The Intellectual Property Strategist

Features

In <i>Acumed LLC v. Stryker Corp.</i>, the Federal Circuit affirmed the grant of a permanent injunction enjoining Stryker from making and selling a putatively infringing orthopedic nail product. In so deciding, the Federal Circuit declined to articulate a bright-line rule governing the grant of permanent injunctions in patent infringement actions. Nevertheless, the <i>Acumed</i> decision is instructive with respect to how the courts may apply the rule of <i>eBay Inc. v. MercExchange, L.L.C.</i> in patent infringement cases and the facts that may be adduced to secure &mdash; or defeat &mdash; the grant of injunctive relief.

&#133;

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

Two courts in the Ninth Circuit have recently addressed how to differentiate between an 'owner' and a mere 'licensee' for purposes of rights under the Copyright Act, and have reached decisions that might surprise many practitioners.

The Federal Circuit issued its decision in <i>Sundance v. DeMonte</i>, overruling the district court's holding of non-obviousness. Applying the standard set forth in <i>KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc.</i>, the court found that the patent was an obvious combination of the prior art and noted that the district court committed two errors by: 1) erroneously allowing a patent attorney, who was not skilled in the relevant technology, to testify regarding obviousness; and 2) vacating the jury verdict of obviousness and granting judgment as a matter of law on non-obviousness, based on its erroneous interpretation of the prior art.

Features

In the intersection between trademark rights and the First Amendment, the Ninth Circuit upheld the District Court's grant of summary judgment finding that the First Amendment protected the look of a video game's virtual strip joint, as well as the use of the Pig Pen name.

&#133;

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