Call 855-808-4530 or email GroupSales@alm.com to receive your discount on a new subscription.
What should you do when you become aware of the existence of a third party patent that claims subject matter possibly related to your company’s product? If you take no action to timely investigate the patent, and the product is subsequently held to infringe the patent at trial, the company may be at risk of a court finding that the infringement was willful and assessing enhanced damages. To mitigate this risk, “the law of willful infringement … requires prudent, ethical, legal and commercial actions” on which basis “a prudent person would have had sound reason to believe that the patent was not infringed or was invalid or unenforceable, and would be so held if litigated.” SIR International, Inc. v. Advanced Technology Laboratories, Inc., 127 F.3d 1462 (Fed. Cir. 1997).
By Scott D. Locke
The recent In Re Rembrandt Technologies decision is a reminder of both the potential consequence of a patent holder’s disingenuous assertion of unintentionality and the challenges that defendants face when raising the improper filing of a petition to revive a lapsed patent as a defense.
By Robert W. Clarida and Robert J. Bernstein
Recently, the Southern District of New York resolved a question that neither the Southern District nor the Second Circuit had ever squarely faced: Can the lawful owner of an art object create and post a photograph of that object in connection with the sale of the object through an online platform such as eBay, without the permission of the owner of copyright in the object?
By Olivera Medenica
A look at several unique trademark cases where the plaintiff fashion brand proactively sought to invalidate a competitor’s non-traditional trademarks, an action which reflects a push back on increasingly aggressive litigation tactics by fashion brands seeking to blur the lines between a non-protectable fashion trend and a protectable trademark.
By Scott Graham
The USPTO announced revisions to PTAB procedures that formalize Andrei Iancu’s control over the 250 administrative patent judges and their policy-making, while making that control more transparent.