This site uses cookies to improve your experience. To help us insure we adhere to various privacy regulations, please select your country/region of residence. If you do not select a country, we will assume you are from the United States. Select your Cookie Settings or view our Privacy Policy and Terms of Use.
Cookie Settings
Cookies and similar technologies are used on this website for proper function of the website, for tracking performance analytics and for marketing purposes. We and some of our third-party providers may use cookie data for various purposes. Please review the cookie settings below and choose your preference.
Used for the proper function of the website
Used for monitoring website traffic and interactions
Cookie Settings
Cookies and similar technologies are used on this website for proper function of the website, for tracking performance analytics and for marketing purposes. We and some of our third-party providers may use cookie data for various purposes. Please review the cookie settings below and choose your preference.
Strictly Necessary: Used for the proper function of the website
Performance/Analytics: Used for monitoring website traffic and interactions
In May 2007, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals handed down one of the most important rulings in the history of the internet, the Perfect 10 v Google ruling. The ruling established the “server test,” which allowed sites to embed copyright-protected content without infringement. Since the site wasn’t hosting the content, it wasn’t responsible for … The post The Server Test Suffers A Major Blow appeared first on Plagiarism Today.
Last month, Japan-based anti-piracy group Authorized Books of Japan (ABJ) ran a newspaper advertising campaign in the United States, Italy, Spain, and France. Its launch on July 17 was declared “Manga Day” and its purpose was to raise awareness of manga piracy by thanking those who pay for comics, rather than attacking those who do not pay.
YouTuber files a class action lawsuit against OpenAI, Finland slashes its private copying fund, and an Ole Miss coach is sued over a tweet. The post 3 Count: Finland Controversy appeared first on Plagiarism Today.
In today’s global economy, product research and development (R&D) has historically been concentrated in the U.S. and China. However, these efforts are beginning to decentralize and spread into new regions, such as Japan and South Korea.
Software is complex, which makes threats to the software supply chain more real every day. 64% of organizations have been impacted by a software supply chain attack and 60% of data breaches are due to unpatched software vulnerabilities. In the U.S. alone, cyber losses totaled $10.3 billion in 2022. All of these stats beg the question, “Do you know what’s in your software?
In an interesting turn of events, the plaintiff in a trademark infringement suit had to face the wrath of the Delhi High Court for submitting false evidence and got criminal proceedings instituted against them on the directions of the Court. Discussing this development in detail, we are pleased to bring to you this post by SpicyIP intern Rishabh Deshpande.
For startup founders, navigating the complexities of trademark law is essential for protecting your brand. An important aspect of this process involves understanding opposition and cancellation proceedings. These are formal disputes aimed at challenging an application or registration for a trademark. This article will explore what these proceedings entail, why they matter, and how you can prepare for them.
In an ongoing effort to reduce the backlog of patent applications, Brazil has introduced new appellate stage guidelines that significantly impact how applicants should respond to office actions and file appeals. These changes emphasize thorough and strategic responses to ensure all objections are properly addressed, paving the way for a more efficient patent granting process.
In an ongoing effort to reduce the backlog of patent applications, Brazil has introduced new appellate stage guidelines that significantly impact how applicants should respond to office actions and file appeals. These changes emphasize thorough and strategic responses to ensure all objections are properly addressed, paving the way for a more efficient patent granting process.
Recent case law may impact the timing of defendant technical expert analysis and opinion regarding non-infringing alternatives in patent infringement litigation. On March 13, 2024, Magistrate Judge Roy S. Payne, in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, Marshall Division, issued an order in Smart Path Connections, LLC, v.
What this is : Preparing to merge 2 companies requires a great deal of effort and activity before and after the acquisition, negotiation, due diligence, filing the merger documents, post-merger re-organization, etc. With everything going on, the important step of “post-merger cleanup” (that is, ensuring that the merger is properly reflected in every state where the acquired company was registered to do business) is sometimes forgotten.
