The Intellectual Property Strategist

What happens when a large newcomer to a geographic region with a federal registration for its service mark encounters a smaller pre-existing business in that region with prior use of a similar mark for the same services? Enjoinable reverse infringement results, according to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit. <i>Citizens Financial Group, Inc. v. Citizens National Bank of Evans City,<i> Case Nos. 03-2868 and 03-3175 (3d Cir. 2004).

'

&#133;

For more than a century, original equipment manufacturers ("OEMs") have sought, with only limited success, the aid of the courts to enforce restrictions against competitors' sales of products designed to complement or replace components of their proprietary technologies. At stake in each of these cases was a lucrative aftermarket for products directed to the OEM's patented technology and a "razor-and-blades" business model by which the OEM strove to attain a large installed user base for its equipment in hopes of "locking-in" customers to that aftermarket.

Descriptive terminology is essential to providing effective patent protection for nanotechnology inventions, particularly from the perspective of future licensing and litigation activities. One of the key difficulties in patenting nanotech inventions, however, arises from the absence of established terminology. Failure to clearly define one's invention can lead to a number of unfortunate consequences, ranging from an overly narrow patent covering a limited scope of subject matter to a vague or overly broad patent susceptible to invalidation. This article will discuss: 1) recent decisions from the Federal Circuit that reveal how the use of descriptive terminology is essential to patenting nanotech inventions effectively, 2) how those decisions pose special problems for nanotech inventions, and 3) how those problems can be addressed through nanotech inventors acting as their own lexicographers and defining key terms in their patent specifications.

Features

Highlights of the latest intellectual property news and cases from around the country.

The European Union ("EU") has once again failed to come to an agreement regarding a single unitary Community patent. At the May 18, 2004 Competitiveness Council meeting, the Council of the European Union ("Council") could not reach a unanimous agreement on the proposal for a Council Regulation on the Community patent. The only outstanding issue that has been a stumbling block all along, <i>ie,</i> languages and translation costs of the patent claims, remained unresolved. The EU's main decision-making body concluded that all conceivable compromise solutions had been tried. Accordingly, it stated its intent to refer the matter to the Presidency of the European Council.

&#133;