Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%

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

Search

We found 1,306 results for "The Intellectual Property Strategist"...

The Uses of Prior Conduct in Copyright Cases
September 02, 2017
<b><i>The Lessons of History</b></i><p>In the context of a copyright case, a defendant's prior bad acts and prior conduct are more useful to a plaintiff than is typical in civil litigation.
IP News
September 02, 2017
Fed. Cir. Vacates Lack of Written Description Ruling In Interference<br>Federal Circuit Vacates Unclear Application of “Causal Nexus” Requirement to Prove Irreparable Harm
<i>Matal v. Tam</i> and Viewpoint-Discriminatory Prohibitions Against Federal Registration
August 01, 2017
In <i>Matal v. Tam,</i> the SCOTUS held that a portion of Section 2(a) of the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. §1052(a), prohibiting the federal registration of potentially disparaging trademarks and service marks, violated the Free Speech Clause of the First Amendment.
The Impact of <i>TC Heartland</i> on Copyright Venue
August 01, 2017
The Supreme Court sparked a seismic shift in patent litigation recently when it upset the long-standing interpretation of 28 U.S.C. §1400(b), the special patent venue statute. TC Heartland held that for the purposes of patent venue, the meaning of "resides" in Section 1400(b) is not supplemented by the broad definition of "resides" in the general venue provision, 28 U.S.C. §1391.
Manufacturers vs. Exclusive Distributors: Who Owns the Trademarks?
August 01, 2017
The Third Circuit has adopted McCarthy's "ownership" test in determining whether a manufacturer or distributor owns a trademark in the absence of an express agreement between the parties.
IP News
August 01, 2017
Federal Circuit Vacated The Denial of an Injunction Because a Causal Nexus for Multi-Feature Products Only Requires a Feature to be 'A Driver' of Demand<br>District Court Abused Discretion In Denying Attorneys' Fees, Where Plaintiff Continued to Litigate After Markman Order Made Its Position Untenable
<b><i>Online Extra</b></i><br> After Years of Setbacks, Patent Owners Try to Turn Tide in Congress
July 03, 2017
Patent owners have taken control of the patent reform debate in the 115th Congress, but it's not clear yet who's supposed to be listening.
IP News
July 02, 2017
Federal Circuit Affirms Non-Infringement Decision Based on Prosecution Disclaimer<br>Federal Circuit Decisions Offer Guidance on Award of Attorney Fees under Section 285
Supreme Court Draws Crucial Distinction In Landmark Patent Exhaustion Decision
July 01, 2017
The Supreme Court's decision in <i>Impression Products v. Lexmark</i> is the latest Supreme Court ruling to eviscerate years-long, patentee-friendly Federal Circuit precedent.
Transactions Triggering the 35 USC §102 On-Sale Bar
July 01, 2017
Despite leaving unresolved the ambiguity about the effect of secret sales under §102, the <i>Helsinn</i> ruling offers clues to practitioners seeking to avoid the on-sale bar.

MOST POPULAR STORIES

  • Bankruptcy Sales: Finding a Diamond In the Rough
    There is no efficient market for the sale of bankruptcy assets. Inefficient markets yield a transactional drag, potentially dampening the ability of debtors and trustees to maximize value for creditors. This article identifies ways in which investors may more easily discover bankruptcy asset sales.
    Read More ›
  • Restrictive Covenants Meet the Telecommunications Act of 1996
    Congress enacted the Telecommunications Act of 1996 to encourage development of telecommunications technologies, and in particular, to facilitate growth of the wireless telephone industry. The statute's provisions on pre-emption of state and local regulation have been frequently litigated. Last month, however, the Court of Appeals, in <i>Chambers v. Old Stone Hill Road Associates (see infra<i>, p. 7) faced an issue of first impression: Can neighboring landowners invoke private restrictive covenants to prevent construction of a cellular telephone tower? The court upheld the restrictive covenants, recognizing that the federal statute was designed to reduce state and local regulation of cell phone facilities, not to alter rights created by private agreement.
    Read More ›