Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%

Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.

Features

IP News Image

IP News

Matt Berkowitz

Highlights of the latest intellectual property news from around the country.

Features

Protection of Fragrances Image

Protection of Fragrances

Olivier Banchereau

The perfume industry is a wealthy and profitable one, generating an ever-increasing turnover worldwide. However, as do all successful industries, it attracts numerous counterfeiters and tempts indelicate competitors to copy successful perfumes. Although perfumes are expensive and sensitive products whose development requires time and sizeable investment, they are, unfortunately, hard to protect against unauthorized copies.

Features

KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc. et al.: Supreme Court Clarifies Obviousness Image

KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc. et al.: Supreme Court Clarifies Obviousness

Matthew W. Siegal & Kevin C. Ecker

Before the Supreme Court's April 30, 2007 decision in <i>KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc. et al.</i>, 127 S.Ct. 1727 (2007) virtually all patent attorneys were on the edge of their seats. The decision was a clear indication that the Supreme Court disfavored the current state of the law that had been developed by the Federal Circuit for determining whether a patent is invalid for obviousness under 35 U.S.C. &sect;103. The Supreme Court pointed to numerous errors in the Federal Circuit decision and characterized as 'rigid,' 'formalistic,' 'narrow,' 'constricted,' and 'flaw[ed]' the Federal Circuit's requirement that there be proof the claimed combination of elements was arrived at due to a teaching, suggestion, or motivation to combine features from prior art references. <i>Id.</i> at 1739, 1741-42. Instead, the Supreme Court imposed a more flexible approach that sought to emphasize its earlier decisions on obviousness over tests the Federal Circuit had developed to apply the law set forth in those decisions.

Microsoft v. AT&T: The Supreme Court Grapples with How to Treat Software under '271(f) of the Patent Act Image

Microsoft v. AT&T: The Supreme Court Grapples with How to Treat Software under '271(f) of the Patent Act

Mark A. Chapman & Matthew E.M. Moersfelder

On April 30, 2007, the Supreme Court handed down its decision in <i>Microsoft Corp. v. AT&amp;T Corp.</i>, No. 05-1056, 127 S. Ct. 1746 (2007). The <i>Microsoft</i> decision addressed the scope of &sect;271(f) of the Patent Act, 35 U.S.C. &sect;271(f), which provides that it is an act of infringement to 'supply' the 'components' of a patented invention from the United States for combination outside the United States.

Features

Movers & Shakers Image

Movers & Shakers

ALM Staff & Law Journal Newsletters

Who's doing what; who's going where.

Features

Verdicts Image

Verdicts

ALM Staff & Law Journal Newsletters

Recent rulings of importance to you and your practice.

Features

Med Mal News Image

Med Mal News

ALM Staff & Law Journal Newsletters

The latest news for your review.

Drug & Device News Image

Drug & Device News

ALM Staff & Law Journal Newsletters

The latest happenings in this all-important area.

July issue in PDF format Image

July issue in PDF format

ALM Staff & Law Journal Newsletters

&#133;

In the Marketplace Image

In the Marketplace

ALM Staff & Law Journal Newsletters

Highlights of the latest equipment leasing news from around the country.

Need Help?

  1. Prefer an IP authenticated environment? Request a transition or call 800-756-8993.
  2. Need other assistance? email Customer Service or call 1-877-256-2472.

MOST POPULAR STORIES

  • Major Differences In UK, U.S. Copyright Laws
    This article highlights how copyright law in the United Kingdom differs from U.S. copyright law, and points out differences that may be crucial to entertainment and media businesses familiar with U.S law that are interested in operating in the United Kingdom or under UK law. The article also briefly addresses contrasts in UK and U.S. trademark law.
    Read More ›
  • Legal Possession: What Does It Mean?
    Possession of real property is a matter of physical fact. Having the right or legal entitlement to possession is not "possession," possession is "the fact of having or holding property in one's power." That power means having physical dominion and control over the property.
    Read More ›
  • The Stranger to the Deed Rule
    In 1987, a unanimous Court of Appeals reaffirmed the vitality of the "stranger to the deed" rule, which holds that if a grantor executes a deed to a grantee purporting to create an easement in a third party, the easement is invalid. Daniello v. Wagner, decided by the Second Department on November 29th, makes it clear that not all grantors (or their lawyers) have received the Court of Appeals' message, suggesting that the rule needs re-examination.
    Read More ›