'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.
The Video Sites They Are A-Changing
October 30, 2006
The last few weeks have witnessed further evolution of the world of user-upload sites. 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, because some of the postings used (and sometimes were in entirety) copyrighted material, taken without permission.
IP News
September 29, 2006
Highlights of the latest intellectual property news from around the country.
Multiple Joint Infringers of Process Claims: How Close Is Close Enough?
September 29, 2006
Typically, in an action concerning infringement of a process patent, the activities of an individual party are alleged to infringe one or more of the process patent claims. Under certain circumstances, however, the combined activities of two or more parties may constitute infringement of a process patent claim. Often, courts analyze these situations by determining if 'some connection' exists between the parties whose activities are being combined. This standard, in our view, ultimately defines more activities as infringing than is warranted. A more appropriate standard would be a 'working in concert' standard.
Lawsuit Could Clarify What Is Original in the Art World
September 29, 2006
It is a well-settled copyright axiom that only an original expression of an idea is protectable. In the world of fine art, however, the concept of 'original expression' is often too vague to be defined. Dale Chihuly, a world famous glass artist known for designs inspired by sea life, filed a lawsuit in October 2005 that may clarify the concept. He is fighting to protect his distinctive style of glass art in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington. Chihuly has accused former employee Brian Rubino of producing glass sculptures that infringe Chihuly's copyright-protected glass works. The suit also asserts that another individual, Robert Kaindl, is selling Rubino's copycat sculptures at prices below market value, thus injuring the market value of true Chihuly sculptures.
Everybody Wants to Direct: The Editing of Motion Pictures in Clean Flicks v. Soderbergh
September 29, 2006
On July 6, 2006, in <i>Clean Flicks of Colo., LLC v. Soderbergh</i>, 433 F. Supp. 2d 1236 (D. Colo. 2006), the court granted summary judgment to several film studios, holding that the practice of making and distributing edited versions of the studios' motion pictures by the defendants, collectively known as the 'Clean Flicks defendants,' amounted to copyright infringement.
