Patterson Thuente IP is pleased to present the February/March 2018issue of Ideas on Intellectual Property Law. We encourage you to read through it for ideas on how to best protect your intellectual property.
Patterson Thuente IP has named patent attorney Christian Girtz as a partner in the firm. An experienced intellectual property attorney, Christian counsels clients on best practices for developing strong patents and valuable IP assets domestically and internationally.
What’s a copyright holder to do when counterfeit products show up on the massive online marketplace Amazon.com? Well, one thing it will have trouble doing is successfully suing Amazon for infringement, as seen in Milo & Gabby LLC v. Amazon.com, Inc.
China and India recently revised their patent office guidelines for the examination of software-related inventions. In both cases the guidelines broaden the scope of patent eligible subject matter and generally create a positive climate for patenting software-related inventions.
It probably comes as no surprise that inventions that are obvious aren’t eligible for patents. Yet arguments over obviousness land in the court all the time. A recent ruling by the Federal Circuit Court of Appeals (which hears all patent-related appeals) in Millennium Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v. Sandoz Inc. illustrates several arguments that can arise when the obviousness of an invention — and therefore the validity of its patent — is at issue.
Exhausted yet? Anyone who has ever tried to avoid the high prices of toner cartridges by purchasing refills from so-called remanufacturers will be interested in a recent ruling from the U.S. Supreme Court — and many patentees should be interested, too. In Impression Products, Inc. v. Lexmark Int’l, Inc., the Court provided some important clarifications to the patent exhaustion doctrine that limits a patentee’s rights.