Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%

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

Search

We found 1,371 results for "The Intellectual Property Strategist"...

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.
March issue in PDF format
February 26, 2009
&#133;
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.
February issue in PDF format
January 30, 2009
&#133;
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

  • Major Differences In UK, U.S. Copyright Laws
    This article highlights how copyright law in the United Kingdom differs from U.S. copyright law, and points out differences that may be crucial to entertainment and media businesses familiar with U.S law that are interested in operating in the United Kingdom or under UK law. The article also briefly addresses contrasts in UK and U.S. trademark law.
    Read More ›
  • Legal Possession: What Does It Mean?
    Possession of real property is a matter of physical fact. Having the right or legal entitlement to possession is not "possession," possession is "the fact of having or holding property in one's power." That power means having physical dominion and control over the property.
    Read More ›
  • The Stranger to the Deed Rule
    In 1987, a unanimous Court of Appeals reaffirmed the vitality of the "stranger to the deed" rule, which holds that if a grantor executes a deed to a grantee purporting to create an easement in a third party, the easement is invalid. Daniello v. Wagner, decided by the Second Department on November 29th, makes it clear that not all grantors (or their lawyers) have received the Court of Appeals' message, suggesting that the rule needs re-examination.
    Read More ›