Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%
Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
Assessing the Obviousness of Inventions
Organizations should evaluate their innovation processes in light of the evolving meaning of obviousness. In KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 127 S.Ct. 1727 (April 30, 2007), the Supreme Court changed the obviousness standard. The new standard weakens patents and makes obtaining patent protection more challenging. Organizations can anticipate the need for rebuttal evidence and proactively capture evidence of unpredictability as innovations progress from concept to commercialization. To show non-obviousness, such evidence, or the lack thereof, can be used to decide whether to apply for a patent or maintain the potentially patentable technology as a trade secret, and, also, whether to continue development efforts or redirect investments to alternative ideas. Organizations that use an innovation process to capture evidence of unpredictability can preserve the strongest evidence of non-obviousness and, as a result, increase certainty in business decisions and, ultimately, profits.
Obviousness Analysis
Obviousness analysis consists of a framework, a test, and rebuttal evidence. A patent claim is analyzed according to the framework and the test to make a preliminary determination of obviousness. The preliminary determination can be rebutted with objective evidence of non-obviousness. KSR changed the test that had been known and applied for more than 40 years.
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.