The hurdle for proving trade dress infringement is high. This is partly because, as the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals recently explained, a plaintiff must produce evidence of nonfunctionality — a unique challenge since a plaintiff must prove evidence of an absence and product design often serves purposes beyond mere identification of the product’s source. In the case in question, though, the court determined that the plaintiff had succeeded.
In an era that features hundreds of television channels and interactive, interconnected media, video clips have become a hot item. Not surprisingly, though, the sale of such clips by third parties raises copyright infringement concerns, as demonstrated by a recent case heard by the Second Circuit Court of Appeals.
It’s easy to understand an inventor’s urge to get a new product to market. But that urge can backfire if a patent application hasn’t yet been filed. Under the on-sale bar, the inventor could lose patent protection altogether. A pharmaceutical company learned this the hard way.
Copyright ruling hits third-party software support providers Purchasers of software know that it’s not just the license that can take a bite out of their wallets — it’s also the costly maintenance contracts. Smelling an opportunity, third-party providers have begun offering licensees cheaper maintenance and support alternatives. But one software company has struck back, and the favorable ruling it obtained in its copyright infringement lawsuit against a third-party provider may make it harder for such businesses to compete.
Have you received an official-looking letter or invoice from the Patent & Trademark Agency located in New York City? How about one from the Trademark Compliance Office in Arlington, VA? These are two of the several companies that offer what they call “trademark-related services.” These companies use terms that resemble an official agency name including one or more of the terms “United States,” “U.S.,” “Trademark,” “Patent,” “Registration,” “Office,” or “Agency.” Many of these solicitations will even contain accurate information about your trademark registration and cite correct information, such as the requirement that a registration must be renewed every 10 years. One common theme with all of these solicitations is they are seeking fees for services that have no legal significance to your trademark registration.
Patterson Thuente IP is pleased to present the August/September 2018 issue of Ideas on Intellectual Property Law. We encourage you to read through it for ideas on how to best protect your intellectual property.
We are proud to announce that Brad Pedersen has been listed as one of just 50 go-to US attorneys for post grant proceedings. Brad appears in the prestigious IAM Patent 1000 publication, published by Globe Business Media Group of London, as one of the country’s leading patent service providers. IAM is acknowledged within the industry as the leading IP business media platform.
Jim Patterson and Brad Pedersen were named to the 2018 Minnesota Super Lawyers® listing for intellectual property. Sarah Stensland was recognized on the Rising Stars® listing for intellectual property litigation.
Just last year, in Matal v. Tam, the U.S. Supreme Court opened the door to the registration of trademarks that could be considered offensive when it ruled that the disparagement clause in the federal trademark law was unconstitutional. Now the U.S. Federal Circuit Court of Appeals has taken a similar stance, striking down the bar against the registration of trademarks that are “immoral or scandalous.”
Although in 2014 the U.S. Supreme Court announced a standard for assessing whether patent language is fatally indefinite, the limits of the Court’s decision are still being determined. More recently, the U.S. Federal Circuit Court of Appeals provided additional guidance — and it seems to favor patentees.
Want to know the secrets to creating and protecting unforgettable brand names?
Choosing the wrong name can be expensive. Gain essential knowledge on trademarks and the naming process. Introducing The Guide for Pursuing Legally Defensible & High-Value Trademarks – a collaborate effort with the branding experts Olive & Company.
Giving trade dress infringement claim a shot
The hurdle for proving trade dress infringement is high. This is partly because, as the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals recently explained, a plaintiff must produce evidence of nonfunctionality — a unique challenge since a plaintiff must prove evidence of an absence and product design often serves purposes beyond mere identification of the product’s source. In the case in question, though, the court determined that the plaintiff had succeeded.
Selling access to clips of copyrighted programming isn’t fair use
In an era that features hundreds of television channels and interactive, interconnected media, video clips have become a hot item. Not surprisingly, though, the sale of such clips by third parties raises copyright infringement concerns, as demonstrated by a recent case heard by the Second Circuit Court of Appeals.
How the on-sale bar can threaten a patent
It’s easy to understand an inventor’s urge to get a new product to market. But that urge can backfire if a patent application hasn’t yet been filed. Under the on-sale bar, the inventor could lose patent protection altogether. A pharmaceutical company learned this the hard way.
Can licenses limit competitors’ use?
Copyright ruling hits third-party software support providers Purchasers of software know that it’s not just the license that can take a bite out of their wallets — it’s also the costly maintenance contracts. Smelling an opportunity, third-party providers have begun offering licensees cheaper maintenance and support alternatives. But one software company has struck back, and the favorable ruling it obtained in its copyright infringement lawsuit against a third-party provider may make it harder for such businesses to compete.
Trademark-Related Solicitation Scams
Have you received an official-looking letter or invoice from the Patent & Trademark Agency located in New York City? How about one from the Trademark Compliance Office in Arlington, VA? These are two of the several companies that offer what they call “trademark-related services.” These companies use terms that resemble an official agency name including one or more of the terms “United States,” “U.S.,” “Trademark,” “Patent,” “Registration,” “Office,” or “Agency.” Many of these solicitations will even contain accurate information about your trademark registration and cite correct information, such as the requirement that a registration must be renewed every 10 years. One common theme with all of these solicitations is they are seeking fees for services that have no legal significance to your trademark registration.
Ideas on Intellectual Property Law – August/September 2018
Patterson Thuente IP is pleased to present the August/September 2018 issue of Ideas on Intellectual Property Law. We encourage you to read through it for ideas on how to best protect your intellectual property.
Brad Pedersen One of 50 Attorneys Recommended by IAM Magazine for Post Grant Proceedings.
We are proud to announce that Brad Pedersen has been listed as one of just 50 go-to US attorneys for post grant proceedings. Brad appears in the prestigious IAM Patent 1000 publication, published by Globe Business Media Group of London, as one of the country’s leading patent service providers. IAM is acknowledged within the industry as the leading IP business media platform.
Patterson Thuente IP Attorneys Listed by Super Lawyers
Jim Patterson and Brad Pedersen were named to the 2018 Minnesota Super Lawyers® listing for intellectual property. Sarah Stensland was recognized on the Rising Stars® listing for intellectual property litigation.
Bar fight
Just last year, in Matal v. Tam, the U.S. Supreme Court opened the door to the registration of trademarks that could be considered offensive when it ruled that the disparagement clause in the federal trademark law was unconstitutional. Now the U.S. Federal Circuit Court of Appeals has taken a similar stance, striking down the bar against the registration of trademarks that are “immoral or scandalous.”
What makes a patent invalid due to “indefiniteness”?
Although in 2014 the U.S. Supreme Court announced a standard for assessing whether patent language is fatally indefinite, the limits of the Court’s decision are still being determined. More recently, the U.S. Federal Circuit Court of Appeals provided additional guidance — and it seems to favor patentees.