IIP
Showing 145–160 of 336 results
-
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.)
-
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.)
-
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.)
-
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.)
-
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.)
-
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.)
-
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.)
-
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.)
-
Why a kit bag doesn’t qualify for trade dress protection
August / September 2017
Newsletter: Ideas on Intellectual Property Law
Price: $225.00, Subscriber Price: $157.50
Word count: 428
Abstract: Some product features are ornamental and others are functional. One manufacturer recently learned that the hard way. This short article reviews a decision from the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals finding that a bag’s design and shape were functional — and therefore not protected as trade dress. Arlington Specialties, Inc. v. Urban Aid, Inc., No. 14-3416, Jan. 27, 2017 (7th Cir.)
-
How much is enough? Supreme Court clarifies overseas patent infringement liability
August / September 2017
Newsletter: Ideas on Intellectual Property Law
Price: $225.00, Subscriber Price: $157.50
Word count: 550
Abstract: Just how much patent infringement does it take to be liable for damages? The U.S. Supreme Court recently tackled this question in one context, ruling that supplying only one component of an infringing multicomponent invention made abroad doesn’t make the supplier liable for patent infringement. This article reviews the case in which the Court established a bright-line test for some circumstances, but created significant uncertainty for others. Life Technologies Corp. v. Promega Corp., No. 14-1538, Feb. 22, 2017 (U.S.)
-
Access denied – Court shuts down copyright infringement claims
August / September 2017
Newsletter: Ideas on Intellectual Property Law
Price: $225.00, Subscriber Price: $157.50
Word count: 620
Abstract: Vocabulary matters in the courts, as one company found out recently. According to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, the term “volitional conduct” has nothing to do with voluntary actions when it comes to direct copyright infringement. This article explains the meaning of volition in a case where the court also denied a copyright holder’s secondary liability claims for infringement. Perfect 10, Inc. v. Giganews, Inc., No. 15-55500, -55523, -56026, Jan. 23, 2017 (9th Cir.)
-
SCOTUS: Timing is everything in patent infringement cases
August / September 2017
Newsletter: Ideas on Intellectual Property Law
Price: $225.00, Subscriber Price: $157.50
Word count: 878
Abstract: Three years ago, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that “laches” — a plaintiff’s unreasonable delay in pursuing an infringement claim — couldn’t preempt a claim for damages sustained within the Copyright Act’s statute of limitations. Now the Court has extended its reasoning to patents, eliminating the laches defense for infringement allegedly committed within the Patent Act’s six-year statute of limitations. This article discusses the Court’s decision, which rejected the position long taken by the Federal Circuit Court of Appeals, which hears all appeals involving patent infringement. A sidebar notes that the doctrine of equitable estoppel might offer an alternative to a laches defense. SCA Hygiene Products Aktiebolag v. First Quality Baby Products, LLC, No. 15-927, March 21 2017 (U.S.) Petrella v. Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer, Inc., No. 12–1315, May 19, 2014 (U.S.)
-
Why novelty doesn’t make abstract ideas any less abstract
June / July 2017
Newsletter: Ideas on Intellectual Property Law
Price: $225.00, Subscriber Price: $157.50
Word count: 424
Abstract: The “Alice test” is a two-step framework for identifying patents that cover nothing more than abstract ideas — and are therefore not patent-eligible. This article describes a Federal Circuit case, Synopsys, Inc. v. Mentor Graphics Corp., where the patent holder failed the test. In its decision, the court clarified that a patent claim for a novel abstract idea doesn’t change the fact that the idea is abstract. Synopsys, Inc. v. Mentor Graphics Corp., No. 2016-1599, Oct. 17, 2016 (Fed. Cir.)
-
Application accepted – Court says marks can cover certain software
June / July 2017
Newsletter: Ideas on Intellectual Property Law
Price: $225.00, Subscriber Price: $157.50
Word count: 570
Abstract: Does a company that provides software perform a service that supports a service mark? In today’s technology-driven markets, this question is raised with increased frequency. The appeals court decision in In re JobDiva, Inc. provides some guidance. In re JobDiva, Inc., No. 2015-1960, Dec. 12, 2016 (Fed. Cir.)
-
Business method patent surprisingly survives judicial scrutiny
June / July 2017
Newsletter: Ideas on Intellectual Property Law
Price: $225.00, Subscriber Price: $157.50
Word count: 517
Abstract: A recent Federal Circuit Court ruling on business method patents for software may provide new hope for patent holders. This article explains why modifications to the functioning of a known system typically produce patent-ineligible inventions — and why the patented method and system under review in this case were treated differently. Trading Technologies Int’l, Inc. v. CQG, Inc., No. 2016-1616, Jan. 18, 2017 (Fed. Cir.)
-
Just desserts? Why a computerized menu patent was found ineligible
June / July 2017
Newsletter: Ideas on Intellectual Property Law
Price: $225.00, Subscriber Price: $157.50
Word count: 857
Abstract: This article talks about why merely appending a pre-existing practice or technology to patent-ineligible claims doesn’t render them patent-eligible. Apple, Inc. v. Ameranth, Inc. involved patents for a computerized restaurant menu system that were challenged for adding familiar computer components to well-known business practices. A sidebar explains what a “Covered Business Method” patent is. Apple, Inc. v. Ameranth, Inc., No. 2015-1703, -1704, Nov. 29, 2016 (Fed. Cir.) Alice Corp Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int’l, No. 13–298, June 19, 2014 (U.S.)