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
On June 28, 2024, the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) issued a Notice requesting public comments on the current state of the common law experimental use exception to patentinfringement and whether Congress should consider codifying the experimental use exception through legislative action.
This post will focus on another key issue from the case – the relevance of logos in design patentinfringement analysis. For trademarkinfringement under the Lanham Act, likelihood of consumer confusion is a key requirement. Lubecore Int’l, Inc. , 3d 494 (6th Cir. See Unette Corp. Unit Pack Co. , 2d 1026 (Fed.
Samridhi Chugh and Manya Gupta write about this order, explaining how the Court appears to have convoluted the issues surrounding the interplay between trademarks, disparagement, and free speech, rather than clarifying them. It involved the plaintiff’s registered trademark, “SUPREME”. In this post by Kartikeya S.,
That is, punitive damages may be applied to intentional infringement and serious patentinfringement. That is, punitive damages may be applied to intentional infringement and serious patentinfringement. By: Linda Liu & Partners
Navigating Korean PatentLaw Changes: Accelerated Examination, PTEs, and Court Decisions @media screen and (max-width: 1023px) {.thegem-vc-text.thegem-custom-642e0f5b9c76d4054{display: Additionally, changes to the criminal law provisions prosecute both design and utility patentinfringement.
TRADE MARKS Lise Charles (WTR) provides an overview of the most-read posts on Word Trademark Review (WTR) on European trade mark case law over the past year, including analyses of cases dealing with issues such as unconventional signs (i.e., disputes between domain names and trademarks).
Nu Tsai Capital, LLC, [2023-1146] (February 17, 2023), the Federal Circuit vacated a preliminary injunction against Lite-Netics patent-related speech, holding that the district court abused its discretion. Patent Nos. 6 for filing the most patent applications on behalf of those companies. The firm also ranks No.
I think of these generally as “smart wallets” but I learned today that the company Storus has a registered trademark for that term. In 2020, Storus (AKA “Mosaic Brands”) sued Ridge Wallet for both patentinfringement (US7334616) and product-design trade dress misappropriation. Mosaic Brands, Inc.
Putting an end to a 24 year old patentinfringement suit, the Delhi High Court has directed Maharaja Appliances Ltd. While this seems to have happened in trademarklaw disputes (eg: Starbucks Corporation vs Teaquila A Fashion Cafe & Anr ), this seems to be one of the rare (maybe our readers know other examples?)
When doing so, parties need to actively consider whether they intend that forum selection clause to prohibit filing petitions, such as petitions for inter partes review of patents, with the United States Patent and Trademark Office’s Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“PTAB”). Patent and Trademark Office ….
The US Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit transferred an appeal of a preliminary injunction enjoining alleged copyright and trademarkinfringement to the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit because the operative complaint included six counts of patentinfringement and thus arose under patentlaw.
IP rights come in several forms: copyrights, trademarks, patents, and trade secrets. Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”) states, ” a trademark protects brand names and logos used on goods and services. A patent protects an invention. But there are exceptions and exclusions under patentlaw.
Recent Headlines in the IP World: John Power: Government of Canada Announces New Independent Regulator for Patent and Trademark Agents (Source: CISION). Mikey Campbell: Apple Seeks to Halt Latest VoIP-Pal PatentInfringement Litigation (Source: Apple Insider).
Inviting Into Our Consciousness: Prosecution History in Trade Mark Infringement. An image of a notepad with ‘Trademark’ written on it from here ). What is the most important development on the Indian trade mark infringement scene in the last couple of years? Indian trade mark law acknowledges both positions.
An inter partes review (IPR) is a procedure in the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) whereby a U.S. patent can be challenged in the Patent and Trademark Office (PTO). Although a patent can be challenged in federal district court, an IPR is an expedited and less costly procedure than federal court litigation.
Patentability. The position of the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) on trademarks for cannabis-related goods and services is discussed in my colleague’s blog post, “ Trademark Registration for Cannabis Trademark Owners a Legal Haze.”. United Cannabis Corp. Pure Hemp Collective Inc.
2021), the Federal Circuit Court of Appeals addressed challenges to the constitutionality of the structure of the Patent and Trademark Office’s Patent Trial and Appeal Board. Mobility owned a patent for a wireless communication system.
This case began back in 2006 when Crocs sued Double Diamond and others for patentinfringement of Crocs’s design patents. The briefs also discuss, to a limited extend, patentlaw’s false marking statute, 35 U.S.C. § ” Dawgs appealed. 292, though they disagree about its implications for this case.
The proliferation of three-dimensional (3D) printing has led to unique challenges and novel issues in the context of intellectual property law and, in particular, patentlaw. Due to the protracted nature of the legal system, modern innovation and technological advancements always seem to outpace the law.
Patent attorneys and inventors are often left to guess whether a particular invention is patent-eligible. Explain how the status of patent eligibility jurisprudence in the United States has affected any litigation for patentinfringement in the United States in which you have been involved.
Despite the widely diverging needs of the different industries that make use of the US patent system, US patentlaw applies essentially the same rules to innovations from all technology fields. PTE – Additional patent term given to compensate for commercialization delays due to premarket regulatory review. Biosimilars.
