Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
<i>Pfaff v. Wells Elecs., Inc.</i> is widely recognized as a milestone in the annals of patent law for providing direction as to how courts are to analyze and apply the statutory "on-sale" bar to the granting of patents. This article explores how the Federal Circuit has applied Pfaff in more recent cases.
Features
Changes in the business environment for law, and IP law in particular, have prompted many IP-based practitioners and executives to seek opportunities that leverage their deep understanding of IP, the process of innovation, and the value of intangible assets. It is therefore both fitting and proper that <i>Patent Strategy & Management</i> feature an article that addresses this search.
Features
On Sept. 11, 2009, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Court issued an opinion in the case of <i>Lucent Technologies Inc. et al. v. Gateway Inc. et al.</i> In its ruling, the CAFC found that "the damages evidence of record was neither very powerful, nor presented very well by either party" and that the plaintiff's damages calculation "lacked sufficient evidentiary support." The CAFC therefore vacated the district court's award and remanded the case for a new trial on damages.
Under the recent Federal Circuit opinion in M<i>Monolithic Power Systems v. O2 Micro InternationalM</i>, courts are permitted to appoint their own technical experts to aid in understanding complex technology involved in patent suits. Such court-appointed experts may even testify before the jury, raising concerns about undue influence and encroachment on the jury's decisional role. As discussed in this article, Monolithic appears to have left these concerns somewhat unresolved, creating a likelihood that they will arise again in future patent cases.
Highlights of the latest intellectual property news from around the country.
Anti-assignment clauses are typically inserted into license agreements to preclude the introduction of an unwanted third party into the parties' relationship, giving the licensor more control over its valuable property and with whom it ultimately does business. In the context of software licenses, ordinarily a court will apply state law to contractual disputes, but federal law pre-empts state law concerning questions of copyright law or policy, which include the assignability of non-exclusive agreements.
Features
So is a tweet on the Twitter networking site protected by copyright law? The question is complex and without a definitive answer. The prevailing opinion is no, but with some possible exceptions.
Features
On Nov. 9, 2009, the Supreme Court heard oral argument in <i>In re Bilski</i> ' a case that will likely impact whether business methods are eligible for patent protection under 35 U.S.C. ' 101. To date, the Supreme Court has held that abstract ideas, natural phenomena, and laws of nature are not patent eligible, but has yet to apply that holding to a business method.
Highlights of the latest insurance cases from around the country.
