a researcher who developed a synthesis protocol for making a novel genus of chemical compounds. Later, another researcher synthesized a compound using the first researcher’s protocol. When the latter was not named as an inventor, he sued, and the court found in his favor. Citation: Falana v. Kent State University, No. 2011-1198, Jan. 23, 2012 (Fed. Cir.)
-
Copy that — or not — Congress can restore copyrights to public domain works
August / September 2012
Newsletter: Ideas on Intellectual Property Law
Price: $225.00, Subscriber Price: $157.50
Word count: 1041
Abstract: One might think that, once a copyrighted work enters the public domain, it’s unconditionally available for use from there on out. But the U.S. Supreme Court has held that Congress can restore copyright protection to works that had been in the public domain. This article looks at the legal challenge posed by those who had previously enjoyed free access to such works, and why the Court rejected their arguments. A sidebar discusses the majority opinion’s rejection of the dissent’s concerns about “orphan works” — older and more obscure works that have copyright owners who are difficult or impossible to track down. Citation: Golan v. Holder, No. 10-545, Jan. 18, 2012 (Supreme Court)
-
Too abstract — Court invalidates patent of automated auto loan service
June / July 2012
Newsletter: Ideas on Intellectual Property Law
Price: $225.00, Subscriber Price: $157.50
Word count: 597
Abstract: A company held two patents for a computer-aided method for processing credit applications over electronic networks. After it filed an infringement lawsuit against several parties, the defendants moved to dismiss the case, asserting that the computer-aided method wasn’t eligible for a patent. In finding for the defendants, the Federal Circuit made one thing certain: Merely appending the phrase “computer-aided” to a would-be patent won’t cut it. Citation: Dealertrack, Inc. v. Huber, Nos. 2009-1566, -1588, Jan. 20, 2012 (Fed. Cir.); Bilski et al v. Kappos, No. 08-964, June 28, 2010 (Supreme Court)
-
Psychic didn’t see trademark loss coming
June / July 2012
Newsletter: Ideas on Intellectual Property Law
Price: $225.00, Subscriber Price: $157.50
Word count: 518
Abstract: In 1995, a popular psychic and astrologer entered into a contract for the production and distribution of materials featuring his services. Under the agreement, he granted the company the right to use his name as a trademark. In 2006, a legal dispute arose when he ceased providing services, and the company ceased to pay him. A jury found that he had violated the agreement. After he was later enjoined from using his name as a trademark, he appealed. This article explains why the subtleties of contract language resulted in the rejection of his claim. Citation: Mercado-Salinas v. Bart Enterprises Int’l, Ltd., No. 10–2359, Dec. 20, 2011 (1st Cir.)
-
Federal Circuit clarifies “co-inventor” test
June / July 2012
Newsletter: Ideas on Intellectual Property Law
Price: $225.00, Subscriber Price: $157.50
Word count: 702
Abstract: What defines a “co-inventor”? It’s a critical question, since a co-inventor has the right to exploit an invention without the permission of the other inventors, as well as to license or sell that right without permission or sharing the proceeds. This article examines the case of a researcher who developed a synthesis protocol for making a novel genus of chemical compounds. Later, another researcher synthesized a compound using the first researcher’s protocol. When the latter was not named as an inventor, he sued, and the court found in his favor. Citation: Falana v. Kent State University, No. 2011-1198, Jan. 23, 2012 (Fed. Cir.)
-
Copy that — or not — Congress can restore copyrights to public domain works
June / July 2012
Newsletter: Ideas on Intellectual Property Law
Price: $225.00, Subscriber Price: $157.50
Word count: 1041
Abstract: One might think that, once a copyrighted work enters the public domain, it’s unconditionally available for use from there on out. But the U.S. Supreme Court has held that Congress can restore copyright protection to works that had been in the public domain. This article looks at the legal challenge posed by those who had previously enjoyed free access to such works, and why the Court rejected their arguments. A sidebar discusses the majority opinion’s rejection of the dissent’s concerns about “orphan works” — older and more obscure works that have copyright owners who are difficult or impossible to track down. Citation: Golan v. Holder, No. 10-545, Jan. 18, 2012 (Supreme Court)
-
Presumed innocent — Federal Circuit addresses permanent injunctions
April / May 2012
Newsletter: Ideas on Intellectual Property Law
Price: $225.00, Subscriber Price: $157.50
Word count: 605
Abstract: Since 2006, patentees have been pulling their hair out over whether a victorious patent infringement plaintiff is entitled to a permanent injunction against the infringement. This article discusses a case in which the appeals court eliminated the presumption of irreparable harm in the patentee’s favor, but also made clear that injunctions remain in reach for some patentees. Citations: Robert Bosch LLC v. Pylon Mfg. Corp., 2011-1096, Oct. 13, 2011 (Fed. Cir.); eBay Inc. v. MercExchange, L.L.C., No. 05-130, May 15, 2006 (Supreme Court)
-
Ninth Circuit clarifies the ACPA’s reach
April / May 2012
Newsletter: Ideas on Intellectual Property Law
Price: $225.00, Subscriber Price: $157.50
Word count: 512
Abstract: The Anticybersquatting Consumer Protection Act (ACPA) prohibits cybersquatters from registering domain names that are identical or confusingly similar to registered marks that are distinctive at the time of registration. But does the term “registration” include re-registration? That was the position of a plaintiff who noted that an alleged cybersquatter had re-registered its domain name after the plaintiff’s similar-sounding service mark had become distinctive. This article discusses the court’s opinion. Citation: GoPets Ltd. v. Hise, Nos. 08-56110, 08-56112, 08-56114, Sept. 22, 2011 (9th Cir.)
