Archives for the ‘Intellectual Property Law’ Category

Synopsis
The owners of trademark registrations issued before September 1, 2011 have a short window of time within which to block others from registering their trademarks as .xxx domains.
Background
ICANN (the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers) is the nonprofit organization charged with coordinating the internet’s naming system. As [...]

Unique Product Solutions, Ltd. v. Hy-Grade Valve, Inc. (N.D. Ohio Feb. 23, 2011)
U.S. District Court Judge Dan Polster ruled that the qui tam provision of the patent false marking statute (Title 35 U.S.C. § 292) unconstitutional under the Take Care Clause of Article II. The Court concluded, in pertinent part:

Applying the Morrison “sufficient control” analysis [...]

The U.S. Patent & Trademark Office released additional details on February 2, 2011, regarding their recently proposed “Three-Track” patent examination initiative. The PTO is seeking public comments for a 30 day period beginning with the proposals forthcoming publication in the Federal Register.
In its original proposal, published in June 2010 (75 Fed. Reg. 31,763), the Patent [...]

Dennis Crouch’s Patently O blog recently reported on the record increases in both the number of patent issuing and increases in the allowance rate (i.e., percentage of concluded applications that were allowed). In fact, the last three weeks have seen the highest number of issued patents in any three-week period in U.S.P.T.O. history. In [...]

The Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit ruled yesterday that fraud on the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (“PTO”) requires proof of actual intent to deceive, which may not be inferred merely because a trademark applicant made a misstatement that it should have known was false. The court held that “a trademark is [...]

The U.S. Supreme Court agreed to review the en banc decision of the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in In re Bilski (545 F.3d 943). In that decision, the Federal Circuit rejected its previous “useful, concrete and tangible result” test for patentable subject matter articulated in State Street (149 F.3d 1368). Finding [...]

Situation Management Systems, Inc. v. ASP Consulting LLC was decided by the First Circuit Court of Appeals on March 19, 2009. The decision has implications far beyond the dispute of the parties; it affects the copyright expectations of the more than $100 billion management training industry in the United States. Bottom line: this decision supports [...]

The Wisconsin Court of Appeals - District I -  has decided a matter involving the notice one must supply prior to bringing a claim for the publication of libelous matter in a newspaper, magazine or periodical. (DeBraska v. Quad Graphics, Inc., et al, January 21, 2009, recommended for publication).
WIS. STAT. § 895.05(2) contains five requirements for valid [...]

Robert W. was an inmate at the United States Prison Leavenworth. While there, he was assigned to work for Federal Prison Industries, Inc. (FPI), a US government-owned corporation that produces, sells and distributes various products. In the course of his duties for FPI, and using government-furnished computers, Robert W. developed and produced desk-blotter calendars for [...]

Did the Federal Circuit just tell the last patent defendant in east Texas to turn off the lights on your way out? The Eastern District of Texas is a popular venue for patent owners, especially non-practicing entities commonly maligned as “patent trolls,” filing infringement lawsuits. The Eastern District is widely perceived as being friendly [...]