LJN Newsletters

One of the hot intellectual property topics for 2005 — and perhaps beyond — is whether the sale and use of trademarks as keywords constitutes trademark infringement, and, if so, who is liable for that infringement. How the courts ultimately resolve this issue will affect the billion-dollar Internet advertising industry, those who participate in online advertising and those seeking to prevent the unauthorized use of their trademarks on the Internet. This article discusses Google v. American Blind & Wallpaper Factory, Inc., 2005 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 6228 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 30, 2005), the most recent case to address the emerging issue of "markmatching" in Internet contextual advertising, and its relationship to trademark infringement.

You are the owner of KibbleSoft, the widely used fuzzy-logic retail management software package for pet food distributors. Understanding the value of the KibbleSoft brand, you have registered the trademark and carefully policed against infringers for a number of years. And having early grasped the importance of the Internet for promoting your brand, you were also a step ahead of the cybersquatters and acquired the kibblesoft.com domain in 1996. Much of your business now runs through your heavy-trafficked Web site at www.kibblesoft.com.

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

A means-plus-function limitation recites a function to be performed rather than definite structure or materials for performing that function. Chiuminatta Concrete Concepts, Inc. v. Cardinal Indus., Inc., 145 F.3d 1303, 1307 (Fed. Cir. 1998). Such a limitation is more narrow than a counterpart written in structural format. Lighting World, Inc. v. Birchwood Lighting, Inc., 382 F.3d 1354, 1361-62 (Fed. Cir. 2004). Nevertheless, patent drafters still commonly use means-plus-function limitations in computer-related patent claims for convenience sake.

Highlights of the latest product liability cases from around the country.

When product liability cases are consolidated through Multidistrict Litigation ("MDL") proceedings, the proceedings are rife with complexities, and the obvious temptation for an MDL judge is to streamline and simplify these proceedings as much as possible. MDL judges have many appropriate tools at their disposal, such as case management orders and adoption of uniform discovery requests, to facilitate the proceedings. While certain techniques used to simplify and consolidate are appropriate, application of a "universal law" — in which one substantive law is applied to cases from various jurisdictions — is not. Application of a universal law violates due process and places consolidation and expediency above the interests of justice. Such a dangerous proposition was briefly suggested during the Ephedra MDL proceedings, involving hundreds of cases consolidated for pretrial purposes in the Southern District of New York.

By now, most class action lawyers are familiar with the argument that a court must take a "close look" during the class certification stage in order to ensure that certification is indeed practicable and appropriate. Castano v. American Tobacco Co., 84 F.3d 734, 740 (5th Cir. 1996) (reversing certification decision for failure to assess "how a trial on the merits would be conducted"). This "close look," or "rigorous analysis," is not meant as an opportunity to prejudge the merits of the case, but is instead intended to give the court a realistic sneak preview of what trial of the issues will entail.

During the course of discovery in product liability matters, a key liability theme is often whether the defendant company complied with its regulatory obligations in connection with the product at issue. For example, in product liability litigation concerning chemical compounds, the focus might be on whether the company properly registered the compound with the EPA or with state environmental agencies. Likewise, in a pharmaceutical or medical device product liability case, plaintiffs will often focus on whether the product complied with FDA regulatory requirements. Plaintiffs' approach to such liability issues will often result in depositions that focus on whether, how, and when the defendant company informed the appropriate regulatory agencies of any risks potentially associated with use of the product at issue. Did the company submit the requisite scientific data; did it properly report known adverse events associated with the product at issue, and did it seek appropriate approval from the regulatory agency regarding the nature of its warnings to users and consumers? To that end, plaintiffs will often notice depositions of fact witnesses whom they think can provide testimony on the company's regulatory compliance or they may seek depositions pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 30(B)(6) of witnesses "with knowledge" of the company's regulatory compliance.