Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
Features
On its own initiative in a pending appeal, the Federal Circuit has ordered supplemental briefing concerning the patentability of process claims and the Federal Circuit's 1998 decision in <i>State Street Bank & Trust Co. v. Signature Financial Group, Inc.</i>, which eliminated the 'business method exception' to patentable subject matter.
Registered Trademark Owner's Remedies Not Limited By Types of Goods<br>Domain Name with 'e' before Famous Mark Is Dilution<br>Failure to Produce Written Copyright Transfer Does Not Prevent Standing<br>Electing Statutory Damages For Counterfeit Mark Use Precludes Some Fees
Features
Do Internet postings constitute 'printed publications' that are available as prior art under 35 U.S.C. §102(b)? Most practitioners and examiners behave as though this were a settled question. It is not. The Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit recently addressed this issue in <i>SRI International v. Internet Security Systems and Symantec</i>,. After much discussion of the principle of 'public accessibility,' the majority of the panel determined that there was a genuine issue of material fact as to whether a paper that SRI posted on its Internet server was a printed publication.
Features
In <i>Boston Duck Tours, LP v. Super Duck Tours, LLC</i>, the District Court of Massachusetts ruled that sponsored linking qualifies as 'use in commerce' for purposes of trademark infringement under the Lanham Act. Although the court ultimately found no likely consumer confusion in this case, in holding that sponsored linking falls within the purview of the Lanham Act, the court joins a growing number of circuits and districts that have failed to take a cue from well-settled, and clearly analogous, offline-trademark principles. Rather, these courts seem inexplicably intent on reinventing the wheel and expanding the scope of Lanham Act protection to include Web-based activities that are virtually imperceptible to consumers.
Features
Will you be able to secure evidence that could clear your client when it is located outside the reach of U.S. courts? It's a salient question for today's e-commerce counsel. The defense of white-collar crime increasingly involves the need to obtain evidence from witnesses located abroad. Without careful planning, exculpatory evidence may remain beyond the reach of a defendant for whom such evidence is the only thing standing between him or her, and a prison sentence.
This article examines three Federal Circuit rulings that have set important new guidelines for which kinds of licensees will have independent standing to sue infringers, which will be compelled to join their patentees, and which will be left out in the cold.
Features
Bullies used to be fairly easy to identify: Bigger than most of us, intimidating and often vicious. While bullies haven't disappeared, they have become more difficult to detect, launching scathing attacks behind the relative anonymity of the Internet. Such acts, known as cyberbullying, are becoming easier to carry out with text-messaging, blogs and interaction through social-networking sites. And they're a growing concern not only for the victims, who can be targeted round-the-clock, but also for educators, parents and lawyers.
In the two courts (the Northern District of California and the Southern District of Texas) that have substantially revised (N.D.Ca.) or adopted (S.D.Tex.) local patent rules effective in 2008, one has opted for an early approach to <i>Markman v. Westview</i> (N.D.Ca.) and the other (S.D.Tex.) has left it largely to the discretion of individual judges. This recent contrast highlights the continuing differences of opinion as to the best approach to <i>Markman</i> hearings and their timing.
Features
Highlights of the latest equipment leasing news from around the country.
Imagine you are an equipment manufacturer. You sell $45 million in goods to a reliable customer on credit, shipping them to a third-party warehouse to be held for the customer to pick up when needed. Months later, unable to pay and sliding toward bankruptcy, the customer returns the unused equipment. The next thing you know, the customer, having filed for bankruptcy, sues YOU to recover not only the $45 million value of the returned equipment, but also an additional $55 million in cash payments the customer had made.