On July 31, 2024, nearly ten months after introducing a discussion draft, a bipartisan group of Senators officially introduced the Nurture Originals, Foster Art, and Keep Entertainment Safe Act of 2024 (NO FAKES Act). The 2024 act is co-sponsored by Senators Chris Coons (D-Del.), Marsha Blackburn (R-Tenn.), Amy Klobuchar (D.-Minn.) and Thom Tillis (R-N.C.), and tracks the key principles of the 2023 discussion draft, with the goal of providing individuals an enforceable (and licensable) property.
Recent rulings show that counsel should engage in early discussions with clients regarding the potential of hyperlinked documents in electronically stored information, which will allow for more deliberate negotiation of any agreements regarding the scope of discovery, say attorneys at Sidley.
Women and diverse employees have the technical skill and knowledge, yet their contributions are not patented at the same rate as those of their male counterparts.This toolkit can help organizations move the needle on achieving gender parity in innovation.
The US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirmed a Patent Trial & Appeal Board decision that a private sale of a product embodying the claimed invention did not qualify as a “public disclosure” under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b)(2)(B). Sanho Corp. v. Kaijet Technology Int’l Ltd, Inc., Case No. 23-1336 (Fed. Cir. July 31, 2024) (Dyk, Clevenger, Stoll, JJ.).
General Motors Co. says that it has come to a deal with a Chicago auto parts supplier who went all the way to the full Federal Circuit — and changed design patent jurisprudence — in a now-abandoned challenge to a patent covering the design of a front fender.
The best athletes in the world have converged on Paris to represent their countries and showcase their ultimate sports performances — but the athletes are not the only ones going for gold. The Paris Olympics is also an arena for apparel and technology companies to represent their countries and showcase the best gear that sports and technology has to offer.
INTRODUCTION The Patent Act was enforced on 20 th April, 1972. It is a statutory right which was granted by the government of India and in return the inventor of the patent have to completely disclose their creation. This allows the others to gain knowledge of the others invention and develop in the future. The patentee has exclusive rights over their invention for a particular period of time, that is 20 years in India.
The U.S. Copyright Office published Part 1 of their report on copyright and artificial intelligence (AI), focusing on digital replicas. Digital replicas are "a video, image, or audio recording that has been digitally created or manipulated to realistically but falsely depict an individual.".
A company suing football helmet manufacturer Certor for patent infringement took aim Wednesday at its rival's interpretations of the disputed patent, accusing it of trying to sidestep the court's earlier construction of a term with "no change in the law, no new facts to consider, nothing.
The Court of Appeals of Virginia vacated a $2 billion award in a trade secret misappropriation case based on a series of evidential errors and improper jury instructions. PegaSystems Inc. v. Appian Corporation, Case No. 1399-22-4 (Va. Ct. App. 2024) (Beales, Friedman, Callins, JJ.).
by Dennis Crouch A recently filed petition for writ of certiorari in Lemon Bay Cove, LLC v. United States highlights the longstanding difficulty in defining regulatory taking as well as determining when a regulatory takings claim becomes ripe for judicial review. The brief was filed by the Pacific Legal Foundation, a public interest law firm that focuses largely on protecting private property against government intrusion and regulation.
As I have written about previously, the IP and competitive landscape for mRNA and lipid nanoparticles is complex. Pioneers, mid-stage, and new market entrants must take careful consideration of this landscape and develop a strategy to best position their businesses in this evolving space. This post provides an analytical framework for advanced IP considerations to achieve this goal.
On August 5, a series of Big Tech companies including Apple and Google filed an appellate brief at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) continuing their challenge to the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office’s (USPTO) NHK-Fintiv rule for discretionary denials of inter partes review (IPR) proceedings at the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB).
Introduction - In May 2022, a jury in the Circuit Court for Fairfax County, Virginia awarded Appian Corp. (Appian) in excess of $2 billion in damages from Pegasystems, Inc. (Pegasystems) for misappropriating Appian’s trade secrets in violation of the Virginia Uniform Trade Secrets Act (VUTSA). This award was the largest damages verdict in Virginia court history, and is among the largest awards in a trade secret case.
The Virginia Court of Appeals reversed a $2 billion jury award for trade secret misappropriation under the Virginia Uniform Trade Secrets Act (VUTSA). The appellate court found error in the jury instruction for unjust enrichment damages that required the plaintiff to only prove misappropriation and total sales, and then shifted the burden to the defendant to show the sales were attributed to something other than misappropriation.
