Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%
Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
Web-based Patent Marking: A Better Mousetrap
Correcting an inefficient paradigm can sometimes result in significant innovation. There is an opportunity to create such innovation within the world of Intellectual Property (“IP”) by changing the method by which patented products are “marked.” Traditionally considered to be an issue associated primarily with the quantification of damages in patent enforcement litigations, modifying the patent statute to allow for patent marking via the Web could potentially result in a significant, long-lasting, positive change within the world of IP that extends far beyond the quantification of patent damages.
What Is Patent Marking?
The current U.S. patent marking and notice statute, 35 U.S.C. '287(a), states that a patent holder can mark a patented product with the word “patent” (or the abbreviation “pat.”) together with the relevant patent number(s). The reason for such patent marking is to provide “notice” to potential infringers that the product is covered by the specific patents listed. Further, because a potential infringer cannot be found liable for damages until proper notice of the infringement has been given, should a patent owner not mark its patented product, it can only recover damages for any infringement that takes place after the patent owner has given actual notice to the infringer. In the absence of a physical marking, notice is typically given by sending a letter or filing a lawsuit. Therefore, to the extent the alleged infringer makes, uses, sells, or offers infringing product(s) before the patent owner physically marks its product, sends a letter, or files a lawsuit, the infringer cannot be found liable for damages for any infringing products prior to it receiving proper notice. This marking requirement can result in a significant reduction in the amount of monetary relief that the plaintiff is allowed to collect and often plays a significant role in the settlement of patent enforcement litigations.
Major Differences In UK, U.S. Copyright Laws
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.
The Article 8 Opt In
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.
Strategy vs. Tactics: Two Sides of a Difficult Coin
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.
Legal Possession: What Does It Mean?
Possession of real property is a matter of physical fact. Having the right or legal entitlement to possession is not "possession," possession is "the fact of having or holding property in one's power." That power means having physical dominion and control over the property.
The Stranger to the Deed Rule
In 1987, a unanimous Court of Appeals reaffirmed the vitality of the "stranger to the deed" rule, which holds that if a grantor executes a deed to a grantee purporting to create an easement in a third party, the easement is invalid. Daniello v. Wagner, decided by the Second Department on November 29th, makes it clear that not all grantors (or their lawyers) have received the Court of Appeals' message, suggesting that the rule needs re-examination.