In a case of first impression under New Jersey law, an appeals court has held that Internet subscribers have a reasonable expectation of privacy, allowing a challenge to a subpoena that led to an indictment for computer-related theft.

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

Last summer, the Third Circuit Court of Appeals in <i>Jean Alexander Cosmetics, Inc. v. L'Oreal USA, Inc.</i>, 458 F.3d 244 (3rd Cir. 2006), joined a majority of the courts of appeal in holding that it would give full preclusive effect to any of the alternative holdings of a prior adjudication. In so doing, the court further highlighted the necessity of thinking both offensively and defensively at the earliest stages of a trademark dispute, including during proceedings before the Trademark Trial and Appeals Board ('TTAB').

Features

The recent decision, <i>Fuji Kogyo Co. v. Pacific Bay Int'l, Inc.</i>, 461 F.3d 675 (6th Cir. 2006), confronts the question deliberately left unresolved in <i>TrafFix Devices, Inc. v. Marketing Displays, Inc.</i>, 532 U.S. 23 (2001), of whether a product design claimed in a prior utility patent can ever be protectable trade dress under the Lanham Act. Although setting a high bar to protectability, indeed a 'presumption' and 'heavy burden' that material claimed in a utility patent is functional and hence unprotectable once the patent term ends, the Supreme Court, of course, expressly elected not to foreclose such protection entirely. Thus, it refused the invitation of defendant TrafFix, and 'some of its amici,' to rule that 'the Patent Clause of the Constitution, Art. I '8, cl. 8, of its own force, prohibits the holder of an expired utility patent from claiming trade dress protection.' 532 U.S. at 35. Without itself addressing the constitutional question of how narrowly 'limited times' means 'limited times,' <i>Fuji Kogyo</i> does nothing to ease the burden in establishing trade dress protection for once-patented subject matter; it offers as well a new (if, perhaps, less than fully developed) analytical approach for applying the <i>TrafFix</i> presumption, asking whether the claimed trade dress would have infringed the expired patents.

Features

Whether calculating lost profits or performing a 'reasonable royalty' analysis under the <i>Georgia-Pacific</i> factors, a damages expert in a patent case is required to consider a large variety of data ' not just data from the plaintiff or the defendant, but also data from third-party sources, such as trade industry publications or market analyst reports. The admissibility of an opinion based on third-party information, however, has been a source of conflict since 1993, when the U.S. Supreme Court decided <i>Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharms., Inc.</i>

Highlights of the latest franchising news from around the country.

Features

Highlights of the latest franchising cases from around the country.

The enforceability of franchise arbitration agreements took center stage in the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals en banc decision in <i>Nagrampa v. Mailcoups, Inc., American Arbitration Ass'n.</i> (2006) __ F.3d __, 2006 WL 3478345 ('<i>Nagrampa II</i>'). In a 7-4 ruling reversing the decision of the three-judge panel upholding arbitration ('<i>Nagrampa I</i>,' 401 F.3d 1024), the <i>Nagrampa II</i> court struck down the arbitration clause under California principles of unconscionability. Along the way, the court made significant holdings and observations that should garner the attention of franchise practitioners on both sides of the aisle.