The CAFC vacated and remanded the Board's decision [pdf here ] dismissing an opposition to registration of the mark shown below, for music and production services. Opposers claimed likelihood of confusion and dilution of the COGNAC certification mark, but a divided Board panel found that the relevant DuPont factors either favored the applicant or were neutral.
Addressing forfeiture of issues on appeal and sufficiency of the asserted prior art, the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit upheld a Patent Trial & Appeal Board obviousness finding, explaining that a party does not waive arguments on appeal by failing to include them in a request for rehearing. Voice Tech Corp. v. Unified Patents, LLC, Case No. 22-2163 (Fed.
A Pennsylvania federal judge has approved several suggested expert witnesses but limited the testimony of others in PNC Financial Services Group's trademark infringement lawsuit against Plaid Inc. claiming the company copied its logo and login screens when linking bank accounts to financial apps.
The Federal Circuit once again had an opportunity to opine on the extent of behavior by a generic drugmaker who opts to accept a "section viii carve-out" in its FDA approval (resulting in a so-called "skinny label) on liability for inducing infringement in Amarin Pharma, Inc. v. Hikma Pharmaceuticals USA Inc.
A small Florida chain of souvenir stores had no luck Thursday at the Second Circuit trying to revive allegations that owners of a bankrupt beachwear company concealed the ownership of trademark registrations in a since-settled, decade-old lawsuit, because the chain "should have uncovered the alleged fraud" the first time.
On July 31, 2024, a bipartisan group of US senators introduced the Nurture Originals, Foster Art, and Keep Entertainment Safe (NO FAKES) Act of 2024 to protect the voice and visual likeness rights of individuals from unauthorized use in the form of digital replicas, including digital replicas created by generative artificial intelligence (AI).
The U.S. International Trade Commission on Thursday joined Sonos in urging the Federal Circuit to reject Google's argument that the end of so-called Chevron deference means the appellate court should review precedent on the ITC's patent powers, calling the dispute a "poor vehicle" for such a review.
Every month, Erise’s trademark attorneys review the latest developments at the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, in the courts, and across the corporate world to bring you the stories that you should know about: Suit Against Prime Hydration Highlights Olympic Trademark Law - It happens once every four years, when the world’s elite athletes come together to wow us with their superhuman feats in summer sports … and trademark lawyers work overtime to enforce the rights of the many organizations.
Trial advocacy programs often teach lawyers to loosely track the progression of a lawsuit during preparation — case analysis, then direct examination, then cross-examination, openings and closings — but reverse-engineering cases by working backward from opening and closing statements can streamline the process and also improve case strategy, says Reuben Guttman at Guttman Buschner.
Originally posted 2013-06-26 14:54:58. Republished by Blog Post PromoterDamon Wayans is rejected again in his attempt to file a trademark that only black people would be allowed to use. Or am I missing something? UPDATE: More, and related, here. The post No, no, a thousand times no. Homey. appeared first on LIKELIHOOD OF CONFUSION™.
TikTok Inc. has filed 18 affirmative defenses in California federal court in a copyright and trade secrets complaint it faces from a Chinese company that claims the popular social media platform ripped off proprietary information, saying among other things that Beijing Meishe Network Technology Co. Ltd. does not own some or all of the alleged copyrighted and trade secrets.
Problems Using Artificial Intelligence for Lawyers’ Tasks – Ethical Issues Snell v. United Specialty Ins. Co._ 102 F.4th 1208 Mata v. Avianca_ Inc._ 2023 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 94323 On August 12, we will discuss Mata v. Avianca, Inc. 2023 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 94323 (S.D.N.Y. May 4, 2023). In response to a motion to dismiss, the [.
40
40
Input your email to sign up, or if you already have an account, log in here!
Enter your email address to reset your password. A temporary password will be e‑mailed to you.
We organize all of the trending information in your field so you don't have to. Join 9,000+ users and stay up to date on the latest articles your peers are reading.
You know about us, now we want to get to know you!
Let's personalize your content
Let's get even more personalized
We recognize your account from another site in our network, please click 'Send Email' below to continue with verifying your account and setting a password.
306 
Let's personalize your content