Federal Circuit Throws Out District Court's Test for “Place of Business” for Purposes of Determining Venue in Patent Cases
- October 02, 2017Howard J. Shire
Intellectual property battles in technology, including in the entertainment industry, are nothing new, but their nature might be shifting. These days, many of the big IP litigation battles have nothing to do with patents, trademarks or copyrights. Instead, it's all about trade secrets.
September 02, 2017Zach WarrenStrategies to Defend Against Patent Claims by Raising Lack of Patentable Subject Matter in District Court Litigation
With the Supreme Court's decision in Alice, parties defending against a claim of patent infringement gained a potential way to find an early resolution to patent litigation.
September 02, 2017Louis L. Touton, Steven J. Corr and Nickou OskouiThe Library of Congress' Copyright Royalty Board, the panel of three judges who set copyright royalty rates and settle related disputes, announced the launch of an electronic filing and case management system in an effort to streamline its manual and cumbersome case management processes.
September 02, 2017Rhys DipshanThe Lessons of History
In the context of a copyright case, a defendant's prior bad acts and prior conduct are more useful to a plaintiff than is typical in civil litigation.
September 02, 2017Nicholas J. Boyle and Richard A. OldermanFed. Cir. Vacates Lack of Written Description Ruling In Interference
Federal Circuit Vacates Unclear Application of “Causal Nexus” Requirement to Prove Irreparable HarmSeptember 02, 2017Jeff Ginsberg and Dorothy LeRayIn Matal v. Tam, the trademark case involving the name of the Asian-American rock band The Slants, the SCOTUS held that the portion of §2(a) of the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. §1052(a), that prohibits the federal registration of potentially disparaging trademarks and service marks, violated the Free Speech Clause of the First Amendment.
August 01, 2017Theodore H. Davis Jr. and Samuel T. KilbIn Matal v. Tam, the SCOTUS held that a portion of Section 2(a) of the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. §1052(a), prohibiting the federal registration of potentially disparaging trademarks and service marks, violated the Free Speech Clause of the First Amendment.
August 01, 2017Theodore H. Davis Jr. and Samuel T. KilbThe Supreme Court sparked a seismic shift in patent litigation recently when it upset the long-standing interpretation of 28 U.S.C. §1400(b), the special patent venue statute. TC Heartland held that for the purposes of patent venue, the meaning of "resides" in Section 1400(b) is not supplemented by the broad definition of "resides" in the general venue provision, 28 U.S.C. §1391.
August 01, 2017J. Alexander LawrenceThe Third Circuit has adopted McCarthy's "ownership" test in determining whether a manufacturer or distributor owns a trademark in the absence of an express agreement between the parties.
August 01, 2017Kyle-Beth Hilfer







