Is Software a Section 271(f) 'Component' of a Patented Invention?
November 30, 2006
On Oct. 27, 2006, the Supreme Court granted certiorari in <i>Microsoft Corp. v. AT&T Corp.</i> (No. 05-1056), preparing to elucidate the contours of patent infringement under 35 U.S.C. §271(f) as applied to the exportation of software code. This case marks the first time in the 22 years since Congress enacted the provision that the Court will venture into this area. The outcome may have significant ramifications for the software industry because §271(f) was widely assumed to apply only to the tangible components of a physical machine. If §271(f) applies equally to software, then software companies will need to rethink their exposure to liability when exporting software abroad. Liability under §271(f) may extend beyond the initial act of exporting and further include downstream activities, such as copying and installing that are done entirely outside of the United States.
Bankruptcy Code Amendments Alter Franchise Case Strategies
November 28, 2006
The substantial amendments made by the Bankruptcy Abuse Prevention and Consumer Protection Act of 2005 (BAPCPA) to the Bankruptcy Code have had a significant impact on the dynamics of franchisee bankruptcies. The BAPCPA was generally intended to accelerate Chapter 11 'reorganizations' and provide relief to certain constituencies in the bankruptcy process (eg, landlords). This article focuses on the nuances of the BAPCPA's impact in franchisee bankruptcy cases.
The Second Annual MLF 50: The Top 50 Law Firms in Marketing and Communications
November 27, 2006
At the outset, let me congratulate the 50 firms that made this year's MLF 50. The fact that out of the hundreds of law firms with marketing programs, these 50 firms have attained the status of being considered the best programs in the country is a testament to the fabulous strides that law firm marketing, business development and media programs have achieved over the last year. There is good news here: Marketing is alive, well and prospering at many of the AmLaw 200 firms. This year, the MLF 50 showcases a wide range of firms and their marketing activities that can best be described by using a sports metaphor ' a full contact sport. The profession has come a long way in terms of sophistication, depth and creativity. In the following pages, you will see the power of marketing, business development and media and how can transform and strengthen a law firm ' and yes, make it more profitable. What is important to note is that many of these marketing activities were created as vehicles for pro bono and diversity initiatives. It should come as no surprise that doing good deeds for others and creating a diverse environment leads to prosperity.
The Video Sites They Are A-Changing
October 30, 2006
The past few weeks have witnessed the evolution of the world of user-upload sites.<br>MySpace.com and YouTube. com were once youthful rebels ' their founders were young, their audience was predominantly under 30. These sites allowed youngsters to post their own video material. This, in turn, enraged copyright holders, since some of the postings utilized (and sometimes were in their entirety) copyrighted material, taken without permission.
IP News
October 30, 2006
Highlights of the latest intellectual property news from around the country.
Supreme Court to Review Obviousness Standard: Is a Higher Bar for Patentability Imminent?
October 30, 2006
In reviewing <i>KSR Int'l v. Teleflex, Inc.</i> (No. 04-1350), the Supreme Court is set to tackle one of the fundamental issues of patentability ' the standard for obviousness under 35 U.S.C. '103. As expected, this case has generated significant interest and numerous <i>amicus</i> briefs have been filed. With oral argument expected to be heard late this month, this case marks the first time in 30 years that the Court will examine this particular issue.
'No Sublicense' Rule Extended to Trademark and Publicity Rights: The Half-Century Saga of Miller v. Glenn Miller Productions, Inc.
October 30, 2006
It is well settled that a patent or copyright licensee may not sublicense that right absent specific authorization. <i>See, eg, Gardner v. Nike, Inc.</i> 279 F.3d 774 (9th Cir. 2004); <i>Unarco Industries, Inc. v. Kelley Co.</i>, 465 F.2d 1303 (7th Cir. 1972); <i>In re Patient Education Media, Inc,</i> 210 B.R. 237 (S.D.N.Y 1997). Trademarks are often grouped with patents and copyrights as 'intellectual property,' but fundamental differences among the genres exist. <i>See, eg, Sony Corp of America v. University City Studios</i>, 464 U.S. 417, 439 n.17 (1984). Do the same policies supporting the so-called 'no sublicense' rule in the patent and copyright context apply to trademarks and related publicity rights?
U.S. Patent Provisional Rights: Impacts of Recent Change
October 30, 2006
U.S. Patent Laws, amended by the passage of the American Inventors Protection Act of 1999 ('the Act'), now provide for publication of pending patent applications prior to issuance. 35 U.S.C. '122(b). Since the effective date of the amendment, Nov. 29, 2000, the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office ('USPTO') publishes domestic utility applications within 18 months of their earliest priority date. Prior to this amendment, patent applications were not made publicly available until a patent issued, thereby preserving the confidential information of a patentee until remedies for patent infringement were made available to the patentee.
