Newsletters

05.12.20

Supreme Court: State Official Annotations to Code Not Copyrightable

The Supreme Court ruled against Georgia in a copyright claim that the state filed against Public.Resource.Org Inc., for distributing the state annotated code.


05.04.20

Supreme Court: Willfulness Trademark Infringement Not Required to Obtain Profit Disgorgement

In Romag Fasteners, Inc. v. Fossil Group, Inc., the Supreme Court held that a district court may award the plaintiff with the defendant’s profits even without a showing of willfulness for trademark infringement.


05.30.19

Supreme Court: Bankruptcy Law Cannot Unilaterally Revoke Trademark License

In Mission Product Holdings Inc. v. Tempnology LLC, the Supreme Court, in an 8-to-1 decision, held that bankrupt trademark owners cannot use bankruptcy law to unilaterally revoke a trademark license.


01.28.19

Supreme Court Holds Sale Requiring Confidentiality Can Qualify as Prior Art

In Helsinn Healthcare S.A. v. Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc., the Supreme Court affirmed the Federal Circuit’s decision that the sale of an invention to a party who is contractually obligated to keep the invention confidential can qualify as prior art to place the invention “on ...


12.06.18

Invention for Navigating Complex 3-D Worksheet Held Patent-Eligible

In Data Engine Techs. LLC v. Google LLC, the Federal Circuit held that an invention for navigating through complex three-dimensional electronic spreadsheets was patent-eligible subject matter.


09.28.17

Looking Through an IP Lens at Blockchain and Cryptocurrency

With headline news ranging from J.P. Morgan CEO Jamie Dimon and Russian President Vladimir Putin to the Winklevoss twins and Floyd “Money” Mayweather, the hype surrounding cryptocurrency—think bitcoin, ethereum and an ever-expanding list of niche altcoins—has gone mainstream.


07.13.17

SCOTUS: For Patent Venue, Domestic Corporations ‘Reside’ Where Incorporated

On May 22, 2017, the Supreme Court issued its decision in TC Heartland LLC v. Kraft Foods Group Brands LLC—rejecting long-standing Federal Circuit precedent and re-establishing stricter venue requirements for patent infringement litigation involving a domestic corporate defendant.


12.15.16

Design Patents—Supreme Court Decides Samsung v. Apple

On December 6, 2016, the Supreme Court decided Samsung v. Apple, holding that, for purposes of a "total profits" damages award for infringement of a design patent under Section 289 of the Patent Act, the relevant "article of manufacture" can be limited to one or more individual ...


10.25.16

Federal Circuit After Stryker/Halo

On June 13, 2016, the U.S. Supreme Court decided the consolidated cases of Stryker Corp. v. Zimmer, Inc. and Halo Electronics, Inc. v. Pulse Electronics, Inc. and, as had been widely anticipated, overturned the Federal Circuit's "inelastic" Seagate standard for awarding enhanced ...


07.07.16

Supreme Court: Status Quo in Cuozzo

On June 20, 2016, the Supreme Court decided Cuozzo Speed Technologies v. Lee, where it rejected challenges to the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) inter partes review (IPR) process and held that (1) PTAB decisions regarding whether to institute IPR proceedings are by statute not subject to ...