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"...

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.
January issue in PDF format
December 23, 2008
…
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.
December issue in PDF format
November 21, 2008
&#133;
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.

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 ›