In re Construction Equipment
If the Federal Circuit affirms a lower court verdict holding a patent not invalid over a prior art reference, may the losing party ask the Patent Office to invalidate that patent via re-examination over the same prior art reference? In the case of <i>In re Construction Equipment</i>, the Federal Circuit answered yes, raising important issues bearing on the scope of the re-examination statute, the finality of judgments, and the relationship between the Patent Office and the federal judiciary under the separation of powers doctrine of the Constitution.
Internet 2.0: Jurisdictional Risks in Today's Cyber World
With the explosion of the Internet in the last several decades, courts have struggled with whether tortious conduct on a website is expressly aimed at any, or all, of the forums in which the website can be viewed. Two recent Ninth Circuit cases expanded the reach of Internet jurisdiction and may carry significant implications.
Golan v. Holder: A Catalyst for Orphan Works Legislation?
On Jan. 18, 2012, the U.S. Supreme Court issued a 6-to-2 decision in <i>Golan v. Holder</i>, ruling that the Uruguay Round Agreements Act of 1994 — which restores U.S. copyright protection for certain foreign works formerly in the public domain — fits within Congress' constitutional authority to "adjust copyright law to protect categories of works once outside the law's compass." <i>Golan</i>, like <i>Eldred v. Ashcroft</i> before it, solidifies the constitutional authority of Congress under the Copyright Clause to control the terms and duration of U.S. copyright protection.
Recourse Strategies In the New Age of .XXX Domain Names
As the dust settled following the close of Landrush, however, the last (and potentially most contentious) leg of the launch commenced. General availability began on Dec. 6, and .XXX domains are being allocated on a first come basis. Now is the time for trademark, domain name and brand owners to purchase .XXX domains to proactively race to stake a claim in their brand if only as a defensive measure to prevent other domain owners from registering/using their name in a .XXX context. It's a showdown at the .XXX corral.
IP News
Highlights of the latest intellectual property news from around the country.
The Saga of Omega v. Costco Wholesale Corp.
More than seven years after the <i>Omega S.A. v. Costco Wholesale Corp.</i> case began, there has been no trial and the case is now back at the Ninth Circuit for a second time.
Establishing Substantial Non-Infringing Use for Software Under 35 U.S.C. ' 271(c)
If sued as a contributory infringer under 35 U.S.C. § 271(c), a software company can prevail if it establishes that the accused software has a substantial non-infringing use. In many cases addressing this issue, however, software companies have usually failed to establish this defense. This article summarizes the particular circumstances that gave rise to these failures, and proposes a particular scenario under which a defendant may succeed in showing that its software is suitable for substantial non-infringing use.
Re-registration of Current Domain Name By New Owner Not ACPA 'Registration'
The Ninth Circuit has now concluded that the ACPA does not apply to a domain name that is first registered prior to the time the trademark at issue becomes distinctive, even if the domain name is later re-registered by a new owner. However, the Ninth Circuit also held that the ACPA can apply to new domain names registered by the new owner after the mark acquires distinctiveness.