In the modern landscape of technological advancement, patent thickets have emerged as a critical concern for innovators, businesses, and policymakers. A patent thicket refers to a dense network of overlapping patents that can complicate the development and commercialization of new products.
When a patentinfringement case is dismissed with prejudice, the accused defendant is the prevailing party under most circumstances. Pure Hemp argued it was entitled to attorney fees under three different legal theories. This case provides three important reminders.
Patent and Trademark Office (the PTO) to review and potentially cancel claims in an already-issued patent that the PTO finds to be unpatentable in light of prior art. . § 100 et seq. , a party may ask the U.S.
The District of Delaware is renowned as a patent litigation hot spot, but the district sees its fair share of other IP litigation. Two recent opinions shed some light on this practice and are useful for anyone seeking to file a trademark or copyright suit, or called to defend against one, in the district. at 1212 (Thomas, J.,
As the Supreme Court’s 2023 year draws to a close, the court has denied certiorari in the vast majority of IP related cases, with the Dewberry trademark damages case left as the only IP case granted certiorari. Seven petitions remain undecided and the court will pick them up again when it begins the 2024 term in late September.
The lead author is likely a familiar name to many readers, since he is also the co-author of two famous treaties on English IP law: W. Cornish, D. Llewelyn and T. Both these examples are useful reminders on being mindful about the usual rhetoric of how broader IP rights is always good.
While physically marking such a product is not always trivial (or desirable from a product aesthetic/marketing standpoint), an appropriate patent marking as suggested below would have provided the patent owner with the ability to collect pre-suit damages. Patent Act has been provided.
Highlights of the Week Hot-Tubbing in Indian IP Litigation: Delhi High Court Issues Directives in High-Stakes PatentInfringement Case Image from [link] here Recently, the DHC issued directives regarding expert evidence in the Perjeta patent litigation. Anything we are missing out on? Please let us know in the comments below.
IP rights come in several forms: copyrights, trademarks, patents, and trade secrets. ” Copyright protection exists at the time of creation of the artistic or literary work, but before enforcing the rights against an infringer, it is necessary register the work with the U.S. A patent protects an invention.
‘The Paris Convention’, adopted in March 1883 and revised in the years 1900, 1911, 1925, 1934, 1958, 1967, and 1979, comprehensively addresses “patents, utility models, industrial designs, trademarks, service marks, trade names, and geographical indications”. [1]
A design patent application is much easier, less time-consuming, and less costly to prepare than a utility patent application. Design patent applications proceed more quickly through the Patent and Trademark Office than utility applications.
Large firms sometimes monopolize obvious inventions, and in such cases, patent trolls can help small businesses fight back. Patent trolls acquire patents from smaller entities and use their resources to challenge patentinfringements committed by larger corporations.
United States law offers four types of protection for intellectual property, namely patents, trademarks, copyrights, and trade secrets. Only two of these, patents and trade secrets, can grant you the protection of ideas. The ability to obtain protection differs greatly between patents and trade secrets.
How you do patent only successful products without waiting too long ? You want to patent only successful products, but you need time to determine which products will sell well. US patentlaws, however, impose deadlines on patenting. The post Is a Patent Worth Your Money and Time?
The validity of a United States patent can be challenged in federal court litigation. Patents can also be challenged in the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, which, in most cases, is a quicker and less costly process. The majority of the PTAB’s decisions in IPRs have found most or all of the claims invalid.
with a patentlaw concentration with intellectual property certificate, from the University of Connecticut School of Law in 2013. While there, he was a member of the IP and Technology Law Society, Military Law Society, and National Black Law Students Association. Joel received his J.D., in history.
10th Mahamana Malviya National Moot Court Competition by Law School, Banaras Hindu University [Varanasi, March 24-26, 2023]. We informed our readers of the 10th Mahamana Malaviya National Moot Court Competition concerning a moot problem on patentslaw and incremental innovations. Case Summaries.
While most patent offices, including the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO), have ruled that AI cannot be listed as an inventor, the debate continues. As AI technologies evolve, regulators and lawmakers may need to revisit patentlaws to accommodate the unique challenges posed by AI innovation.
Parliamentary Standing Committee Report on IPR: Tipping the Scales of PatentLaw? Continuing our posts on the Parliamentary Standing Committee Report, I wrote a II-part post on the Report’s recommendations on patentlaw reform. Part I and II. July 26, 2021]. The Madras High Court in Praba’s V Care Health Clinic v.
Besides invalidation of the patent, the lack of a legal basis in patentinfringement and invalidity claims can also result in an order to pay costs due to recklessness. Patentinfringement and invalidity proceedings in Spain are highly complex and demanding. FREENOW case Recently, MYTAXI IBERIA, S.L.
There’s a reason why it’s only once in the life of Indian patentlaw that a CL was granted, check Prof. Basheer’s post discussing Bayer vs Natco where CL was granted for Bayer’s patented anti-cancer drug (Nexavar). among others. Sai Vinod’s post can get you some intellectual relief. Okay, this is it.
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.
Let's personalize your content