The Intellectual Property Strategist

Infringement under the doctrine of equivalents ("DOE") is frequently asserted in patent litigation. DOE allows a plaintiff to maintain an infringement claim even if the accused instrumentality does not literally possess all the limitations of the claim as interpreted by the court.

Features

Publishers frequently charge different prices in foreign markets, and they have argued that allowing unrestricted importation threatens that practice. In March, the Supreme Court squarely addressed this issue for the first time in <i>John Wiley &amp; Sons Inc. v. Kirtsaeng</i> and held that the first-sale doctrine does in fact apply to copies made overseas and, as a result, these copies could be purchased in foreign markets and legally resold in the United States.

On April 15, 2013, the Supreme Court heard oral argument in <i>Ass'n for Molecular Pathology v. U.S. Patent and Trademark Office</i> (hereinafter "<i>Myriad</i>"). The sole question before the Supreme Court, following its grant of certiorari on Nov. 30, 2012, is whether human genes are patent-eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. ' 101.

&#133;

Columns & Departments

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

Features

Aereo Inc.'s pitch is this: With one of its tiny antennas, no bigger than a dime, viewers can watch television through the Internet. But this is erupting into a litigation nightmare for broadcasters. The fight boils down to whether the broadcasters' copyrights for their shows give them control over how the shows are distributed.

Features

In <i>SOFA Entertainment, Inc. v. Dodger Productions, Inc.</i>, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit considered whether it was "fair use" under the Copyright Act for the award-winning musical "<i>Jersey Boys</i>" to use a seven-second clip of Ed Sullivan's introduction of the Four Seasons rock band on "<i>The Ed Sullivan Show</i>" that aired in 1966.

Features

In <i>In re Hubbell</i>, the Federal Circuit held that obviousness-type double patenting applies when conflicting patent applications share common inventors, even if they lack common ownership. That is, complete identity of inventors or common ownership is not required for the Patent Office to impose an obviousness-type double patenting rejection.