Features

The day you have been waiting for has finally come. The patent application that your company believes covers key technology has issued. Your company may be, for example, a startup with its first marketable product or an established business trying to extend its presence in a niche market or enter into a new one. The patent provides your company the desired protection of the marketplace. There's just one problem. It appears that the scope of the patent may need to be altered to improve your position in the marketplace. For instance, a competitor may have successfully designed around the scope of your patent's claims. In some such instances, there may not be a pending application by which you, the patent owner, can capture the competitor, and post-issuance practice is the only mechanism. So, amending your claims, <i>eg</i>, to read on your competitor's products may seem like a sure way to capture him as an infringer and strengthen your position.

Features

If tsunamis, hurricanes and terrorist strikes have taught us anything, it is that emergency preparedness is vital to minimizing damage and facilitating recovery. Trademark infringement is no different. Trademark infringement preparedness can help lay the groundwork for an effective response by facilitating communication, reducing delay, ensuring comprehensive gathering of key response items, allowing for productive use of human resources, and providing for efficient allocation of monetary resources.

Features

An interesting split in the Circuits has developed over whether costumes are per se copyright ineligible. According to one line of cases, costumes are entitled to copyright protection if the design is unique. Another line of cases, however, seemingly endorsed by Second Circuit dicta, suggests that because the purpose of a costume is to allow its wearer to masquerade, the design of the costume is not conceptually separable from the clothing itself.

Features

Highlights of the latest franchising cases from around the country.

Highlights of the latest franchising cases from around the country.

In an Oct. 25, 2005 decision, a Connecticut District Court denied an insurance company's motion to set aside a $2.3 million verdict on the plaintiff-agent's wrongful termination claim, concluding that company's relationship with its independent sales agent constituted a franchise under the Connecticut Franchise Act, &sect;42-133e <i>et seq.</i> ("CFA").

Features

In August 2005, the New York Bar Association authorized the formation of a subcommittee of the Business Law section to review, analyze, and possibly revise or rewrite the New York Franchise Act of 1980 to better reflect the current franchising landscape. The subcommittee has held several meetings and is soliciting input from all interested parties. In this interview, Thomas M. Pitegoff (White Plains, NY) discusses the initial goals of the subcommittee, its progress to date, and its continued interest in receiving comments from franchisors, franchisees, and their representatives, and others who may be affected by the New York franchise law.

This is the first of a two-part article. This installment discusses the implications of different foreign filing strategies for establishing a priority date under 35 U.S.C. &sect;102(e). Next month's installment will discuss recommendations for foreign applicants filing in the United States and the situation under the European Patent Convention.