Features
Mark W. Page
<b><i>The First Circuit Widens the Controversy</b></i><p>In <i>In re Tempnology</i>, 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.
Features
Matthew Siegal
<b><i>Exmark Manufacturing Company Inc. v. Briggs & Stratton Power Products Group, LLC</b></i><p>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 <i>Georgia-Pacific</i> factors and then “pluck” a royalty rate from thin air.
Features
Richard Raysman
&
Peter Brown
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.
Columns & Departments
Howard Shire
&
Michael Block
Claim Preclusion Requires Analysis that Claims in Newly Asserted Patents are Patently Indistinct from Claims in Previously Adjudicated Patents<br>Claim Elements Taught by Prior Art for Purposes of Novelty and Obviousness are not Necessarily 'Well-Understood, Routine, and Conventional' Under §101
Features
Richard Raysman
&
Peter Brown
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.
Features
Morgan Chu
&
Dominik Slusarczyk
The U.S. Supreme Court recently agreed to consider whether a patentee may recover foreign lost profits resulting from infringement of a United States patent.
Features
Matthew Siegal
<i><b>Finjan, Inc. v. Blue Coat Sys., Inc.</b></i><p>The Federal Circuit ruled that basing a reasonable royalty calculation on the “smallest salable unit” does not obviate the need to apportion damages to the patented contribution within that unit.
Features
Ross Todd
The details might not be quite as dramatic as they were in <i>Waymo v. Uber</i>, but lawyers expect trade secrets to continue to be a fertile source for litigation.
Columns & Departments
Jeff Ginsberg
&
David Cooperberg
Federal Circuit Vacates Noninfringement Decision Finding a Genuine Dispute as to Divided Infringement<br>Patent Trial and Appeal Board Holds Sovereign Immunity No Defense to IPR Petition Brought by Accused Infringer
Features
Jon E. Wright
&
Pauline M. Pelletier
On Jan. 8, 2018, the Federal Circuit issued its significant <i>en banc</i> decision in <i>Wi-Fi One, LLC v. Broadcom.</i> In that decision, the Federal Circuit held that the time-bar of 35 U.S.C. §315(b) is reviewable on appeal, thus overturning a prior panel decision and opening the door for parties to challenge how the USPTO has interpreted and applied that statutory provision.
