Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
Features
<b><i>Board Says It Doesn't Matter Whether Use Is By a Trademark Owner Or a Third Party</b></i><p>In a nearly 50-page precedential opinion, the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board (TTAB) panel of Judges Adlin, Heasely, and Lynch, underscored the need to prove actual use in commerce in order to register a trademark, regardless of how low the standard for use under the Lanham Act has recently become. <i>Tao Licensing, LLC, v. Bender Consulting d/b/a Asia Pacific Beverages.</i>
Features
<b><i>There Was No Clear Majority at Oral Argument Signaling the Death of</i> Inter Partes <i>Review</b></i><p>November 27 was supposed to be the big Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) showdown at the U.S. Supreme Court. After two hours of questioning, it seemed more like a big bust.
Columns & Departments
Federal Circuit Affirms Finding That Rembrandt's Patent Is Not Infringed by Apple's Accused Products<br>District Court Transfers Case after Federal Circuit Ordered It to Reconsider Party's Venue Objections In Light of <i>TC Heartland</i><brPTAB Decision Invalidating AIP Internet Network Patent Affirmed on Appeal
Features
This article outlines the available options under the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board's ACR rules and discusses the strategic considerations in determining whether ACR might be advantageous, particularly in light of increasing pressure from clients to reduce costs and expedite the decision-making process.
Features
On Nov. 13, 2017, a Federal Circuit panel of Chief Judge Prost, Judge Mayer, and Judge Chen issued a unanimous decision in <i>Promega Corp. v. Life Technologies Corp.</i> On remand from the United States Supreme Court, the panel affirmed a grant of judgment as a matter of law by the United States District Court for the Western District of Wisconsin that the plaintiff failed to prove its infringement case under §§35 U.S.C. 271(a) and 271(f)(1). The panel affirmed the district court's denial for a new trial on damages and infringement, and reaffirmed its prior holdings on enablement, licensing, and active inducement issues.
Features
In a case of first impression, the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Indiana has decided that the newsworthiness and public interest exceptions to Indiana's right-of-publicity statute do apply to online fantasy sports companies that use college athletes' names and likenesses.
Features
Written opinions of counsel are gaining renewed interest as a valuable tool to limit liability for willful patent infringement. A patent opinion that is competently written by a registered patent attorney sets forth the factual and legal basis for finding a patent not infringed, invalid, and/or unenforceable. However, to be effective, the timing of the rendered patent opinion may be critical.
Columns & Departments
Federal Circuit Resolves Circuit Split, Finds That Venue Is Not Waived Under Rule 12(h)(1)(A) for Cases Brought before <i>TC HeartLand</i><br>Federal Circuit Reverses Award of Lost Profits Because Product Sold to a Single Customer Was an Available Non- Infringing Alternative
Features
In the context of a copyright case, a defendant's prior bad acts and prior conduct are more useful to a plaintiff than is typical in civil litigation. In many instances, copyright infringement lawsuits are brought against defendants who have been sued before for infringement, or related misconduct, or who have been the subject of allegations or informal complaints, or who simply have experience in copyright matters.
Features
Venue in patent cases lies "in the judicial district where the defendant resides, or where the defendant has committed acts of infringement and has a regular and established place of business." Since 1990, the Federal Circuit interpreted the term "resides" coextensively with the general venue statute such that patent venue lay where the defendant was subject to personal jurisdiction. But this year, the Supreme Court greatly narrowed that definition in <i>TC Heartland v. Kraft Foods</i>. The Federal Circuit, in turn, interpreted the newly-relevant alternative phrase. After two decades of relaxed patent venue rules, these decisions work a seismic shift in patent litigation.
