Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%

Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.

Search

We found 1,293 results for "The Intellectual Property Strategist"...

Technology Potency: Patent Citation Refinements for Merger and Acquisition or Joint Venture Analysis
May 26, 2005
The real value of a possible acquisition or joint venture partner is often in the potential of their next invention. As advisers, patent managers, and intellectual asset strategists, it is critical that the methodology and tools used for assessing patent quality accurately reflect a would-be ally's technological potency.
IP News
May 26, 2005
Highlights of the latest intellectual property news from around the country.
Google v. American Blind: Staying in Line with Online Advertising?
May 26, 2005
One of the hot intellectual property topics for 2005 &mdash; and perhaps beyond &mdash; is whether the sale and use of trademarks as keywords constitutes trademark infringement, and, if so, who is liable for that infringement. How the courts ultimately resolve this issue will affect the billion-dollar Internet advertising industry, those who participate in online advertising and those seeking to prevent the unauthorized use of their trademarks on the Internet. This article discusses <i>Google v. American Blind &amp; Wallpaper Factory, Inc.</i>, 2005 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 6228 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 30, 2005), the most recent case to address the emerging issue of "markmatching" in Internet contextual advertising, and its relationship to trademark infringement.
Typosquatting and the Duty to Police Infringing Trademarks: Initial Interest Confusion and 'Post-Initial Confusion'
May 26, 2005
You are the owner of KibbleSoft, the widely used fuzzy-logic retail management software package for pet food distributors. Understanding the value of the KibbleSoft brand, you have registered the trademark and carefully policed against infringers for a number of years. And having early grasped the importance of the Internet for promoting your brand, you were also a step ahead of the cybersquatters and acquired the <i>kibblesoft.com</i> domain in 1996. Much of your business now runs through your heavy-trafficked Web site at <i>www.kibblesoft.com.</i>
Doctrine of Equivalents Applied to Means-Plus-Function Limitations: There Is No 'Equivalent of an Equivalent'
May 26, 2005
A means-plus-function limitation recites a function to be performed rather than definite structure or materials for performing that function. <i>Chiuminatta Concrete Concepts, Inc. v. Cardinal Indus., Inc.</i>, 145 F.3d 1303, 1307 (Fed. Cir. 1998). Such a limitation is more narrow than a counterpart written in structural format. <i>Lighting World, Inc. v. Birchwood Lighting, Inc.</i>, 382 F.3d 1354, 1361-62 (Fed. Cir. 2004). Nevertheless, patent drafters still commonly use means-plus-function limitations in computer-related patent claims for convenience sake.
The Metamorphosis of Assignment Clauses in Bankruptcy
May 24, 2005
Last month, we discussed "The Debtor's Nightmare," explaining how the Fourth Circuit joined the Ninth, Third and Eleventh Circuits in adopting the "hypothetical test" in denying a debtor in possession's assumption of an executory contract under section 365 (c) of the Bankruptcy Code despite an express assignability provision in the contract. <i>RCI Tech. v. Sunterra Corp.</i> (<i>In re Sunterra Corp</i>), 361 F.3d 257 (4th Cir. 2004). This month, we continue with "the debtor's paradox."
IP News
May 02, 2005
Highlights of the latest intellectual property news and cases from around the country.
Expanding Protections for Artistic Features of Utilitarian Objects
May 02, 2005
In April 2004, the Second Circuit Court of Appeals reversed a district court's conclusion that the features of Mattel's "CEO Barbie" and "Neptune's Daughter Barbie" were not protected by copyright. With little discussion, the three judge panel unanimously held that while Mattel's "particularized expression" in a "doll visage with upturned nose, bow lips, and widely spaced eyes" does not prevent a competitor from creating dolls with upturned noses, bow lips and widely spaced eyes, it does bar a competitor from copying Mattel's "realization" of the particular Barbie's features. <i>Mattel, Inc. v. Goldberger Doll Manufacturing Co.</i>, 365 F.3d 133, 136 (2d Cir. 2004).
Internet Usage Threatens Existence of Concurrent Use Registrations
May 02, 2005
In a rare concurrent use decision, <i>Hubcap Heaven, LLC v. Hubcap Heaven, Inc.</i>, Concurrent Use No. 94001147 (Jan. 25, 2005) [not citable], the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board ("TTAB") questioned the continued viability of concurrent use registrations in the face of the Internet's global reach. Concurrent usage is based on the premise that two owners of the same trademark for competing goods and services can coexist by carving out strict geographic territories for each user. The Internet, however, has no geographic boundaries.
Drafting Patent Infringement Complaints: Avoiding the Trap of 'Model' Form 16 of the Federal Rules
May 02, 2005
Most attorneys follow model Form 16 in the Appendix of Forms to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure ("FRCP") when drafting patent infringement complaints. However, in unique factual situations, Form 16-style complaints may not be sufficient to survive Rule 12(b)(6) motions to dismiss and/or Rule 12(e) motions for a more definite statement. For instance, some courts have found complaints that fail to aver particular infringing products to lack the requisite specificity, especially when the asserted patent claims could be read to cover hundreds of a defendant's products. Failing to take these exceptions to the Form 16 standard into account can lead to unnecessary delay and work for the plaintiff (or, conversely, strategic opportunities for the defendant). This article discusses these unique situations, and how counsel may properly draft patent infringement complaints in order to survive Rule 12(b)(6) and Rule 12(e) motions.

MOST POPULAR STORIES

  • Navigating the Attorney-Client Privilege and Work Product Doctrine in Bankruptcy
    When a company declares bankruptcy, avoidance actions under Chapter 5 of the Bankruptcy Code can assist in securing extra cash for the debtor's dwindling estate. When a debtor-in-possession does not pursue these claims, creditors' committees often seek the bankruptcy court's authorization to pursue them on behalf of the estate. Once granted such authorization through a “standing order,” a creditors' committee is said to “stand in the debtor's shoes” because it has permission to litigate certain claims belonging to the debtor that arose before bankruptcy. However, for parties whose cases advance to discovery, such a standing order may cause issues by leaving undecided the allocation of attorney-client privilege and work product protection between the debtor and committee.
    Read More ›
  • Revised Proposal: Understanding the Interagency Statement on Complex Structured Finance Activities
    Many U.S. financial institutions that have participated in equipment leasing transactions (particularly in the large-ticket and municipal markets) in the last 20 years will be keenly aware that as the structures grew ever more complicated, Congress and the federal regulatory agencies grew intensely interested. Whether the institution had a major role in the transaction or simply provided a service, some degree of scrutiny could be expected, often in conjunction with a tax audit of its client. The risks to financial institutions from participating in complex structured finance transactions of all types became a source for concern for banking and securities regulators. The principal federal regulators responded in 2004 with a proposal that financial institutions investigate, and bear responsibility for evaluating, the legal, tax, and accounting basis of their clients' complex structured finance transactions. The goal: to limit the institutions' own credit, legal, and reputational risk from such participation.
    Read More ›