Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
Features
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.
Features
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.
Features
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.
Features
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.
Features
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.
Features
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.
Features
This two-part article discusses the proof required for information to be considered a trade secret under U.S. statutory law, and includes detailed insight into the six-factor test outlined in the Restatement of Torts. Part One includes the evolving tests for determining a trade secret.
Features
Today, building brands solely on the promise of a different product or service has become unsustainable. Any “new and improved” feature or benefit is quickly eclipsed by competitors. Consequently, brands signal category superiority not through rational claims, but by reinforcing a distinct persona — a “ness” comprised of distinguishing traits and behaviors that form an ownable brand essence difficult for competitors to replicate.
Features
Part One of a Two-Part ArticleThis 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. It also addresses considerations for petitioners to consider when developing their initial and ongoing invalidity strategies. Part One leads off with a discussion of the evidentiary requirements for proving earlier invention, conception and diligence and actual reduction in practice.
Features
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit recently addressed the usage of the doctrine of collateral estoppel in patent infringement cases. Specifically, the court considered whether a finding of invalidity of claims by the PTAB at an inter partes review could be used to estop a patent holder from asserting patent infringement of different claims of the same patent in district court litigation.