You're Going to Serve Someone, But Will You Have Jurisdiction?
November 02, 2005
When is a proceeding not a proceeding, or more precisely, when is a proceeding affecting a mark not a proceeding affecting a mark? No mere word game, the answer can have a profound impact on foreign trademark owners who routinely (and perhaps unthinkingly) appoint their U.S. attorneys as agents to accept service in proceedings affecting their marks. The answer ' or at least an answer ' recently was provided by the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California in <i>E&J Gallo Winery v. Cantine Rallo, S.p.A.</i>, slip op. 1:04 cv 5153 (OWW) (Aug. 17, 2005), where just such a profound impact faced an Italian winery with a long history whose American counsel accepted service of a summons and complaint in an infringement suit, but made only fleeting efforts to alert his foreign client. The court vacated a default judgment that threatened to terminate a 50-year business in this country because the domestic attorney designated by the foreign trademark applicant under 15 U.S.C. §1051(e) to receive service in "proceedings" affecting the mark was deemed not authorized to receive service in a "litigation" affecting the mark. (The defendant's failure to answer was also deemed excusable neglect. Following the default, the author is now representing the defendant.)
Managing Digital Risk
October 31, 2005
Few areas of information security are as misunderstood, or as critical to understand and employ, as digital risk management. Some organizations see it as an information technology (IT)-only issue. Others view risk management as relevant to everything but IT. <br>But the truth is that digital risk management is one of the most important components of an effective information-security program. For many industries, including the legal profession, digital risk management is also an integral part of a business' strategy aimed at enabling revenue while reducing risk for clients and law firms. <br>And, for organizations involved in e-commerce, digital risk management can make the difference between futility and fortune.
Ambush Marketing: Here to Stay?
October 04, 2005
Ambush marketing," a term coined by Jerry Wexler, manager of global marketing efforts for American Express in the 1980s, refers to the marketing activities of companies that manage to associate themselves, or their products or services, with high-profile events without paying to become an "official sponsor.
IP News
October 04, 2005
Highlights of the latest intellectual property news from around the country.
NTP v. RIM: Developments in Infringement Liability Where a Significant Component Is Located Outside the U.S.
October 04, 2005
Companies involved with technologies that use components located both within and outside the United States will be interested in a recent decision in the patent infringement action brought by NTP, Inc. ("NTP") against Research In Motion, Ltd. ("RIM"). In August 2005, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit distinguished between infringement of "system" and "method" patent claims in "out of country" situations. The Federal Circuit held that if a component is located outside the United States, a <i>system claim</i> would be infringed if there is beneficial use of the patented system in the United States, while a <i>method claim</i> would not be infringed.
IP News
August 31, 2005
Highlights of the latest intellectual property news from around the country.
CoStar Reopens Settled Fixation Issue in Online Digital Environment
August 31, 2005
In a little-noticed and as yet un-cited alternative holding last year, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit undermined a previously unbroken line of cases holding that electronic copies of digital works are "fixed" within the meaning of the Copyright Act if they exist in the random access memory ("RAM") of a computer. <i>CoStar Group, Inc. v. LoopNet, Inc.</i>, 373 F.3d 544 (4th Cir. 2004).
Second Circuit Finds No Trademark Infringement in Targeted Internet Advertising Case
August 31, 2005
On June 27, 2005, the Second Circuit overturned a lower court's determination that an Internet advertising company's delivery of targeted, contextually relevant pop-up ads constituted trademark infringement. The plaintiff, 1-800 Contacts, Inc. ("1-800"), sued WhenU.com ("WhenU") for trademark infringement as well as multiple other federal copyright, state infringement, and common law claims. The Second Circuit limited its review of the case to the plaintiff's Lanham Act claim, remanding the rest of 1-800's claims back to the district court.
Dictionary Dethroned: Phillips v. AWH Corporation
August 31, 2005
To rely on the dictionary or not to rely on the dictionary, and to what extent, that is the question. A question which after frenzied anticipation by the patent bar, the <i>en banc</i> U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, in its July 12, 2005 landmark decision of <i>Phillips v. AWH Corp.</i>, No. 03-1269, -1286, 2005 U.S. App. LEXIS 13954 (Fed. Cir. July 12, 2005), has answered: While dictionaries may be useful to assist in the understanding of a commonly understood meaning of a claim term, the proper starting point is the patent specification and corresponding prosecution history.
