The Briefing: The Supreme Court Limits the Reach of The Lanham Act [PODCAST]
Emerging Strategies for Protecting Global IP Rights
Patent Series: Protecting inventions
Video Game Lawsuit Highlights Intellectual Property Issues with Internet Memes
Harlem Shake's Copyright Issues
Apple Loses First 'Big' Case to MobileMedia, Lawyer Says
Copyright Safe Harbors: Establishing Protection Against Infringement Claims
In BritNed v ABB, the English Court of Appeal substantially reduced the UK's first award of damages in a so-called cartel damages claim brought for breach of European competition law. In so doing, the Court rejected calls for...more
Where is no plaintiff, there is also no judge: Private enforcement of competition law presupposes that there are plaintiffs who take a cartel to court. Plaintiffs exist where actions are worth it. Cartel victims may obtain...more
The Supreme Court of the United States issued decisions in three cases today: McDonnell v. United States, No. 15-474: Former Virginia Governor Robert McDonnell and his wife, Maureen McDonnell, were federally indicted...more
In its first intellectual property ruling of the current term, the Supreme Court unanimously held on January 22, 2014 in Medtronic, Inc. v. Mirowski Family Ventures LLC that a patentee always bears the burden of proving...more
A patentee bears the burden of proving infringement when a licensee seeks a declaratory judgment of non-infringement, the U.S. Supreme Court has held. The ruling reversed the Federal Circuit and clarified declaratory...more
The Supreme Court's decision last week in Medtronic v. Mirowski Family Ventures, LLC clarifies once again that patent holders bear the burden of proving patent infringement—even in declaratory judgment actions brought by...more
In Medtronic, Inc. v. Mirowski Family Ventures, LLC, a unanimous Supreme Court held that the patent holder bears the burden of proving infringement, even in a declaratory judgment action brought by a licensee. In reaching its...more
"In the modern economy, licensing of intellectual property rights is a widespread and essential activity." Those are the opening lines from the amicus curiae brief submitted by the Intellectual Property Owners Association...more
Patents / Patent Eligible Subject Matter - Supreme Court to Myriad: Isolated DNA Sequences Are Not Patent-Eligible Subject Matter -- AMP et al. v. Myriad Genetics, Inc.: In a 9–0 decision the Supreme...more
Introduction - The EU Patent Package (the Patent Package) consists of two related, but independent parts: a Unitary EU Patent (the Unitary Patent or UP) and a Unified Patent Court (the UPC). The new system is expected...more
On February 14, 2013, in, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (Reyna, Bryson, Wallach*) reversed-in-part and affirmed-in-part the district court's judgment following a bench trial that Watson did not infringe...more
What is an inter partes review? An inter partes review (“IPR”) enables a third party to challenge one or more claims in an issued patent at the United States Patent & Trademark Office (“Office”). IPR was designed to...more
In an important intellectual property ruling likely to affect patent law as much as trademark law, the U.S. Supreme Court issued its opinion in Already, LLC v. Nike, Inc., No. 11-982 (U.S. Jan. 9, 2013), unanimously holding...more