A Consideration with Post-Issuance Practice: Intervening Rights
December 05, 2005
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.
A 'TIP' for Responding to Trademark Infringement
December 05, 2005
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.
Unmasking the Copyrightability of Costumes (and Clothing)
December 05, 2005
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.
Court Watch
December 05, 2005
Highlights of the latest franchising cases from around the country.
News Briefs
December 05, 2005
Highlights of the latest franchising cases from around the country.
$2.3 Million Verdict Affirmed for Insurance Agent Under Connecticut Franchise Act
December 05, 2005
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, §42-133e <i>et seq.</i> ("CFA").
Analyzing the New York Franchise Act of 1980: Q&A with Thomas M. Pitegoff, New York Bar Association, Business Law Section
December 05, 2005
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.
A Comparison of Novelty in Patent Law and an Analysis of Filing Strategies
December 05, 2005
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. §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.
Infringement By Source Code 'Golden Master': Developments in Patent Infringement Law Concerning Extra-U.S. Sales
December 05, 2005
Until recently, U.S. software companies comfortably operated under the assumption that selling software that was copied from a "golden master" CD outside of the United States, and which was sold only to customers outside of the United States, did not infringe U.S. patents. Recent developments in the law have destroyed that comfort and made clear that infringement liability may very well lie for exactly those types of foreign sales.