Call 855-808-4530 or email GroupSales@alm.com to receive your discount on a new subscription.
The U.S. Supreme Court’s May 22, 2017, decision in TC Heartland LLC v. Kraft Foods Group Brands LLC, 137 S.Ct. 1514 has dramatically impacted the demographics of patent infringement lawsuits in the United States. Since the TC Heartland decision, the patent bar has observed a major shift in where plaintiffs choose to file new patent cases. Far fewer patent lawsuits have been filed in the Eastern District of Texas while far more have been filed in venues like the District of Delaware and the Northern District of California. This article examines the impact of TC Heartland with a focus on recent Federal Circuit decisions applying TC Heartland and further clarifying the scope of where patent cases may be filed.
By David S. Gold
Branding is not a new concept, nor are the various intellectual property laws that protect brands. What is new to most is how this burgeoning industry can take advantage of those laws within the context of state and federal restrictions.
By Tom Gushue
The owner of a commercially successful patent may have competing desires. On one hand, the patent owner wants to protect the patent and secure its maximum benefit; on the other hand, the patent owner wants to avoid enforcement litigation with competitors because it is expensive and puts the patent at risk.
By Glenn E.J. Murphy
Many observers greeted the passage of the AIA into law as a long-overdue overhaul of U.S. patent law that aligned it with patent systems prevailing in the rest of the world. Who knew what mischief just seven of the AIA’s more than 25,000 words contained? The U.S. Supreme Court answered earlier this year.
By Norman C. Simon and Patrick J. Campbell
The decision in Romag Fasteners v. Fossil will bring welcome uniformity, ending the status quo where eligibility to recover profits under the Lanham Act depends on which court is deciding the dispute