Trade secret protection applies only to confidential information. In almost all circumstances, broadcasting to the world the intricate details and applications of a trade secret extinguishes whatever “property right” an entertainment industry holder once possessed. What is a sufficient method of contractually notifying a software user of the trade secret status of certain information is a closer question.
Claim Preclusion Requires Analysis that Claims in Newly Asserted Patents are Patently Indistinct from Claims in Previously Adjudicated Patents
Claim Elements Taught by Prior Art for Purposes of Novelty and Obviousness are not Necessarily 'Well-Understood, Routine, and Conventional' Under §101
According to a recent case from the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York involving live-event ticket sales, a purported holder of a trade secret cannot omit a confidentiality provision from its terms of use and then claim trade secret status afterward.
The U.S. Supreme Court recently agreed to consider whether a patentee may recover foreign lost profits resulting from infringement of a United States patent.
Finjan, Inc. v. Blue Coat Sys., Inc.
The Federal Circuit ruled that basing a reasonable royalty calculation on the “smallest salable unit” does not obviate the need to apportion damages to the patented contribution within that unit.
The details might not be quite as dramatic as they were in Waymo v. Uber, but lawyers expect trade secrets to continue to be a fertile source for litigation.
Federal Circuit Vacates Noninfringement Decision Finding a Genuine Dispute as to Divided Infringement
Patent Trial and Appeal Board Holds Sovereign Immunity No Defense to IPR Petition Brought by Accused Infringer
On Jan. 8, 2018, the Federal Circuit issued its significant en banc decision in Wi-Fi One, LLC v. Broadcom. In that decision, the Federal Circuit held that the time-bar of 35 U.S.C. §315(b) is reviewable on appeal, thus overturning a prior panel decision and opening the door for parties to challenge how the USPTO has interpreted and applied that statutory provision.
In a nearly 50-page precedential opinion in a ruling of great significance to the entertainment industry, a TTAB panel of judges recently 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.
Refusal Is an Unconstitutional Violation of Free Speech
On Dec. 15, 2017, a unanimous Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit held that despite Appellant's mark comprising “immoral or scandalous” matter, the PTO could no longer refuse federal registration of such marks on the grounds that this refusal violated the free speech clause of the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.
