Dervis Magistre
If sued as a contributory infringer under 35 U.S.C. § 271(c), a software company can prevail if it establishes that the accused software has a substantial non-infringing use. In many cases addressing this issue, however, software companies have usually failed to establish this defense. This article summarizes the particular circumstances that gave rise to these failures, and proposes a particular scenario under which a defendant may succeed in showing that its software is suitable for substantial non-infringing use.
ALM Staff
&
Law Journal Newsletters
&
…
Features
ALM Staff
&
Law Journal Newsletters
&
Highlights of the latest intellectual property news from around the country.
Features
Veronica Mu'oz
<i>Robert Bosch LLC v. Pylon Mfg. Corp.</i>, is an important decision that abolishes the presumption of irreparable harm in the context of injunctive relief for patent infringement. The case is also important because the Federal Circuit instructs that courts must still consider "the fundamental nature of patents as property rights granting the owner the right to exclude" when determining whether to issue an injunction.
Glenn M. Strapp
&
Jeffrey S. Whittle
A newly expanded Patent Office program makes it easier to talk to the examiner prior to initial examination. The heart of the program is an "Examiner Interview" that takes place before the examiner issues a first official action, which allows the examiner and patent applicant to discuss the application, identify allowable patent claims, and shave months or years off of the time from filing of an application to receipt of an issued patent.
Features
Erin S. Hennessy
&
Jennifer R. Ashton
Now is the time for trademark, domain name and brand owners to purchase .XXX domains to pro-actively race to stake a claim in their brand ' if only as a defensive measure to prevent other domain owners from registering/using their name in a .XXX context. In the event that yours wasn't the first hand to pull the trigger in the .XXX domain name shoot 'em up, what are the ramifications of having your mark incorporated into an active .XXX domain?
ALM Staff
&
Law Journal Newsletters
&
…
Jeffrey S. Ginsberg
&
Joseph Mercadante
Highlights of the latest intellectual property news from around the country.
Features
Daniel C. Glazer
&
Daniel P. Ashe
Decisions such as the recent opinion by the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York in <i>Marvel Worldwide v. Kirby</i> highlight the importance of carefully drafting provisions governing the transfer of rights in new works of authorship.
Judith L. Grubner
The Ninth Circuit has now concluded that the Anticybersquatting Consumer Protection Act does not apply to a domain name that is first registered prior to the time the trademark at issue becomes distinctive, even if the domain name is later re-registered by a new owner. However, the Ninth Circuit also held that the ACPA can apply to new domain names registered by the new owner after the mark acquires distinctiveness.
