Features

Intellectual property battles in technology, including in the entertainment industry, are nothing new, but their nature might be shifting. These days, many of the big IP litigation battles have nothing to do with patents, trademarks or copyrights. Instead, it's all about trade secrets.

Features

<b><i>Strategies to Defend Against Patent Claims by Raising Lack of Patentable Subject Matter in District Court Litigation</b></i><p>With the Supreme Court's decision in <i>Alice</i>, parties defending against a claim of patent infringement gained a potential way to find an early resolution to patent litigation.

Features

The Library of Congress' Copyright Royalty Board, the panel of three judges who set copyright royalty rates and settle related disputes, announced the launch of an electronic filing and case management system in an effort to streamline its manual and cumbersome case management processes.

Features

<b><i>The Lessons of History</b></i><p>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.

Columns & Departments

Fed. Cir. Vacates Lack of Written Description Ruling In Interference<br>Federal Circuit Vacates Unclear Application of “Causal Nexus” Requirement to Prove Irreparable Harm

Features

In <i>Matal v. Tam</i>, the trademark case involving the name of the Asian-American rock band The Slants, the SCOTUS held that the portion of §2(a) of the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. §1052(a), that prohibits the federal registration of potentially disparaging trademarks and service marks, violated the Free Speech Clause of the First Amendment.

Features

In <i>Matal v. Tam,</i> the SCOTUS held that a portion of Section 2(a) of the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. §1052(a), prohibiting the federal registration of potentially disparaging trademarks and service marks, violated the Free Speech Clause of the First Amendment.

Features

The Supreme Court sparked a seismic shift in patent litigation recently when it upset the long-standing interpretation of 28 U.S.C. §1400(b), the special patent venue statute. TC Heartland held that for the purposes of patent venue, the meaning of "resides" in Section 1400(b) is not supplemented by the broad definition of "resides" in the general venue provision, 28 U.S.C. §1391.