Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
Many complaints for patent infringement allege that a defendant's conduct is willful, justifying an award of enhanced damages. The <i>Seagate Technology</i> decision substantially increases the difficulty of proving willful infringement. <i>In re Seagate Technology, LLC,</i> 2007 WL 2358677 (Fed. Cir. 2007).
In determining whether competitors' trademarks are confusingly similar, some of the most vexing issues involve comparisons between marks that contain multiple terms or components, and comparisons between multiple marks. A pair of recent decisions by the Federal Circuit and the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board ('TTAB') clarifies how these issues should be approached. In <i>Schering-Plough HealthCare Products, Inc. v. Huang,</i> 2007 TTAB LEXIS 67 (TTAB June 18, 2007), the TTAB synthesized various precedents governing challenges to a trademark application based on combinations of separately registered marks. In <i>China Healthways Institute, Inc. v. Wang,</i> 2007 U.S. App. LEXIS 14815 (Fed. Cir. June 22, 2007), the Federal Circuit clarified the antidissection rule governing marks with multiple components.
The latest change in the rapidly evolving field of patent practice emerged in August 2007, when the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office ('PTO') published its new rules for practice. Covering examination of patent claims and continued examination filings, these rules may be the most fundamental change to patent practice in decades. In particular, they will significantly limit applicants' ability to present patent claims in a single application, and they will in many cases prevent applicants from pursuing additional claims in continued application filings. These rules will generally make the patent process significantly more time-consuming, more complicated, and, as a result, more expensive.
News about lawyers and law firms in the franchising industry.
Highlights of the latest franchising news from around the country.
Features
Highlights of the latest franchising cases from around the country.
Features
A 'consumer protection' bill that would bar as invalid and unenforceable mandatory arbitration provisions relating to, among other things, franchise disputes is presently referred to the Senate's Judiciary Committee and the House of Representatives' Committee on the Judiciary and its Subcommittee on Commerce and Administrative Law. If passed by Congress, the Arbitration Fairness Act of 2007 ('AFA') (S. 1782 and H.R. 3010) introduced by sponsors, Sen. Russ Feingold (D-WI) and U.S. Rep. Hank Johnson (D-GA), would significantly, in both the eyes of franchisors and their franchisees, amend the Federal Arbitration Act, 9 U.S.C. '1, <i>et seq.</i> ('FAA') to not only invalidate mandatory arbitration provisions in the context of franchise disputes, but also for consumer and employment disputes as well.
Features
Franchisors often seek injunctions to enforce non-competition and other covenants contained in their franchise agreements, sometimes during but most often after the end of the franchise relationship. A common example is an injunction to enforce a covenant in which the franchisee contracts to not compete in a similar business for a specified period of time and within a specified geographic area. If successful, the moving party-franchisor is granted an injunction forcing the former franchisee to abide by its contractual obligations for the specified time period. Given the time it generally takes to reach trial, the non-competition clause often will expire before the trial occurs. As such, a successful interlocutory injunction motion often will finally decide the issues for the franchisor, rendering the trial moot. Given this reality, parties frequently settle after a successful interlocutory injunction, or the case may be abandoned after an unsuccessful one.