Intellectual Property

Military-owned businesses often possess unique technological advantages derived from years of research, development, and practical application. One veteran-owned company’s journey — combined with a patent attorney’s experience preparing and filing patent applications — provides valuable insight into what veterans should do to safeguard their intellectual property.

In a recent decision, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit addressed application and analysis of the fair use doctrine under copyright law, and reversed the district court’s finding of fair use. In an unusual situation, the lower court had dismissed the complaint sua sponte, although the defendant’s time to respond to the complaint had expired.

Only a few district courts have addressed the failure to mark in recent years — but they’ve reached directly opposing conclusions. This article analyzes the conflicting authorities and their reasoning, and it provides guidance to litigants on best practices given the conflict between district courts.

On April 8, a California jury found that R.C. Bigelow, Inc., the well-known manufacturer of Bigelow teas, intentionally or recklessly misled consumers by claiming that some of its teabags were “Manufactured in the USA.” The price for this mislabeling was steep, with the jury awarding the class action plaintiffs $2.36 million.

In copyright litigation, an infringement defendant may claim fair use as an affirmative defense. But the Second Circuit recently ruled that a district court, on its own initiative, could raise a fair use defense for a defendant that hadn’t appeared in the case.

This two-part article discusses the requirements for information to be considered a trade secret under U.S. law, focusing on courts’ continued use of the six-factor test outlined in the Restatement of Torts. Part One covered the evolving tests for establishing a trade secret, while Part Two examines the compatibility of those tests and potential considerations for litigators and legislators.

In recent decisions, the Federal Circuit affirmed the inherent powers of district courts to investigate and address potential party misconduct in patent litigations, including suspected fraud and bad faith conduct. This article delves into these key cases that upheld district courts’ policing by standing orders or sanctions and underscore the importance of transparency and proper conduct in patent litigation.

This two-part article discusses the various legal and evidentiary requirements for antedating and removing prior art that patent owners should consider when their pre-AIA patents are challenged based on a prior art publication or activity that is not otherwise subject to a statutory bar. Part One led off with a discussion of the legal requirements for antedating prior art by establishing an earlier invention via: 1) conception and diligent reduction to practice; and 2) actual reduction to practice. Part Two discusses the legal requirements for removing prior art that discloses an inventor’s own work and the evidentiary requirements for swearing behind prior art.