Education Center
SUPREME COURT RULES IN LIFE TECHNOLOGIES CORP. V. PROMEGA CORP.
On February 22, 2017 in Life Technologies Corp. v. Promega Corp, the Supreme Court in a 7-0 judgment (Chief Justice Roberts having recused himself) held that for there to be active inducement of infringement by export of components of a patented...
Read ArticleEVALUATING THE USPTO’s EFFORTS TO CLEAN UP THE U.S. TRADEMARK REGISTER
An ongoing issue for the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) has been the number of trademark registrations where registrants do not actually use or intend to use their marks on all of the goods and services covered by their...
Read ArticleTHE DESIGNER FORMERLY KNOWN AS…INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY ISSUES ARISING FROM PERSONAL NAMES AS FASHION BRANDS
Kate Spade, Paul Frank, Joseph Abboud, Catherine Malandrino, and Karen Millen—aside from being well-known designers, all have something else in common; they no longer own the right to use their personal names as their brands. In the fashion...
Read Article
U.S. SUPREME COURT REVERSES DAMAGE AWARD IN SAMSUNG v APPLE
The Supreme Court on December 6, 2016 ruled that when considering the basis for awarding damages based on the infringer’s profits from infringing a design patent, it is not necessary to base these damages on the profit made on the entire article...
Read ArticleSOFTWARE AS PATENTABLE SUBJECT MATTER POST ALICE
The issue of patent eligible subject matter under 35 USC § 101 affects many different types of inventions including those which incorporate software technology for controlling conventional machines and devices. Although the Alice v. CLS Bank...
Read ArticleTHE ZERO SUM GAME IN THE COLA WARS
In Royal Crown Company and Dr Pepper/Seven Up Inc v The Coca-Cola Company, Opposition 91178927, each party opposed the other’s trademark applications containing the term ZERO for soft drinks, sports drinks and energy drinks. Although Coca-Cola was...
Read Article