It’s easy to get excited when you come up with a new invention. But the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office won’t consider an invention novel enough to qualify for a patent if a publicly available printed publication “anticipated” it. With a recent ruling, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (which hears all appeals concerning patents), provided some guidance on how it determines whether a publication was publicly available on the relevant date.
Alleged infringement of technical standards raises questions Thousands of private organizations produce technical standards, some of which are incorporated into laws by federal, state and local governments. A federal court of appeals recently considered whether these organizations can invoke copyright and trademark laws to prevent the unauthorized copying and distribution of such works. The court, however, failed to provide a conclusive answer, focusing instead on fair use matters.
Recently, the Supreme Court denied a petition from Power Integrations, Inc. to decide a question about patent damages, the “entire market value” rule, and what parties must prove to recover or avoid large damages awards in patent infringement lawsuits. As an exception to the general rule, the entire market value rule allows a patent holder to recover damages on patented and unpatented features of an infringing product.
Registration of a trademark hinges, in part, on whether there is a likelihood of confusion with an earlier application or registration. In a recent case, a sports specialty shop learned that the trademark it sought for registration was considered likely to be confused with that of a private social club.
More and more of our personal information is collected every day, but some of the most valuable consumer data continues to be pairings of names and addresses. Companies build massive databases that compile this information — but are these compilations protected by copyright? It depends.
How often do you browse the Federal Register? For most people, the answer probably is never. But if you want to patent an invention that falls within the regulations of a federal agency like the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA), the Federal Register might trip you up. For one patent applicant, it did just that.
When most people hear the word “generic,” it brings to mind a consumer product without a brand name. But its meaning is much more significant in the trademark world, where a term deemed generic isn’t eligible for trademark protection. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit recently clarified the test for so-called genericness.
A new U.S. Supreme Court ruling brings welcome news to patent holders who have found their inventions infringed overseas. The Court held that plaintiffs can recover lost foreign profits generated by the unlawful shipping of U.S. parts abroad for assembly into an infringing product.
More than two decades after its enactment, portions of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) continue to confound both copyright holders and accused infringers. What, for example, must a copyright holder establish to win a lawsuit over removal of copyright management information (CMI)? The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit provided some clarity on the issue in a case involving digital photographs.
Patterson Thuente IP is pleased to once again announce that four of our lawyers have been named to the 2019 Edition of The Best Lawyers in America. Congratulations to the following attorneys:
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.