Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
The United States Supreme Court decided its first Federal Trademark Dilution Act (FTDA) case on March 4, 2003, in <i>Moseley et al. dba Victor's Little Secret v. V Secret Catalogue, Inc. et al.</i> The Court granted <i>certiorari.</i> to settle the Circuits' differing opinions on whether relief under the FTDA requires a showing of objective proof of actual injury to the economic value of a famous mark, as opposed to a presumption of harm arising from a subjective 'likelihood of dilution' showing.
Features
Highlights of the latest IP news and cases from around the country.
The attorney-client privilege and work product immunity protect a bevy of communications between and among lawyers and clients. How do these doctrines apply when dealing with foreign attorneys and foreign patent agents? The recent decision in <i>Astra Aktiebolag v. Andrx Pharmaceuticals</i>, 208 F.R.D. 92 (S.D.N.Y. 2002), illustrates the complexities of a privilege analysis when communications take place on a global scale. In this case, defendant, Andrx, challenged claims of attorney-client privilege and work product immunity asserted by plaintiff Astra. The disputed documents fell into three categories.
According to a report released earlier this year by the Business Software Alliance, one out of every four business software applications installed in the United States is unlicensed, and thus a potential copyright infringement violation. Numbers like these have turned many businesses into targets in recent years, as software companies have made battling unlicensed software in the workplace a top priority. Armed with the threat of stiff penalties under the copyright law and backed by highly active trade groups, software vendors are increasingly making businesses aware of the unlicensed software problem and requesting that businesses perform a 'software audit,' in which the trade group will use an express or implied threat of litigation to ask that a company submit to a determination of whether unlicensed software exists on its computer system.
Features
One of the most frustrating problems in defending a trade secrets lawsuit comes when the plaintiff refuses to agree that the accused defendant may have access to, and thus learn about, the specific alleged secrets the defendant is accused of misappropriating. There are, however, two arguments defense counsel can use to win a motion for access to that information — a victory that alone can turn the momentum in the defendant's favor.
In <i>Johnson & Johnston Assocs. v. R.E. Service Co.</i>, 285 F.3d 1046 (Fed. Cir. 2002) the Federal Circuit turned at least one aspect of patent drafting practice on its ear. Before <i>Johnson</i>, generally accepted patent drafting techniques encouraged the disclosure of alternative subject matter in the specification, particularly for claimed elements of the invention, in order to possibly broaden the scope of the claims of the resultant patent. Post Johnson, such practices may clearly backfire as the court held that subject matter disclosed in a patent's specification, but not claimed, is dedicated to the public. Although Johnson may well have a major impact on claim drafting techniques, this case will likely have a greater impact on techniques used for drafting the patent specification.
Features
A New York federal court has denied, in part, a famous Internet service provider's motion to dismiss a complaint filed by a proprietor who alleged breach of contract and tortious interference against the ISP.
Features
No lawyer ' even the most ethical ' would want a prosecutor to see or hear his client communications. Indeed, the most sacred ethic is that of confidentiality.
A number of Internet companies and the American Civil Liberties Union have joined forces to protect the identity of a person who claimed in a political online chat room that a state court judge behaved unethically.
Features
The New Hampshire Supreme Court has ruled that the family of a young woman killed by an obsessed stalker has grounds under state law to sue the Internet data broker he hired to locate his victim.