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"...

Search Engine Advertising Trademark Claims
April 28, 2011
In <i>Network Automation, Inc. v. Advanced Systems Concepts, Inc.</i>, the Ninth Circuit: 1) expressly held that the use of a trademark as a search engine keyword for the purpose of triggering advertisements is a "use in commerce" of that trademark under the Lanham Act; but 2) vacated a preliminary injunction, finding that the district court's analysis of consumer confusion in the Internet context was too narrow.
On the Move
April 25, 2011
Who's doing what; who's going where.
<b><i>BREAKING NEWS:</i></b> Jury Awards MGA $88.5 Million in Bratz Doll Retrial
April 22, 2011
A federal jury has rejected Mattel Inc.'s claims that MGA Entertainment Inc. stole the idea for the wildly profitable Bratz dolls, and instead awarded $88.5 million to MGA for trade secrets theft by Mattel.
IP News
March 29, 2011
Highlights of the latest intellectual property news from around the country.
Downstream Liability in Trade Secret Litigation After Silvaco
March 29, 2011
Last year, for the first time, the issue of downstream liability surfaced in the law of trade secret misappropriation. In 2010, a California appellate court held in <i>Silvaco Data Sys. v. Intel Corp.</i> that a software licensee did not know or acquire the secret source code the manufacturer used to make the product and, as a matter of law, it could not be liable for trade secret misappropriation.
Centocor v. Abbott Labs: Must You Only Preach What You Practice?
March 29, 2011
The Federal Circuit's decision on Feb. 23, 2011 in <i>Centocor Ortho Biotech., Inc. v. Abbott Labs.</i>, vacated a $1.67 billion verdict based on invalidity for insufficient written description. The case provides an example of when technology can be so complicated or unpredictable that the specification does not adequately explain how to practice the claimed invention.
Ninth Circuit: Congress Expanded Definition of Dilution When It Adopted TDRA
March 29, 2011
In <i>Levi Strauss &amp; Co. v. Abercrombie &amp; Fitch Co.</i>, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals recently confirmed that Congress expanded the definition of dilution when it adopted the Trademark Dilution Revision Act of 2006.
IP News
February 28, 2011
Highlights of the latest intelletual property news from around the country.
First Sale Doctrine Gets Multiple Views in Ninth Circuit
February 28, 2011
Recently, there has been a spate of Ninth Circuit rulings on the first sale doctrine ' all of which have implications for the entertainment industry ' from application of '109(a) to computer software buyers, to imported goods, and to promotional CDs that record companies send to disc jockeys and music critics.
The 25% Rule Is 100% Out Under Federal Circuit's Uniloc Decision
February 28, 2011
In a case with practical implications for all patent litigants, the Federal Circuit recently rejected the use of the 25% rule to establish a baseline royalty rate to determine patent infringement damages.

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 ›