-
Can an SLA constitute copyright misuse?
April / May 2012
Newsletter: Ideas on Intellectual Property Law
Price: $225.00, Subscriber Price: $157.50
Word count: 686
Abstract: In 2008, Apple sued a company that had developed a “master image” of Apple software on a non-Apple computer and then shipped its computers with a copy of that master image installed as the operating system. The defendant contended that Apple had misused its copyright by requiring licensees to run their copies only on Apple computers. This article shows why the court sided with Apple. Citation: Apple Inc. v. Psystar Corp, No. 10-15113, Sept. 28, 2011 (9th Cir.)
-
When legal distinctions collide — Court explains “tension” between patents and trade secrets
April / May 2012
Newsletter: Ideas on Intellectual Property Law
Price: $225.00, Subscriber Price: $157.50
Word count: 1025
Abstract: A recent case heard by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit involved a dispute that illustrated the “tension” between patents and trade secrets. This article discusses the claims made by both parties after the plaintiff alleged that the defendant — a terminated employee who’d set up his own company — had infringed its reissue patent and misappropriated trade secrets. A sidebar notes that — aside from its ruling — the court chastised the plaintiff for reversing a position it had taken during an earlier hearing. Citation: Atlantic Research Marketing Systems, Inc. v. Troy, Nos. 2011-1002, 2011-1003, May 16, 2011 (Fed. Cir.)
-
Using survey results in false advertising claims
February / March 2012
Newsletter: Ideas on Intellectual Property Law
Price: $225.00, Subscriber Price: $157.50
Word count: 541
Abstract: False advertising lawsuits often rely on consumer survey evidence to show that advertising claims are misleading. So it wasn’t surprising that one liquor company used a consumer survey to claim that a competitor’s “Havana ClubTM” rum misled consumers into believing that the rum was made in Cuba, even though the label specifically identified Puerto Rico as the source. But this article shows that, in this case, a survey wasn’t enough. Citation: Pernod Ricard USA, LLC v. Bacardi U.S.A., Inc., No. 10-2354, Aug. 4, 2011 (3rd Cir.)
-
Court shelves first-sale doctrine for foreign-made works
February / March 2012
Newsletter: Ideas on Intellectual Property Law
Price: $225.00, Subscriber Price: $157.50
Word count: 552
Abstract: It’s well-settled law that the owner of a lawfully purchased copyrighted work is generally free to resell that copy of the work without restriction. But what if the work was made overseas? This article discusses a U.S. Court of Appeals ruling holding that foreign-made works can’t be so freely resold. This potentially far-reaching ruling could restrict resale of a wide range of products produced abroad. But the court acknowledged a tension between two different sections of the Copyright Act, which could ultimately lead to a review by the U.S. Supreme Court. Citations: John Wiley & Sons, Inc. v. Kirtsaeng, No. 09-4896, Aug. 15, 2011 (2nd Cir.); Omega S.A. v. Costco Wholesale, Nos. 07-55368, 07-56206, Sept. 3, 2008 (9th Cir.)
-
Transaction denied — Federal Circuit addresses software patentability
February / March 2012
Newsletter: Ideas on Intellectual Property Law
Price: $225.00, Subscriber Price: $157.50
Word count: 859
Abstract: The patentability of software applications is by no means certain. This article looks at a recent decision handed down by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. The court’s ruling addresses the role and application of the so-called machine-or-transformation test for the patentability of method claims. In so doing, it took into account a Supreme Court ruling that the machine-or-transformation test isn’t the exclusive check for patentability of claims. Citations: CyberSource Corporation v. Retail Decisions, Inc., No. 2009-1358, Aug. 16, 2011 (Fed. Cir.); Bilski v. Kappos, No. 08-964, June 28, 2010 (Supreme Court)
-
The America Invents Act — Key components of the patent reform law
February / March 2012
Newsletter: Ideas on Intellectual Property Law
Price: $225.00, Subscriber Price: $157.50
Word count: 998
Abstract: When President Obama signed the Leahy-Smith America Invents Act (AIA) last fall, it marked the culmination of a years-long reform process. This article discusses several key components of the law that will significantly affect the patent prosecution and review processes. Specifically, it shows how the AIA shifts the U.S. patent system from a first-to-invent priority scheme to a first-inventor-to-file scheme and implements entirely new procedures for challenges to the validity of an issued patent. A sidebar explains why patent ownership could get more expensive.