Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%

Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.

Search

We found 1,293 results for "The Intellectual Property Strategist"...

Superpowered Form of <i>Stare Decisis</i>
August 02, 2015
The U.S. Supreme Court, in <i>Kimble v. Marvel</i>, stood by its decision in <i>Brulotte</i>, reaffirming that post-expiration patent royalty provisions are unlawful per se and therefore unenforceable.
IP News
August 02, 2015
Federal Circuit Affirms '101 Subject Matter Invalidity of Internet-Related Software Patents Under <i>Alice</i><br>Patent Term Adjustments Do Not Apply To Continuing Applications Based On Delays In Application Prosecution<br>Federal Circuit Clarifies Standard of Review and Affirms Denial of Award for '285 Exceptional Case Attorney's Fees
<b><i>Online Extra:</b></i> After a Dip, Patent Litigation Is on the Rise
July 30, 2015
Patent litigation, which only a few months ago appeared to be declining, is actually rising significantly.
Patent Reform Bills Target Patent Trolls
July 02, 2015
On Sept. 16, 2011, the America Invents Act became effective, including provisions directed at non-practicing entities, commonly known as "patent trolls." Many believe, however, that patent trolls are still a plague, and that more must be done to curtail abusive patent litigation. This has led to the introduction of several patent reform bills.
IP News
July 02, 2015
Federal Circuit Interprets 'Broadest Reasonable Interpretation' Claim Construction Standard <br>Federal Circuit: Order Vacated After Claim At Issue Was Cancelled<br>Fed. Circuit: Claim Construction Based on Understanding of 'One Skilled In the Art' Is Reviewed For Clear Error
No Direct Infringement Unless A 'Single Entity' Performs Each and Every Method Step
July 02, 2015
In <i>Akamai Technologies,</i> the Federal Circuit ruled that there is no direct infringement unless a "single entity" performs each and every step of the claimed method. Therefore, it found no direct infringement because Limelight and its customers were not part of a single entity and the customers were performing the missing step for their own benefit, not Limelight's.
Apple's iPhone User Interface Held Functional for Trade Dress Infringement, But Not Design Patent Purposes
July 02, 2015
In the long-running <i>Apple v. Samsung</i> dispute, the Federal Circuit has highlighted a marked difference between the effectiveness of trade dress and design patents in protecting the visual characteristics of a product, which could potentially cost Apple hundreds of millions of dollars in lost damages.
Using a Service Mark In Commerce
June 02, 2015
The Federal Circuit has now ruled that advertising a service that the applicant intends to provide in the future, but is not actually providing on the date of the application, is not "use in commerce." Thus, advertising submitted to the USPTO with a use-based application as a specimen of use of the mark in commerce, must relate to existing services already being provided to customers.
IP News
June 02, 2015
Federal Circuit to Decide On First Amendment Constitutionality of Barring Disparaging Trademark Registration<br>Federal Circuit: The PTO's Refusal to Terminate IPR Proceedings Is Not a 'Final Agency Action'
Federal Circuit Weighs in on a Lower Standard For Attorney Fee Awards
June 02, 2015
The Federal Circuit recently clarified the standard for an award of attorney fees under 35 U.S.C. '285 in <i>Oplus Technologies, Ltd. v. Vizio, Inc.,</i> holding that the record in the district court did not support a denial of attorney fees.

MOST POPULAR STORIES

  • The Roadmap of Litigation Analytics
    Litigation analytics can be considered a roadmap of sorts — an important guide to ensure the legal professional arrives at the correct litigation strategy or business plan. However, like roadmaps, litigation analytics will only be useful if it's based on data that is complete and accurate.
    Read More ›
  • Understanding the Potential Pitfalls Arising From Participation in Standards Bodies
    Chances are that if your company is involved in research and development of new technology there is a standards setting organization exploring the potential standardization of such technology. While there are clear benefits to participation in standards organizations &mdash; keeping abreast of industry developments, targeting product development toward standard compliant products, steering research and intellectual property protection into potential areas of future standardization &mdash; such participation does not come without certain risks. Whether you are in-house counsel or outside counsel, you may be called upon to advise participants in standard-setting bodies about intellectual property issues or to participate yourself. You may also be asked to review patent policy of the standard-setting body that sets forth the disclosure and notification requirements with respect to patents for that organization. Here are some potential patent pitfalls that can catch the unwary off-guard.
    Read More ›