|
|
|
|
Articles from Related Newsletters
Inequitable ConductThe Intellectual Property StrategistTaking a page from the Federal Circuit’s own analysis of the issue, we will examine the who, what, when, where (and why) of the decision in Exergen Corporation v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.
What Is an Athlete’s Publicity Right in a Video Game?Entertainment Law & FinanceToday’s game designers and consumers demand a sports game experience that is as close to the real world, and real players, as possible. Game manufacturers have largely succeeded in delivering on this demand. But at least a handful of players are not happy with this situation.
The FTC’s New Endorsement GuidesInternet Law & StrategyThe FTC’s new guidance makes it clear that companies that are involved in encouraging a message about their products or services in non-traditional media, such that they are essentially sponsoring the messages, even if by consumers or celebrities, will be responsible as the advertiser for the message.
Attorney Work Product at RiskThe Corporate CounselorA new federal appeals court decision promises to give significant pause to corporate counsel, particularly in-house tax attorneys. To their dismay, the First Circuit has ruled that no amount of anticipation of litigation, nor the intimate involvement of legal counsel, can ever immunize so-called "tax accrual workpapers" from discovery by the IRS.
Other Litigation Newsletters
Patent Strategy & Management Archives
Top Stories
![]() We're sorry. Your computer must be equipped with a browser capable of rendering HTML 4.01 and running JavaScript. In your browser, you must enable JavaScript. In addition, you should enable style sheets.
|
Headlines
Note to SubscribersPatent Strategy & Management ceases publication.
Court-Appointed Experts in Patent Infringement CasesUnder the recent Federal Circuit opinion in MMonolithic Power Systems v. O2 Micro InternationalM, courts are permitted to appoint their own technical experts to aid in understanding complex technology involved in patent suits. Such court-appointed experts may even testify before the jury, raising concerns about undue influence and encroachment on the jury’s decisional role. As discussed in this article, Monolithic appears to have left these concerns somewhat unresolved, creating a likelihood that they will arise again in future patent cases.
Lucent v. GatewayOn Sept. 11, 2009, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Court issued an opinion in the case of Lucent Technologies Inc. et al. v. Gateway Inc. et al. In its ruling, the CAFC found that "the damages evidence of record was neither very powerful, nor presented very well by either party" and that the plaintiff’s damages calculation "lacked sufficient evidentiary support." The CAFC therefore vacated the district court’s award and remanded the case for a new trial on damages.
Why IP Lawyers Should Be Thinking About ReputationChanges in the business environment for law, and IP law in particular, have prompted many IP-based practitioners and executives to seek opportunities that leverage their deep understanding of IP, the process of innovation, and the value of intangible assets. It is therefore both fitting and proper that Patent Strategy & Management feature an article that addresses this search.
The ‘On-Sale’ Bar After PfaffPfaff v. Wells Elecs., Inc. is widely recognized as a milestone in the annals of patent law for providing direction as to how courts are to analyze and apply the statutory "on-sale" bar to the granting of patents. This article explores how the Federal Circuit has applied Pfaff in more recent cases.
Online Exclusive: A Big Day for Bilski and WarsawAs the prognostications of potential outcomes for this case continue over the next several months, it may be wise to recognize that regardless of the outcome, there will always be some degree of uncertainty regarding the limits of patent eligibility. Consequently, the best corporate patent strategies should address and accommodate those uncertainties. While this article describes some of those possible strategies and perspectives, it is far from exhaustive and obviously does not necessarily represent the opinions of its author, his firm, or its clients.
December 2009 Issue in PDF Format
|
| |
