Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%

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

Search

We found 1,377 results for "The Intellectual Property Strategist"...

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.
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
&#133;
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?

MOST POPULAR STORIES

  • The Article 8 Opt In
    The Article 8 opt-in election adds an additional layer of complexity to the already labyrinthine rules governing perfection of security interests under the UCC. A lender that is unaware of the nuances created by the opt in (may find its security interest vulnerable to being primed by another party that has taken steps to perfect in a superior manner under the circumstances.
    Read More ›
  • Strategy vs. Tactics: Two Sides of a Difficult Coin
    With each successive large-scale cyber attack, it is slowly becoming clear that ransomware attacks are targeting the critical infrastructure of the most powerful country on the planet. Understanding the strategy, and tactics of our opponents, as well as the strategy and the tactics we implement as a response are vital to victory.
    Read More ›
  • Rights and Obligations In Patent Licenses
    The owner of a commercially successful patent may have competing desires. On one hand, the patent owner wants to protect the patent and secure its maximum benefit; on the other hand, the patent owner wants to avoid enforcement litigation with competitors because it is expensive and puts the patent at risk.
    Read More ›
  • Foreseeability as a Bar to Proof of Patent Infringement
    The doctrine of equivalents is a rule of equity adopted more than 150 years ago by the U.S. Supreme Court. Prosecution history estoppel is a rule of equity that controls access to the doctrine. In May 2002, the Court was called upon to revisit the doctrine and the estoppel rule in <i>Festo Corp. v. Shoketsu Kinzoku Kogyo Kabushiki Co. Ltd.</i> Ultimately the Court reaffirmed the doctrine and expanded the estoppel rule, but not without inciting heated debate over the Court's rationale &mdash; especially since it included a new and controversial foreseeability test in its analysis for estoppel.
    Read More ›