Protection of Fragrances
June 28, 2007
The perfume industry is a wealthy and profitable one, generating an ever-increasing turnover worldwide. However, as do all successful industries, it attracts numerous counterfeiters and tempts indelicate competitors to copy successful perfumes. Although perfumes are expensive and sensitive products whose development requires time and sizeable investment, they are, unfortunately, hard to protect against unauthorized copies.
KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc. et al.: Supreme Court Clarifies Obviousness
June 28, 2007
Before the Supreme Court's April 30, 2007 decision in <i>KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc. et al.</i>, 127 S.Ct. 1727 (2007) virtually all patent attorneys were on the edge of their seats. The decision was a clear indication that the Supreme Court disfavored the current state of the law that had been developed by the Federal Circuit for determining whether a patent is invalid for obviousness under 35 U.S.C. §103. The Supreme Court pointed to numerous errors in the Federal Circuit decision and characterized as 'rigid,' 'formalistic,' 'narrow,' 'constricted,' and 'flaw[ed]' the Federal Circuit's requirement that there be proof the claimed combination of elements was arrived at due to a teaching, suggestion, or motivation to combine features from prior art references. <i>Id.</i> at 1739, 1741-42. Instead, the Supreme Court imposed a more flexible approach that sought to emphasize its earlier decisions on obviousness over tests the Federal Circuit had developed to apply the law set forth in those decisions.
Microsoft v. AT&T: The Supreme Court Grapples with How to Treat Software under '271(f) of the Patent Act
June 28, 2007
On April 30, 2007, the Supreme Court handed down its decision in <i>Microsoft Corp. v. AT&T Corp.</i>, No. 05-1056, 127 S. Ct. 1746 (2007). The <i>Microsoft</i> decision addressed the scope of §271(f) of the Patent Act, 35 U.S.C. §271(f), which provides that it is an act of infringement to 'supply' the 'components' of a patented invention from the United States for combination outside the United States.
IP News
May 31, 2007
Highlights of the latest intellectual property news and cases from around the country.
Second Circuit Limits Famous Foreign Trademark Protection Without Domestic Use
May 31, 2007
The Second Circuit recently ruled that, in the absence of specific Congressional legislation, owners of famous foreign trademarks must show use within the United States to avail themselves of the protections offered by American federal law. The Court of Appeals also certified questions to the district court as to whether New York common law protects a famous foreign trademark that only has been used in a foreign country. The case is an instructive overview of the law of trademark abandonment and the famous marks doctrine.
Expanding Jurisdiction over Patent Challenges: Federal Circuit Continues Trend
May 31, 2007
Continuing the recent trend of court decisions expanding jurisdiction over declaratory judgment challenges to patents, the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (the 'Federal Circuit' or the 'court') opened the door to increased challenges to drug patents in <i>Teva Pharms. USA Inc. v. Novartis Pharms. Corp.</i>, 482 F.3d 1330 (Fed. Cir. 2007). The Federal Circuit ruled that a generic drug company could, under the appropriate circumstances, pre-emptively seek a declaratory judgment that certain drug patents listed in the FDA's Orange Book are invalid or not infringed. Generic drug companies thus can have a court resolve patent infringement issues before undertaking the expense of launching a generic drug under the threat of patent litigation and any resulting injunction or treble damages for willful infringement. The <i>Teva</i> decision is expected to increase declaratory judgment challenges by generic drug companies and help speed generic drugs to market when those challenges are successful.
TTAB Disregards Subjective Intent Element
May 31, 2007
Continuing a recent trend of toughening its position on fraud, the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board ('TTAB') has cancelled yet another registration because the registrant had failed to use the mark on every good for which it was registered. <i>Hachette Filipacchi Presse v. Elle Belle, LLC,</i> Cancellation No. 92042991 (T.T.A.B. April 9, 2007). This case is the second precedential decision this year in which the TTAB has cancelled a registration as fraudulently obtained because of overly broad claims regarding use of the mark. <i>See also Hurley Int'l LLC v. Volta,</i> 82 U.S.P.Q.2d 1339 (T.T.A.B. 2007).
IP News
April 30, 2007
Highlights of the latest intellectual property news from around the country.
IP Branding: Adding Value to a Business
April 30, 2007
As the U.S. economy begins to switch from an industrial model to a knowledge-based one, business owners must adapt their traditional means for conveying the value of their assets. Intellectual property ('IP') is an intangible asset often overlooked by investors in assessing the value of a business, because companies fail to provide a useful metric for its value. IP branding is a business strategy that educates potential investors, licensees, and even competitors about the quantifiable worth of a company's intangible assets, such as patents and trademarks. Although branding has historically functioned in the traditional trademark sense to identify tangible products and services and to distinguish them from competitors, thereby giving the owner of the brand market power, it applies equally to other forms of IP. In a nutshell, the value of a firm or business is equal to not only the inherent value of its IP, but also the value added from the successful branding of a company's intangible assets. This article presents four key steps, with a focus on patents and trademarks, toward adding an IP branding strategy to an existing business model.
