Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%
Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
Into the Dark: Patent Trend Post America Invents Act and <i>Alice</i>
Ah, the good old days. When the America Invents Act (AIA; http://1.usa.gov/19AoMZ2) was being pushed through Congress in 2011, proponents of the proposed changes expounded on the virtues of a system that mirrored the patent practices of the majority of the industrialized world. The switch to a “first to file” system, the introduction of more robust U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) methodologies for challenging the validity of issued patents, and the changes to the fundamental statues governing novelty and obviousness were all supposed to provide an enhanced degree of certainty for businesses in their patent portfolio. Instead, the unforeseen consequences of both the AIA and the seminal 2014 Supreme Court decision in Alice v. CLS Bank (Alice), 573 U.S. ___, 134 S. Ct. 2347 (2014), have created a hostile environment for patent portfolios, which has negative implications for investment in innovation and startups.
It is axiomatic in commerce that money will follow opportunity, which is evidenced by the expanding use of the inter partes review process that was introduced in the AIA. Originally, the IPR process under the AIA was introduced to establish a faster and less expensive way to confirm the validity of a patent. It was anticipated that IPRs would be used to help eliminate weak patents that were being asserted by patent challengers, including the much maligned non-practicing entities (“patent trolls”). Those who challenge on the basis of a patent of uncertain scope would rather assume the risk of losing in a timely and efficient USPTO administrative proceeding, than to face losing in a federal court after spending a small fortune.
IPR Filings Climb
This premium content is locked for Entertainment Law & Finance subscribers only
ENJOY UNLIMITED ACCESS TO THE SINGLE SOURCE OF OBJECTIVE LEGAL ANALYSIS, PRACTICAL INSIGHTS, AND NEWS IN ENTERTAINMENT LAW.
- Stay current on the latest information, rulings, regulations, and trends
- Includes practical, must-have information on copyrights, royalties, AI, and more
- Tap into expert guidance from top entertainment lawyers and experts
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
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.