Samantha L. Hayes
It is not often when fashion and style blogs cover federal court decisions, but the fashion world currently is abuzz with the Second Circuit's recently issued decision in <i>Christian Louboutin S.A. v. Yves Saint Laurent America Holdings, Inc.</i>
ALM Staff
&
Law Journal Newsletters
&
…
Features
Jeffrey S. Ginsberg, Joseph Mercadante
&
Malcolm Wells
Highlights of the latest intellectual property cases from around the country.
Features
Matthew W. Siegal
&
B. Clayton McCraw
The question of whether a defendant had willfully infringed a patent has typically been decided by a jury. However, under <i>Bard Peripheral Vascular, Inc. v. W.L. Gore & Assoc.,</i> a judge may now have the exclusive role of determining whether a jury is entitled to decide this question.
Robert R. Sachs
In July 2012, the Federal Circuit issued two decisions regarding patentable subject matter for computer-implemented business methods, <i>CLS Bank Int'l v. Alice Corp.</i> and <i>Bancorp Services v. Sun Life Assurance Co. of Canada</i>, that vividly demonstrate the conflicting approaches various members of the court apply to this question.
Scott Graham
If the verdict Apple obtained on Aug. 24 against Samsung in their smartphone and tablet trial isn't chopped down in post-trial motions or on appeal, it will stand as the largest patent verdict in history.
ALM Staff
&
Law Journal Newsletters
&
…
Howard J. Shire
&
Joseph Mercadante
Highlights of the latest intellectual property news from around the country.
Brad Riel
In <i>In Re Bill of Lading Transmission and Processing System Patent Litigation</i>, the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit held that Form 18 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure governs the required specificity when pleading direct patent infringement.
Timothy Denny Greene
While on the surface the <i>Rosetta Stone</i> opinion might seem to be a public rebuke of the merits of Google's AdWords program, on closer scrutiny it is clear that the Fourth Circuit's opinion is more properly read as a reprimand of the district court, which, according to the Fourth Circuit, improperly mixed its standards of review and made a hash of the functionality doctrine in the process.
