Frederick L. Whitmer
At the time of the <i>Therasense</i> decision there was some question as to just how stringently the Federal Circuit would adhere to the nominal standards for common law fraud. <i>Aventis Pharma S.A. v. Hospira, Inc.</i> appears to answer that question for both patent prosecutors and litigators.
ALM Staff
&
Law Journal Newsletters
&
…
Howard J. Shire
&
Aaron Johnson
Highlights of the latest intellectual property news from around the country.
Features
Richard Raysman
In recent years, courts have come to varying conclusions as to the discovery of information posted on social networking sites.
Features
Stuart Meyer
In <i>Mayo Collaborative Services v. Prometheus Laboratories, Inc.</i>, the Supreme Court held that a method claim that does nothing more than restate a law of nature and add conventional steps cannot be patentable. At first glance, this may not sound remarkable, but upon closer inspection this holding has the potential to dramatically change patent law for decades to come.
Stephen W. Feingold
Solely because of a technical amendment to the Federal Trademark Dilution Act to ensure that damages for dilution are only available when a defendant acts in bad faith, damages previously not available in an ordinary infringement case are now available.
ALM Staff
&
Law Journal Newsletters
&
…
Features
Jeffrey S. Ginsberg
&
Erik Kane
Highlights of the latest intellectual property news from around the country.
Features
Robert R. Sachs
&
Puneet Sarna
The Supreme Court in <i>Bilski v. Kappos</i>, affirmed the long-standing maxim that laws of nature, natural phenomena, and abstract ideas are the only three exceptions to broad categories of patent-eligible subject matter. Two schools of thought in the Federal Circuit, one led by Judge Randall R. Rader and the other by Judge Timothy B. Dyk, have been competing for development and application of a framework to identify an abstract idea.
Timothy Denny Greene
In <i>Research in Motion Ltd. v. Defining Presence Marketing Group, Inc. and Axel Ltd. Co.</i>, the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board addressed whether Defining Presence Marketing Group and Axel Ltd. could obtain trademark registrations for CRACKBERRY for various goods and services. Research in Motion, producer of the BlackBerry device, opposed the registrations based on a likelihood of confusion and dilution with its BLACKBERRY group of marks.
