Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
In the long-running Apple v. Samsung dispute, the Federal Circuit has highlighted a marked difference between the effectiveness of trade dress and design patents in protecting the visual characteristics of a product, which could potentially cost Apple hundreds of millions of dollars in lost damages. Explaining that both the registered and unregistered trade dress features of Apple’s iPhone products are functional and thus not protectable, the Federal Circuit remanded the case back to the district court for entry of damages awards “not predicated on Apple’s trade dress claims.” On the other hand, the court affirmed awards on design patents that arguably cover many of the same features present in the trade dress.
Continue reading by getting
started with a subscription.
Blockchain Domains: New Developments for Brand Owners
By John McElwaine
Blockchain domain names offer decentralized alternatives to traditional DNS-based domain names, promising enhanced security, privacy and censorship resistance. However, these benefits come with significant challenges, particularly for brand owners seeking to protect their trademarks in these new digital spaces.
AI Can Facilitate Innovation, But It Can Also Become a Potent Patent Killer
By Michael K. Friedland
When is an inventor not an inventor? It’s when the inventor isn’t human. So, if a non-human inventor can’t, in the eyes of patent law, be an inventor, what role can the non-human inventor have in the patent system? The answer is straightforward. Even though it can’t create, it can destroy.
Patent Your Trade Secrets In Wake of Noncompete Ban
By Daniel E. Rose
While it may be growing more difficult to protect business information with the FTC’s noncompete ban, patents can provide strong protection over technical innovations, regardless of whether the inventor stays with the company or leaves.
Key Takeaways from the Latest USPTO Guidance on AI
By James DeCarlo
The April Guidance, which supplements prior guidance issued in February, seeks to remind practitioners of existing rules and to educate them on potential risks associated with artificial intelligence tool use, allowing practitioners to mitigate these risks.