Call 855-808-4530 or email GroupSales@alm.com to receive your discount on a new subscription.
In 2013, the Patent and Trademark Office (PTO) adopted a new policy under which any party commencing a de novo proceeding challenging a PTO decision would be responsible to pay a pro rata share of the salaries of the government attorneys working on the matter, based on a new interpretation of language that has appeared in the Patent Act for 175 years — and more recently was included in the Lanham Act as well. That language requires the plaintiff seeking de novo review to pay “all expenses of the proceedings,” win or lose. However, the term expenses had always in practice been construed (until recently) to mean only lesser costs — not attorneys’ fees. On Dec. 11, 2019, the Supreme Court rejected the PTO’s new interpretation of the Patent Act in Peter v. NantKwest, Case No. 18-801, slip op., which held that the American Rule, a centuries-old principle under which each party bears its own attorneys’ fees, does apply to this statute. The Court further concluded that the actual language of the statute itself simply does not support shifting fees.
*May exclude premium content
By Kerry S. Taylor and Nathanael R. Luman
On May 27, 2020 the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) proposed rule changes to govern inter partes review (IPR), post-grant review (PGR), and covered business method (CBM) review proceedings at the PTAB. This article provides a summary of each proposed rule change and its potential impact on PTAB practice.
By J. Alexander Lawrence
Don and Phil Everly’s flawless harmonies that resulted in a string of hits in the 1950s and '60s regrettably ended in acrimony. The Sixth Circuit recently issued a decision in a dispute between Phil’s heirs and Don over copyright ownership of the No. 1 hit “Cathy’s Clown,” in which concurring Judge Eric E. Murphy raised important questions about when the statute of limitations should begin to run in copyright cases and whether courts have been correctly applying the law.
By Rebecca Kirk Fair, Peter Hess and Vendela Fehrm
Surveys can provide useful evidence in litigation if they are conducted by a qualified expert employing reliable methods that survive a Daubert challenge. In the first of a series of articles drawing on our review of over 300 U.S. court rulings in cases involving surveys, including over 150 Daubert motions, we provide some suggestions for getting survey evidence admitted for consideration in court.
By Stan Soocher
Federal courts have long disagreed over whether the unauthorized “making available” of a plaintiff’s works to the public is sufficient to constitute copyright infringement under the U.S. Copyright Act. Two June District Court decisions demonstrated the differences between the views of the Fourth and Ninth Circuits.