A Recent Decision by the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York Involving Twitter May Have Significant Implications for Online Publications
The exponential growth of social media, and the inevitable conflicts that result, is leading to more and more litigation. In many instances, courts are being asked to apply laws crafted before the Internet era to these modern disputes.
Much has been written about what will happen to EU-wide IP rights after Brexit — and whether, and how, the protection given by those rights will be maintained in the UK. Finally, we have some clarity about what is going to happen.
Federal Circuit Affirms Dismissal of Declaratory-Judgment Action Based Under Rule Against Piecemeal Adjudication
Federal Circuit Affirms Non-Infringement Finding Despite Defendant's Discovery Violation
It's not uncommon for rights licensees in the entertainment industry to find themselves in a rights dispute when a licensor files for bankruptcy.
Only a small fraction of television news broadcasts are made available online. For a party to monitor and view all news coverage of an event, it would essentially have to watch and record all news broadcasts 24/7. That's exactly what media-monitoring service TVEyes did. There was no dispute that TVEyes had copied Fox News's content. Instead, the issue was whether TVEyes's service constituted fair use.
The First Circuit Widens the Controversy
In In re Tempnology, the First Circuit held that the debtor's rejection of a trademark license strips the nondebtor licensee of any right to continue to use the trademarks. In so doing, the court takes the same approach as the Fourth Circuit and rejects the approaches advocated by the Third and Seventh Circuits.
Exmark Manufacturing Company Inc. v. Briggs & Stratton Power Products Group, LLC
The rate of the reasonable royalty awarded to a successful patent plaintiff must be based on the facts of the case. A damages expert cannot merely pay lip service to the Georgia-Pacific factors and then “pluck” a royalty rate from thin air.
Trade secret protection applies only to confidential information. In almost all circumstances, broadcasting to the world the intricate details and applications of a trade secret extinguishes whatever “property right” an entertainment industry holder once possessed. What is a sufficient method of contractually notifying a software user of the trade secret status of certain information is a closer question.
Claim Preclusion Requires Analysis that Claims in Newly Asserted Patents are Patently Indistinct from Claims in Previously Adjudicated Patents
Claim Elements Taught by Prior Art for Purposes of Novelty and Obviousness are not Necessarily 'Well-Understood, Routine, and Conventional' Under §101
According to a recent case from the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York involving live-event ticket sales, a purported holder of a trade secret cannot omit a confidentiality provision from its terms of use and then claim trade secret status afterward.
