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"...

Gripe Sites: Sue or Stew
January 30, 2009
Gripe sites are Web sites whose purpose is to complain, criticize, and revile businesses or other institutions. So, what to do.
IP News
December 23, 2008
Highlights of the latest intellectual property news from around the country.
Attacking the Customer: Coercing Patent Infringers While Avoiding Exposure to DJ Actions
December 23, 2008
To avoid declaratory judgment actions, patent holders may opt to sue or threaten the purchasers of an allegedly infringing product, without threatening suit against the manufacturer. In effect, the patent holder coerces the manufacturing company to give up the right to manufacture or distribute the accused product by scaring off its customers. At what point does this activity create grounds for a declaratory judgment action by the manufacturer?
Proveris Scientific Corp. v. Innovasystems, Inc.: Federal Circuit Addresses 'Safe-Harbor' Immunity
December 23, 2008
In <i>Proveris Scientific Corp. v. Innovasystems, Inc.,</i> the Federal Circuit addressed whether the "safe-harbor" provision of the Hatch-Waxman Act applies to immunize infringement if the accused product is reasonably related to the development and submission of information to the FDA for regulatory approval purposes.
The Federal Circuit Attempts to Right the Inequitable Conduct Ship
December 22, 2008
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit has long maintained a high bar for proving inequitable conduct. This high bar is appropriate given the severity of the remedy &mdash; unenforceability of the entire patent &mdash; and the relative ease of using hindsight to find fault with the prosecution of a patent. Several recent decisions, however, have pointed toward a sinking standard for proving inequitable conduct, which has created an atmosphere of uncertainty about the proper scope of the inequitable conduct defense. The Federal Circuit's recent opinion on the subject, <i>Star Scientific, Inc. v. R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co.,</i> appears to be an attempt to right the ship by reiterating the standards for proving inequitable conduct that were established more than 20 years ago.
IP News
November 21, 2008
Highlights of the latest intellectual property news from around the country.
Prasco v. Medicis: CAFC Draws a Line in the Sand
November 21, 2008
In <i>Prasco, LLC v. Medicis Pharm. Corp.</i>, the Federal Circuit declined to allow a declaratory judgment action on unasserted patents and provided some useful guidance in understanding what factual circumstances would be insufficient to establish a justiciable controversy.
Harry Potter Decision Provides Guidance on Fair Use
November 21, 2008
In <i>Warner Bros. Entertainment Inc. v. RDR Books,</i> the Southern District of New York addressed the issue of when a reference guide constitutes a fair use.
On Shaky Ground: The (Near) Future of Patents After Bilski
November 21, 2008
This article explains some of the key problems in the Federal Circuit's <i>In re Bilski</i> decision and discusses the potential impacts of the decision and strategies to deal with these impacts.
IP News
October 28, 2008
Highlights of the latest intellectual property news from around the country.

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 ›