Interpreting Patent Claims: Patent Drafters Say What They Mean, But Do They Mean What They Say?
August 09, 2004
What exactly does it mean to interpret claims "in light" of the specification? Do the descriptions and examples in a patent specification affect the interpretation of the patent's claims where there is no express statement that a specialized definition is being given to claim terms? Absent a specific glossary section, is it even necessary to read the specification or should the public be free to read and interpret the claims in a vacuum? Within 4 days, two separate panels of the Federal Circuit delivered seemingly conflicting answers to these questions, highlighting a growing rift regarding the significance of the specification and prosecution history to claim interpretation.
Knorr-Bremse and the Potential Modification of the Adverse-Inference Rule
July 12, 2004
The near future may bring fundamental changes to patent practice in the United States. On Sept. 26, 2003, the Federal Circuit ordered, <i>sua sponte,</i> the <i>en banc</i> consideration of the Eastern District of Virginia's decision in <i>Knorr-Bremse Systeme Fuer Nutzfahrzeuge GmbH v. Dana Corp,</i> 344 F.3d 1336 (Fed. Cir. 2003). In its order, the court sought answers to questions that analyze its current precedent that authorizes the trier of fact to impose an adverse inference of willful patent infringement where accused infringers invoke the attorney-client privilege. On Feb. 5, 2004, the Federal Circuit heard arguments in the appeal. A decision is pending.
IP News
July 12, 2004
Highlights of the latest intellectual property news from around the country.
A Gala Day for Comparative Advertising
July 12, 2004
Given the expense and burden of resolving false advertising cases in federal court, the promise of an expedient and less expensive alternate forum invites attention. Adding to speed and thrift an assurance that ads will be assessed by experts in the field makes the forum more interesting still. What is this alluring avenue of adjudication? For 33 years, the National Advertising Division of the Better Business Bureau (NAD) has sought to provide just such a mechanism. Yet, even for long-time veterans of federal proceedings, the NAD may be terra incognita. One recent decision by the NAD, <i>In re Distillerie Stock USA Ltd.,</i> NAD Case No. 4197 (June 2004), reveals both benefits and drawbacks of the forum, particularly in how some familiar yet some unique allocations of the burdens of proof can produce results both similar to and quite unlike those in federal court.
The Federal Courts' View of the State of Dilution in the States
July 12, 2004
The <i>Victoria's Secret</i> case raised the hurdle for plaintiffs claiming dilution under the Lanham Act, generally making it much harder to prevail in a federal dilution action. The Supreme Court followed the plain meaning of the statute in interpreting the Federal Trademark Dilution Act (FTDA), 15 U.S.C. §1125(c) [Sec. 43(c) of the Lanham Act] to require a showing of "actual dilution" in <i>Moseley v. V Secret Catalogue, Inc.,</i> 537 U.S. 418 (2003) (hereinafter "<i>Victoria's Secret</i>"). The Supreme Court got to this position in part by contrasting 43(c) with the language of state dilution laws, which in many cases do not require actual dilution (and recognize tarnishment, besides). Some state laws can, in theory, help plaintiffs with a dilution claim. This article examines how this is actually playing out.
A Primer on Insurance Options for Intellectual Property
July 02, 2004
In the last several years, a number of insurance companies including Chubb, AIG, InsureTrust (through Lloyd's of London), Venture Programs, Intellectual Property Risk Management ("IPRM"), and Litigation Risk Management, Inc. ("LRM") have begun offering insurance that pays costs associated with infringement of patents only, or infringement of some combination or all of patents, trademarks, trade dress, copyrights and trade secrets. For purposes of this article we will refer to these polices covering intellectual property as "IP infringement policies." IP infringement policies vary by carrier and property covered. The following descriptions are necessarily general.
A Primer on IP Insurance Options
June 01, 2004
In the last several years, a number of insurance companies including Chubb, AIG, InsureTrust (through Lloyd's of London), Venture Programs, Intellectual Property Risk Management ("IPRM"), and Litigation Risk Management, Inc. ("LRM") have begun offering insurance that pays costs associated with infringement of patents only, or infringement of some combination or all of patents, trademarks, trade dress, copyrights and trade secrets. For purposes of this article we will refer to these polices as "IP infringement policies." IP infringement policies vary by carrier and property covered. The following descriptions are necessarily general.
House Subcommittee Hears Testimony on Amendment to FTDA
June 01, 2004
In a potential step toward amending the Federal Trademark Dilution Act of 1995 (FTDA), codified at 15 U.S.C. §1125(c), the House Committee on Courts, the Internet and Intellectual Property held a hearing on April 20, 2004 to discuss the "Committee Print of a Bill to Amend the Federal Trademark Dilution Act." The draft legislation seeks to reverse the U.S. Supreme Court decision in <i>Moseley v. V Secret Catalogue, Inc.</i>, 537 U.S. 418 (2003) by providing that the FTDA requires proof of likely dilution, not actual dilution. It also adds a definition of the term "famous" to the Act, clarifies that the Act applies to both blurring and tarnishment of famous marks, and includes defenses intended to safeguard free speech.
IP News
June 01, 2004
Highlights of the latest intellectual property news and cases from around the country.
Vicarious Liability and Copyright Law: Breaking with Tradition
June 01, 2004
Vicarious liability is applicable in most areas of tort law. As the U.S. Supreme Court stated in an opinion early last year, "traditional vicarious liability rules ordinarily make principals or employers vicariously liable for acts of their agents or employees in the scope of their authority or employment." <i>Meyer v. Holley</i>, 537 U.S. 280, 283 (2003).
