Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%

Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.

Features

IP Rights In the Metaverse Image

IP Rights In the Metaverse

Dyan Finguerra-DuCharme & Abla Belhachmi

The metaverse, an immersive virtual experience building on the Internet and the physical world, has become a prominent force in branding and marketing for companies struggling to keep up in an ever so globalized economy. Parallel to this digital expansion has been a surge of intellectual property issues.

Features

Filing a Reissue Can Correct Serious Patent Errors Image

Filing a Reissue Can Correct Serious Patent Errors

Jeffrey W. Gluck

Reissue applications may be quite useful. They may be useful in correcting some type of errors that one would normally think of as "errors" in the strict sense of the word. But they may also be used to correct "errors" in scope of patent protection and may thus be used to increase patent value and should thus be considered as a strategic tool in a patent holder's toolbox.

Columns & Departments

IP News

Jeffrey S. Ginsberg & Abhishek Bapna

Federal Circuit Affirms District Court's Decision That an Artificial Intelligence Software System Cannot Be Listed as an Inventor on a Patent Application Federal Circuit Affirms District Court's Partial Award of Attorney's Fees

Features

Protecting a Trademark Licensor's Rights In a Bankruptcy Case Image

Protecting a Trademark Licensor's Rights In a Bankruptcy Case

Alfred S. Lurey

A recent bankruptcy case from the District of Delaware underscores the need for a trademark licensor to be alert to filings made in its licensee's bankruptcy case that may require prompt action by the licensor to protect its valuable rights under a license agreement.

Features

Federal Circuit Analyzes Specification and Prosecution History Claim Language Usage Image

Federal Circuit Analyzes Specification and Prosecution History Claim Language Usage

Matthew Siegal

University of Massachusetts v. L'Oréal Absent an express disclaimer or special definition of how a term is to be interpreted, it can be frustrating to get a court to reject the plain and ordinary meaning of claim language read in a vacuum, based on the subtleties of how a term is used in a patent or its prosecution history.

Features

One Banana, Two Banana: Can a Banana Taped to a Wall Be Copyright Protected Art? Image

One Banana, Two Banana: Can a Banana Taped to a Wall Be Copyright Protected Art?

Robert W. Clarida & Thomas Kjellberg

On July 7, 2022, the Southern District of Florida denied a motion to dismiss in Morford v. Cattelan, which began by posing the following question: "Can a banana taped to a wall be art?"

Features

Digital Advertising: Customer Confusion and Trademark Infringement Image

Digital Advertising: Customer Confusion and Trademark Infringement

Stephen M. Kramarsky & John Millson

In the absence of a federal statutory scheme specifically aimed at digital advertising practices, the courts have focused on consumer-facing issues covered by existing law, such as privacy, transparency, and deceptive or misleading advertising practices. But digital advertising technology can also present new challenges in copyright and trademark protection.

Features

Copyright Plaintiffs Can Reach Back More Than Three Years In Seeking Infringement Damages, Ninth Circuit Rules Image

Copyright Plaintiffs Can Reach Back More Than Three Years In Seeking Infringement Damages, Ninth Circuit Rules

Stan Soocher

How far back from accrual of a claim may a plaintiff reach for copyright damages?

Columns & Departments

IP News

Howard Shire & Stephanie Remy

Copyright Standing and Fifth Circuit Trade Dress Factors

Features

UPDATE: Did the Supreme Court's 'Arthrex' Decision Open Pandora's Box? Image

UPDATE: Did the Supreme Court's 'Arthrex' Decision Open Pandora's Box?

Robert E. Browne, Jr. & Ryan C. Deck

In June 2021, the Supreme Court ruled in U.S. v. Arthrex that the statutory scheme appointing Patent Trial and Appeal Board administrative patent judges to adjudicate IPRs violates the appointments clause of the U.S. Constitution. Specifically, the Court concluded that because APJ decisions in IPR proceedings are not reviewable by a presidentially appointed and Senate-confirmed officer, such determinations are not compatible with the powers of inferior officers. The PTO later decided that it would not accept requests for director review of institution decisions. This policy is now also being questioned in Arthrex's wake.

Need Help?

  1. Prefer an IP authenticated environment? Request a transition or call 800-756-8993.
  2. Need other assistance? email Customer Service or call 1-877-256-2472.

MOST POPULAR STORIES