Account

Sign in to access your account and subscription

Patent Licensing and Transactions

  • A look at several unique trademark cases where the plaintiff fashion brand proactively sought to invalidate a competitor's non-traditional trademarks, an action which reflects a push back on increasingly aggressive litigation tactics by fashion brands seeking to blur the lines between a non-protectable fashion trend and a protectable trademark.

    October 01, 2018Olivera Medenica
  • Advances in UI Design Can Provide Key Competitive Differentiation and Advantage, Which Makes Protecting Them Critically Important from a Business Perspective

    Advances in UI design can also provide key competitive differentiation and advantage, helping to distinguish otherwise commoditized products and services such as computers, Web services, wearables, and appliances. Given this advantage, protecting advances in UI design can also be critically important from a business perspective.

    September 01, 2018Lawrence H. Aaronson and James L. Korenchan
  • The U.S. Supreme Court recently held that a patent owner may recover lost foreign profits for infringement under 35 U.S.C. §271(f)(2). The holding in WesternGeco LLC v. ION Geophysical rejects the Federal Circuit's categorical exclusion of lost profits damages for foreign sales, and expands the potential for increased damages from domestic competitors operating in foreign markets.

    August 01, 2018Elizabeth B. Hagan
  • In a 5-4 decision, with four justices dissenting, the U.S. Supreme Court struck down the Patent Trial and Appeal Board's practice of instituting review on only a subset of an inter partes review (IPR) petitioner's validity challenges.

    June 01, 2018Richard Hung and Rachel Silverman Dolphin
  • Oil States Energy Services v. Greene's Energy Group

    Is inter partes review of a patent grant compatible with Article III and the Seventh Amendment? That was the question presented in Oil States Energy Services v. Greene's Energy Group and the U.S. Supreme Court answered in the affirmative.

    June 01, 2018Athul K. Acharya
  • Exmark Manufacturing Company Inc. v. Briggs & Stratton Power Products Group, LLC

    The rate of the reasonable royalty awarded to a successful patent plaintiff must be based on the facts of the case. A damages expert cannot merely pay lip service to the Georgia-Pacific factors and then “pluck” a royalty rate from thin air.

    April 01, 2018Matthew Siegal
  • Claim Preclusion Requires Analysis that Claims in Newly Asserted Patents are Patently Indistinct from Claims in Previously Adjudicated Patents
    Claim Elements Taught by Prior Art for Purposes of Novelty and Obviousness are not Necessarily 'Well-Understood, Routine, and Conventional' Under §101

    April 01, 2018Howard Shire and Michael Block
  • On Jan. 8, 2018, the Federal Circuit issued its significant en banc decision in Wi-Fi One, LLC v. Broadcom. In that decision, the Federal Circuit held that the time-bar of 35 U.S.C. §315(b) is reviewable on appeal, thus overturning a prior panel decision and opening the door for parties to challenge how the USPTO has interpreted and applied that statutory provision.

    February 01, 2018Jon E. Wright and Pauline M. Pelletier
  • The tech-heavy entertainment industry is an active field for tech startup companies developing potential patents and trade secrets. But many cash conscious startups are forced to initially neglect protection planning for these intellectual property assets, instead allocating scarce resources to set up and initial operation costs. This article suggests some practical and economical steps for startups, especially those with tight finances, to protect what may become valuable patents and trade secrets.

    February 01, 2018Dr. Dariush Adli