In a case that may have a major impact on trademark litigation across the country, the Supreme Court decided on June 28, 2019 to grant certiorari in Romag Fasteners, Inc., v. Fossil, Inc., et al., in which Romag has asked the...more
7/3/2019
/ Certiorari ,
Corporate Branding ,
Corporate Counsel ,
Damages ,
Disgorgement ,
Lanham Act ,
SCOTUS ,
Split of Authority ,
Trademark Infringement ,
Trademarks ,
Willful Infringement
Trade dress is a type of trademark intellectual property right that can protect almost any unique identifying aesthetic design used by a company, from the shape of a product, to the appearance of a website, to the decor of a...more
7/22/2016
/ Burden of Proof ,
Dismissals ,
Inherently Distinctive ,
Intellectual Property Protection ,
Likelihood of Confusion ,
Trade Dress ,
Trademark Infringement ,
Trademark Litigation ,
Trademark Office ,
Trademark Registration ,
Trademarks
It is a deceptively simple question with a not so simple answer. A purely foreign transaction is certainly beyond the reach of U.S. patent law, but what if part of the transaction occurs within the United States? For example,...more
Design patents are an often-overlooked form of intellectual property, lying somewhere at the crossroads of trademark law, utility patent law, and copyright law. After the Federal Circuit's May 18, 2015 decision in Apple v....more
In its 2013 decision in Keurig, Inc. v. Sturm Foods, Inc., the Federal Circuit held that a purveyor of coffee cartridges did not infringe Keurig’s coffee brewing patents because Keurig had already made an unrestricted sale of...more
The America Invents Act introduced a new statute, 35 U.S.C. § 299, which provides that “accused infringers may not be joined in one action as defendants or counterclaim defendants, or have their actions consolidated for...more
In Limelight Networks, Inc. v. Akamai Tech., Inc., the Supreme Court unanimously held that there can be no liability for induced infringement of a patented method where the steps of the method are carried out by separate...more
7/3/2014
/ Akamai Technologies ,
Contract Interpretation ,
Direct Infringement ,
Induced Infringement ,
Limelight Networks ,
Limelight v Akamai ,
Miniauction ,
Patent Infringement ,
Patent Litigation ,
Patents ,
SCOTUS
On March 24, 2014, Judge Sue L. Robinson of the District of Delaware adopted a new model Scheduling Order for patent cases litigated in her court. Apart from providing a comprehensive set of deadlines for virtually every...more
Declaratory judgment plaintiffs and counterclaimants in patent cases have long been accustomed to filing boilerplate claims that either do not identify an accused technology, or that do so in a cursory manner. Noninfringement...more
As the size, complexity, and interconnectedness of modern companies’ IT infrastructures has increased, so too has the risk of corporate espionage and cyber attacks targeting companies’ intellectual property. In-house and...more
The Federal Circuit’s August 27, 2013 decision in Applied Medical Resources Corp. v. Tyco Healthcare Group LP (Case No. 2012-1412) (nonprecedential) relied on the seldom-used “difference in kind” test in analyzing...more
On August 6, 2013, the Federal Circuit issued a 48-page opinion in 3M Innovative Props. Co. v. Tredegar Corp., in which it dissected in excruciating detail the construction of patent claims directed to “elastomeric laminates”...more