A Blurry Distinction with a Huge Difference: Commercial vs. Non-Commercial Speech
February 28, 2007
Imagine the following two scenarios, and try to figure out what the real difference is. First, your competitor blatantly lies in its advertising about the effectiveness of its products; second, your competitor blatantly lies to a reporter about the effectiveness of its products, and the reporter publishes the lies in an article or in a magazine. It seems like the same situation, but it is not. With the first, you could sue for false advertising because the advertisement is 'commercial' speech, whereas with the second, you cannot because the magazine article is 'non-commercial' speech. A similar difference is presented if a newspaper uses a picture of a celebrity without the celebrity's consent to highlight a news article, as opposed to a company using the same celebrity picture in a print advertisement, in the same newspaper, to promote the company. A breach of the celebrity's right of publicity claim is not available against the newspaper because the news article is 'non-commercial,' but is available against the company because the print advertisement is 'commercial.' The rationale for both is that while the First Amendment fully protects 'non-commercial' speech, it protects 'commercial' speech in a significantly limited way.
IP News
February 28, 2007
Highlights of the latest intellectual property news from around the country.
Medimmune: New Rules for Patent Licenses?
February 28, 2007
The Supreme Court's <i>Medimmune</i> decision relates directly to the federal courts' jurisdictional requirement of case or controversy, but by overruling the Federal Circuit's <i>Gen-Probe</i> decision it may also have changed the balance of power between patentees and licensees.
LG Electronics, Inc. v. Bizcom Electronics, Inc.: Guidance on Extending a Patent Holder's Rights to Reach Downstream Parties Who Assemble Components into a Patented Combination
February 28, 2007
In <i>LG Electronics, Inc. v. Bizcom Electronics, Inc.</i>, 453 F.3d 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2006), the Federal Circuit held that a license to a patent covering a combination of elements, that authorized the licensee to sell components of the invention, but disclaimed a downstream license or implied license to the licensees' customers to practice the combination, constituted a conditional sale, thus defeating the application of the patent exhaustion doctrine. It further held that a downstream point of sale notice that no implied license was conveyed similarly defeated the first sale doctrine. In addition, it held that no implied license could be found on those facts. As a result, the patent holder was free to assert a claim of patent infringement against parties who were authorized purchasers of components of its invention, when such parties assembled the resulting combination. This decision provides the clearest guidance to date on how a patent holder whose patents cover a combination of components can extend its rights to reach downstream parties who assemble those components into the patented combination. This article discusses this case in the context of pre-existing authority on patent exhaustion and implied license, and highlights some of the considerations associated with drafting agreements to avoid patent exhaustion and implied licenses.
IP News
February 01, 2007
Highlights of the latest intellectual property news from around the country.
Foreign Use of a Mark May Establish Trademark Priority in the U.S.
February 01, 2007
In the recent decision of <i>First Niagara Ins. Brokers, Inc. v. First Niagara Fin. Group, Inc.</i> (Fed. Cir. 2007) (the 'Federal Circuit's decision'), the Federal Circuit overturned a ruling by the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board (the 'Board') dismissing an opposition by First Niagara Insurance Brokers ('FN-Canada'), a Canadian company, to registration of 'First Niagara' and related marks by First Niagara Financial Group ('FN-US'), a U.S. company. In rendering its holding, the Federal Circuit declared that, in some cases, what would seem to be purely foreign trademark activity may establish superior trademark rights in the United States.
Judicial Support for Reverse Engineering
February 01, 2007
Reverse engineering brings to mind one main question for the intellectual property practitioner: Is it legal? By looking at a few cases dealing with reverse engineering and intellectual property regimes, it is discovered that not only is reverse engineering legal, but it is a means of maintaining competition that is fair and healthy for the marketplace.
Trademark Investigations Revisited
February 01, 2007
The use of investigations to uncover and evaluate potential infringement and unfair competition claims can be an extremely effective weapon for any trademark owner. Usually, a key to successful trademark investigations rests in having the mark owner's investigator pose as an ordinary consumer ' essentially misrepresenting his or her true identity or purpose to the potential infringer. This practice of attempting to gain information through the arguable use of deception or invented scenario is now commonly referred to as 'pretexting' and has led to controversy in the general corporate context. This article concludes that properly conducted and supervised pretext investigations remain in harmony with both the relevant case law and the policy goals of trademark and unfair competition law.
