Call 855-808-4530 or email GroupSales@alm.com to receive your discount on a new subscription.
In Matal v. Tam, 137 S. Ct. 1744 (2017), the Supreme Court 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 eight justices participating in the case agreed that the prohibition constituted a viewpoint-based government restriction, but they divided evenly on the constitutional significance of that consideration. Whatever the resolution of that division ultimately may be, though, the outcome of the litigation is unlikely to affect the validity of most — but not necessarily all — of the Lanham Act’s other prohibitions on registration.
By Susan M. Gerber and A. Patricia Campbell
Part One of a Two-Part Article
Congress is empowered to create a patent system to promote the useful arts, and it has enacted laws to create a patent system that encourages innovation. Balancing that power, however, the courts in recent years have tried to rein in the scope of the patent right by limiting the scope of patent-eligible subject matter.
By David L. Newman
An IPR might be more efficiently accomplished through arbitration than through a PTAB proceeding, so it should be considered by practitioners.
By Jeff Ginsberg and Hui Li
Obviousness-Type Double Patenting Does Not Invalidate Section 156 Patent Term Extension
Federal Circuit Holds Assignor Estoppel Does Not Apply in IPR Context
Federal Circuit Reverses District Court Holding of Patent Ineligibility of Computer Security Patent
By Marcus Harris and Ryan Burandt
This article discusses recovering damages for trademark infringement and various strategies for establishing those damages.