Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
In a case that should serve as a warning to firms with active intellectual property development programs and that have, or aspire to have, the federal government as a customer, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit recently ruled that a government contractor that failed to properly disclose an invention developed pursuant to a government contract forfeited title and all rights to the invention and its related patent. See Campbell Plastics Eng'g & Mfg., Inc. v. Brownlee, No. 03-1512, 2004 U.S. App. LEXIS 23502 (Fed. Cir. Nov. 10, 2004). The case demonstrated the government's willingness to seek, and ability to obtain, the particularly harsh remedy of forfeiture.
Although the Federal Circuit's decision in Campbell Plastics addresses the issue of patentable inventions, it also highlights the need to follow the government contract requirements related to technical data and computer software (regardless of whether the data or software is patented or patentable). The Federal Acquisition Regulation (“FAR”) contains specific provisions describing what a company must do to protect its IP rights. The Campbell Plastics decision highlights that if a company fails to comply strictly with the FAR requirements, it risks surrendering substantial IP rights to the government. These IP rights go beyond the context of patentable inventions. For example, the FAR contains provisions covering software even if not patented or patentable. While this article focuses on the Campbell decision and its interpretation of the FAR Patent Rights clause, it is important to note that a government contractor is exposed to IP risk beyond that set forth in this particular context.
ENJOY UNLIMITED ACCESS TO THE SINGLE SOURCE OF OBJECTIVE LEGAL ANALYSIS, PRACTICAL INSIGHTS, AND NEWS IN ENTERTAINMENT LAW.
Already a have an account? Sign In Now Log In Now
For enterprise-wide or corporate acess, please contact Customer Service at [email protected] or 877-256-2473
The Article 8 opt-in election adds an additional layer of complexity to the already labyrinthine rules governing perfection of security interests under the UCC. A lender that is unaware of the nuances created by the opt in (may find its security interest vulnerable to being primed by another party that has taken steps to perfect in a superior manner under the circumstances.
There's current litigation in the ongoing Beach Boys litigation saga. A lawsuit filed in 2019 against Nevada residents Mike Love and his wife Jacquelyne in the U.S. District Court for the District of Nevada that alleges inaccurate payment by the Loves under the retainer agreement and seeks $84.5 million in damages.
This article highlights how copyright law in the United Kingdom differs from U.S. copyright law, and points out differences that may be crucial to entertainment and media businesses familiar with U.S law that are interested in operating in the United Kingdom or under UK law. The article also briefly addresses contrasts in UK and U.S. trademark law.
With each successive large-scale cyber attack, it is slowly becoming clear that ransomware attacks are targeting the critical infrastructure of the most powerful country on the planet. Understanding the strategy, and tactics of our opponents, as well as the strategy and the tactics we implement as a response are vital to victory.
The real property transfer tax does not apply to all leases, and understanding the tax rules of the applicable jurisdiction can allow parties to plan ahead to avoid unnecessary tax liability.