Call 855-808-4530 or email GroupSales@alm.com to receive your discount on a new subscription.
The Federal Circuit recently addressed motions to transfer and drew a distinction between motions based upon the convenience of parties and witnesses and those for improper venue. It also clarified that the Supreme Court’s recent decision in TC Heartland did not supplant the long-standing rule that venue laws do not protect foreign defendants.
The Federal Circuit recently addressed motions to transfer and drew a distinction between motions filed under 28 U.S.C. §1404(a) based upon the convenience of parties and witnesses and those filed under 28 U.S.C. §1406(a) for improper venue. In re: HTC Corp., 889 F.3d 1349, 1352 (Fed. Cir. 2018). The Federal Circuit further closed a potential venue loophole created by TC Heartland LLC v. Kraft Foods Group Brands LLC, 137 S.Ct. 1514, and clarified that the Supreme Court’s recent decision did not supplant the long-standing rule that venue laws do not protect foreign defendants. In re: HTC, at 1357.
By David S. Gold
Branding is not a new concept, nor are the various intellectual property laws that protect brands. What is new to most is how this burgeoning industry can take advantage of those laws within the context of state and federal restrictions.
By Tom Gushue
The owner of a commercially successful patent may have competing desires. On one hand, the patent owner wants to protect the patent and secure its maximum benefit; on the other hand, the patent owner wants to avoid enforcement litigation with competitors because it is expensive and puts the patent at risk.
By Glenn E.J. Murphy
Many observers greeted the passage of the AIA into law as a long-overdue overhaul of U.S. patent law that aligned it with patent systems prevailing in the rest of the world. Who knew what mischief just seven of the AIA’s more than 25,000 words contained? The U.S. Supreme Court answered earlier this year.
By Norman C. Simon and Patrick J. Campbell
The decision in Romag Fasteners v. Fossil will bring welcome uniformity, ending the status quo where eligibility to recover profits under the Lanham Act depends on which court is deciding the dispute