<i>Quanta Computer, Inc., et al. v. LG Electronics, Inc.</i>
July 30, 2008
In <i>Quanta Computer</i>, many observers believed that the Court would address whether, and to what extent, a party can contractually restrict application of the patent exhaustion doctrine, under which patent rights covering a product are extinguished when the product is sold without restriction. Instead, the Court's decision in <i>Quanta</i> appears to be relatively narrow, confirming that the sale of unpatented components can exhaust a system patent that is substantially, but not completely, embodied by those components, but leaving open the broader question of whether parties can contractually limit application of the patent exhaustion doctrine to the detriment of downstream good faith purchasers.
IP News
June 27, 2008
Recent developments you need to know.
Lulu v. Hulu: What's All of the Hullabaloo?
June 27, 2008
While the rhyming nature of these two Web sites provided entertaining fodder for journalists and bloggers, in <i>Lulu Enterprises, Inc. v. N-F Newsite, LLC, aka Hulu, LLC, et. al</i>, the court focused its denial of Plaintiff Lulu's motion for preliminary injunction not on the rhyming nature of the domain names, but upon the Plaintiff's inability to prove imminent harm from the launch of Defendant's 'hulu.com' Web site. Rather than focusing on a likelihood of confusion analysis, the court's decision instead contains useful commentary on the effects of statements made in federal registration applications, and the likely expansion of the use of the mark, as they relate to the 'imminent harm' standard in trademark and unfair competition cases.
How Not to Draft a Patent Application
June 27, 2008
Patent drafters must often write a patent application based on minimal disclosure. Some practitioners take pride in their ability to do so. However, several recent landmark court cases have substantially increased the risk that a patent drafted in this manner will be unenforceable.
Twice the Remedy? Dual Recovery in Copyright and Trademark Law
June 27, 2008
In another Ninth Circuit case involving Microsoft Corporation, a district court ruled last fall that a software company is entitled to recover statutory damages under both the Copyright and Lanham Acts against those who sell and distribute counterfeit software, where the software maker suffers distinct injuries to different interests as a result of the infringement. <i>Microsoft v. Evans</i>. This Eastern District of California decision reflects what may be a growing trend regarding the issue of awarding statutory damages under both copyright and trademark law for a single act that violates aspects of both statutes.
IP News
May 29, 2008
Recent developments you need to know.
Limits and Considerations in Control Groups
May 29, 2008
Control groups have become an almost required element in trademark surveys. Survey methodology, however, derives from the field of sociology and political science where there was no such concept of 'control' groups. The studies were designed to be descriptive of a phenomenon. As such, the surveys contained no 'controls,' but could still none the less offer useful information.
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.
