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.
Recent Federal Circuit Opinion Highlights Risks of IP Rights in Government Contracts
April 01, 2005
In a case that should serve as a warning to firms with active intellectual property development programs and that have, or aspire to have, the federal government as a customer, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit recently ruled that a government contractor that failed to properly disclose an invention developed pursuant to a government contract forfeited title and all rights to the invention and its related patent. <i>See Campbell Plastics Eng'g & Mfg., Inc. v. Brownlee</i>, No. 03-1512, 2004 U.S. App. LEXIS 23502 (Fed. Cir. Nov. 10, 2004). The case demonstrated the government's willingness to seek, and ability to obtain, the particularly harsh remedy of forfeiture.
IP News
April 01, 2005
Highlights of the latest intellectual property news from around the country.
