5 Key Takeaways | AI and Your Patent Management, Strategy & Portfolio
Two Key Considerations in NIL Deals
JONES DAY TALKS®: Women in IP – AI and Copyright Law Need-to-Knows
Business Better Podcast Episode: Bridging Campuses: Legal Insights on Education Industry Consolidation - Intellectual Property
What Were the Cooler Wars? (Part 2) — No Infringement Intended Podcast
(Podcast) The Briefing: Sequel, Spin-Off, or Something Else? The Legal Battle Over "ER" and "The Pitt"
PODCAST: Williams Mullen's Trending Now: An IP Podcast - TCPA Compliance and Litigation Update
Podcast - The "I" in FOCI and AI: Innovation, Intelligence, Influence
From Ideas to Ownership: Navigating IP and Employment Law Through the Lens of The Social Network - No Infringement Intended Podcast
From Ideas to Ownership: Navigating IP and Employment Law Through the Lens of The Social Network — Hiring to Firing Podcast
(Podcast) The Briefing: ER Redux? The Anti-SLAPP Motion That Didn’t Stick
The Briefing: ER Redux? The Anti-SLAPP Motion That Didn’t Stick
A Guide to SEP: Standard Essential Patents for Tech Startups
Hilary Preston, Vice Chair at Vinson & Elkins, Discusses Energy Innovation: Protecting Your Intellectual Property Portfolio
What Were the Cooler Wars? (Part 1) — No Infringement Intended Podcast
The Briefing: Westlaw v. Ross AI - Is This The End of AI Training or The Future of AI Training
Trade Secrets in Hollywood: Lessons from Oscar-Nominated Films - Employment Law This Week® - Spilling Secrets Podcast
(Podcast) The Briefing: Federal District Court Adopts Problematic “Vibe Copyright” Protection in Influencer Fight
The Briefing: Federal District Court Adopts Problematic “Vibe Copyright” Protection in Influencer Fight
Season 6 Ep #1 IP State of the Union- Billion Dollar Character Acquisitions- Part 1
In a recent decision, Germany’s Federal Court of Justice held that Birkenstock’s sandal design was not eligible for copyright protection. The court held that Birkenstock sandals did not display sufficient creativity to be...more
Given that litigation in the United States can take years from start to finish, we rarely see a conclusion to the cases we follow. In a prior blog post, we looked at the potential recusal requirements of the U.S. Supreme...more
On March 18, 2025 the U.S. Supreme Court issued its decision in Stephen Thaler v. Shira Perlmutter et al., confirming that U.S. law requires human authorship. Specifically, the question presented to the Court was “can a...more
How does the expiration of the patents in one jurisdiction impact global royalty payments? This question was addressed by the United States Court of Appeal’s Ninth Circuit in C.R. Bard Inc v Atrium Medical Corporation, Case...more
For years, the U.S. International Trade Commission maintained that the potent remedies available under Section 337 were unavailable to intellectual property owners considered to be nothing more than “mere importers.” That...more
Judge Bibas’s second take in Thomson Reuters v. Ross Intelligence will get plenty of second looks from courts deciding fair use in generative AI copyright cases. “Highly fact-specific.” “Narrowly decided.” A case with...more
Addressing this case for the third time, the US District Court for the District of Arizona found on remand that Jack Daniel’s was entitled to a permanent injunction after finding that VIP Products’ “Bad Spaniels” dog toy...more
In wrapping up the 2023-24 term and embarking on the 2024-25 term, the Supreme Court was asked to decide a number of intellectual property cases. The Court issued several significant opinions in 2024 and has taken several...more
Summary In July 2024, the Seventh Circuit concluded that the DTSA can reach all of a defendant’s worldwide sales caused by the misappropriation, so long as — in the words of 18 U.S.C. § 1837(2) — “an act in furtherance” of...more
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: USPTO...more
In August, Vans, a globally-known footwear and apparel company, and MSCHF, a Brooklyn-based art collective, settled their trademark and trade dress dispute, entering an agreement that permanently enjoins and restrains MSCHF...more
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: Third...more
A recent U.S. Supreme Court decision in a copyright infringement case could have far-reaching implications by allowing plaintiffs to seek damages under the Copyright Act for greater periods of time of infringement....more
Warner Chappell Music v. Nealy, No. 22-1078, 601 U.S. (2024) - On May 9, 2024, the Supreme Court held that copyright owners may obtain damages beyond the three-year statute of limitations under the Copyright Act. As this...more
The U.S. Supreme Court ruled on May 9th, 2024, in the case of Warner Chappell Music, Inc., et al., v. Nealy, et al., that plaintiffs in a copyright ownership dispute can recover damages beyond the three-year statute of...more
Intellectual property practitioners were anticipating the Supreme Court’s decision in Warner Chappell Music v. Nealy, which raised important questions regarding the statute of limitations and availability of damages for stale...more
The United States Supreme Court recently announced its Opinion in Warner Chappell Music, Inc. v. Nealy, 144 S. Ct. 1135 (2024). At issue was whether recoverable damages under the Copyright Act were limited to the three-year...more
On May 9, 2024, the Supreme Court issued its decision in Warner Chappell Music Inc. et al. v. Nealy et al., holding that a plaintiff can seek damages for past infringement that had occurred earlier than the three-year statute...more
In a victory for copyright owners, the US Supreme Court confirmed in a recent case that copyright owners who sue for infringement may recover money damages that are not limited to the three-year period before filing suit....more
A split Supreme Court has decided that, under a plain reading of the Copyright Act, a party alleging copyright infringement may obtain damages for the entire damages period, so long as the suit itself is timely brought....more
On May 9, 2024, in a 6-3 decision, the Supreme Court of the United States affirmed the US Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit’s prior ruling, holding that a plaintiff with a timely infringement claim under the discovery...more
In a 6-3 majority decision in Warner Chappell Music, Inc. et al. v. Sherman Nealy et al., the Supreme Court held that the Copyright Act entitles a copyright owner to recover damages for any timely claim and that no separate...more
Under the Copyright Act, “there is no time limit on monetary recovery” for a timely claim. So held the Supreme Court last week in Warner Chappell Music, Inc. v. Nealy. Section 507 of the Copyright Act imposes a...more
The U.S. Supreme Court recently ruled that the Copyright Act entitles a copyright owner to damages for any timely infringement claim, no matter when the infringement occurred. That means copyright infringement does not have a...more
Our Intellectual Property Litigation Group breaks down the U.S. Supreme Court’s Copyright Act ruling that allows plaintiffs to recover damages for infringements that occurred far in the past....more