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"...

IP News
March 31, 2009
Highlights of the latest intellectual property news from around the country.
In re TS Tech USA Corp.: Curtailing the 'Rocket Docket'
March 31, 2009
Due to its so-called "rocket docket," many patent litigants select the Eastern District of Texas when filing a lawsuit or a declaratory action. However, the Federal Circuit's recent decision in <i>In re TS Tech</i> may substantially curtail this practice.
Acumed v. Stryker: eBay v. MercExchange Revisited
March 31, 2009
In <i>Acumed LLC v. Stryker Corp.</i>, the Federal Circuit affirmed the grant of a permanent injunction enjoining Stryker from making and selling a putatively infringing orthopedic nail product. In so deciding, the Federal Circuit declined to articulate a bright-line rule governing the grant of permanent injunctions in patent infringement actions. Nevertheless, the <i>Acumed</i> decision is instructive with respect to how the courts may apply the rule of <i>eBay Inc. v. MercExchange, L.L.C.</i> in patent infringement cases and the facts that may be adduced to secure &mdash; or defeat &mdash; the grant of injunctive relief.
IP News
February 26, 2009
Highlights of the latest intellectual property news from around the country.
A New Concern for Content Licensors: Perpetual Licensees Deemed to Be Owners
February 26, 2009
Two courts in the Ninth Circuit have recently addressed how to differentiate between an 'owner' and a mere 'licensee' for purposes of rights under the Copyright Act, and have reached decisions that might surprise many practitioners.
Sundance v. DeMonte: Federal Circuit Overrules District Court's Holding of Non-obviousness
February 26, 2009
The Federal Circuit issued its decision in <i>Sundance v. DeMonte</i>, overruling the district court's holding of non-obviousness. Applying the standard set forth in <i>KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc.</i>, the court found that the patent was an obvious combination of the prior art and noted that the district court committed two errors by: 1) erroneously allowing a patent attorney, who was not skilled in the relevant technology, to testify regarding obviousness; and 2) vacating the jury verdict of obviousness and granting judgment as a matter of law on non-obviousness, based on its erroneous interpretation of the prior art.
Ninth Circuit to Plaintiff: Game Over! Virtual 'Pig Pen' Protected By First Amendment; 'Barbie Girl' Case Extended to Non-titular Expressive Works
February 26, 2009
In the intersection between trademark rights and the First Amendment, the Ninth Circuit upheld the District Court's grant of summary judgment finding that the First Amendment protected the look of a video game's virtual strip joint, as well as the use of the Pig Pen name.
IP News
January 30, 2009
Highlights of the latest intellectual property news from around the country.
In re Swanson: Reaffirming a Substantially Old Question
January 30, 2009
<b>In re Swanson</b> will likely have the effect of encouraging even more third-party ex parte re-examination requests, while only discouraging an applicant's incentive to perform a patent search to provide the best art to the PTO.
Veoh: Increased Protection for Service Providers, Or a Trapdoor?
January 30, 2009
The August 2008 ruling in <i>Io Group, Inc. v. Veoh Networks, Inc.</i>, has been widely heralded as a win for online service providers in the legal maelstrom surrounding social media.

MOST POPULAR STORIES

  • Internet Goods and Product Liability
    The Internet's value arises in part from its ability to provide images, data and content quickly and at little cost. This ability results from the fact that Internet products — whether they be images, data or content — are each reduced to a digital format. Sharing products that have been so reduced may result in product liability.
    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 ›