He Who Steals My Trash Pays Cash?
May 29, 2008
In this rather odd sentencing case, the Eighth Circuit trashed the restitution order that had been imposed by the District Court for the District of North Dakota on janitorial supervisor James A. Chalupnik. <i>United States v. Chalupnik,</i> 2008 WL 268997 (8th Cir. Feb. 1, 2008). Here's a discussion of the case.
IP News
April 30, 2008
Highlights of the latest intellectual property news from around the country.
What Is Reasonable?
April 30, 2008
Several recent rulings from the U.S. Supreme Court have arguably tipped the scales toward alleged infringers involved in a patent battle.
TiVo v. EchoStar: Federal Circuit Does the Time Warp
April 30, 2008
In <i>TiVo, Inc. v. EchoStar Commc'ns Corp.</i>, the Federal Circuit affirmed TiVo's $74 million judgment against EchoStar and reinstated TiVo's permanent injunction. If the parties could go back in time having the benefit of the Federal Circuit's decision, the patent-in-suit might be drafted differently and the claim construction arguments might be more persuasive. This article explores some of the lessons from the Federal Circuit's decision.
IP News
March 28, 2008
Highlights of the latest intellectual property news from around the country.
Employees' Inventions: Who Owns What Rights?
March 28, 2008
What rights does an employer have in an employee's patent? The short answer is, it depends. The employer may have a right of assignment — that is, a right to outright ownership of the patent. Another possibility is a so-called 'shop right,' in which the employee owns the patent, but the employer has a non-exclusive, non-transferable license to use the invention in its business. There is also a distinct possibility that the employer has no rights whatsoever in the patent.
The Far-Reaching Effects of Inequitable Conduct
March 28, 2008
The Federal Circuit recently held that an applicant's failure to disclose material notes to the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office can result in a finding of inequitable conduct that may render a patent, and even related patents, unenforceable.
Boston Duck v. Super Duck: Court Rules That Sponsored Linking Can Ruffle Feathers
March 28, 2008
In <i>Boston Duck Tours, LP v. Super Duck Tours</i>, the District Court of Massachusetts ruled that sponsored linking qualifies as 'use in commerce' for purposes of trademark infringement under the Lanham Act. Although the court ultimately found no likely consumer confusion in this case, in holding that sponsored linking falls within the purview of the Lanham Act, the court joins a growing number of circuits and districts that have failed to take a cue from well-settled, and clearly analogous, offline trademark principles.
