Call 855-808-4530 or email GroupSales@alm.com to receive your discount on a new subscription.
When thinking about intellectual property (IP), most people likely think about patents, trademarks and copyrights. In the most simplistic terms: patents protect novel and non-obvious inventions; trademarks protect a business’ brand names and logos; and copyrights protect tangible, fixed works of creative expression. Trade secrets are also increasingly being recognized as the fourth main pillar of IP and can run the gamut from things like customer lists and pricing, to inventions that may or may not be patentable. Every business has some or all of these forms of IP, but what about lesser known forms of IP such as “trade dress”? Trade dress is a kind of trademark that protects the overall look and design of products and packaging. Many (if not most) product companies and retail establishments have protectable trade dress, although not all companies recognize that they have it (and therefore don’t protect it!).
*May exclude premium content
By Brandon Leahy
The foundational requirement that a trademark function as a trademark has received little attention in the case law. More recently, however, there has been an apparent uptick in scrutiny of trademark use by the USPTO and TTAB, as well as fresh academic attention paid to the issue.
By Stan Soocher
This article is Part One of a two-part article
This article examines the Copyright Directive and music-industry structure issues through the lens of Sweden, which has both a robust music business and a strong technology sector, two divergent perspectives in the development of the directive.
By Jeff Ginsberg
Northern District of Texas: Even Post-Berkheimer, Patent Claims Continue to be Ineligible for Patenting as a Matter of Law When They Are Not Drawn to Particular Technical Solutions or Advances Described in the Specification
Federal Circuit: The PTAB Cannot Institute Inter Partes Review on Obviousness Grounds Not Included in the IPR Petition, But Can Consider Evidence of “General Knowledge” in the Art
By Jonathan Moskin
In 2013, the PTO adopted a new policy under which any party commencing a de novo proceeding challenging a PTO decision would be responsible to pay a pro rata share of the salaries of the government attorneys working on the matter. On Dec. 11, 2019, the U.S. Supreme Court rejected the PTO’s new interpretation of the Patent Act and held that the American Rule, a centuries-old principle under which each party bears its own attorneys’ fees, does apply to this statute.