Patent portfolios are often a substantial asset to business associations, and even for the individual inventor an issued patent or two can be Big Business. Patent assignments (i.e. wholesale buying and selling of patents and patent applications) are not the only ways to trade in the commodity. Many transactions take the form of licenses or assignment in exchan....... Read More
Teva v. Sandoz Revisited On June 18, 2015, a Federal Circuit panel reaffirmed that the key claim of the patent at issue inTeva v. Sandoz, was invalid as indefinite. The procedural posture and technical background leading up to this decision is discussed in aprior blog post. The Federal Circuit ultimately concluded that they are still allowed to address if the question of law regarding indefiniteness....... Read More
Under 35 U.S.C. § 271, a party can be held liable for infringement of a patent under in a number of different ways. The most common liability is for direct, literal infringement of the patent, meaning that accused party actually practices every element of the asserted patent claim(s). The statute also includes provisions for liability based on importation products (§ 271(g)); contributory infringement ....... Read More
Federal trademark rights are generally enforceable throughout the United States. However, confusion can arise where contrary decisions have been made by district courts in different geographical regions relating to the same mark. The Fourth Circuit’s March decision in Georgia Pacific Consumer Prods. LP v. Von Dreble Corp, an appeal from the Eastern District of North Carolina, provides an exem....... Read More
Thank you for reading Filewrapper. To continue getting updates, be sure to sign up below. Click the box next to "Subscribe to: Filewrapper Blog Updates." .... Read More
In this non-precedential opinion (Fed. Cir. 2015) the Court held claims 60-68 of U.S. Patent No. 5,799,273 (the “’273 Patent”) invalid under 35. U.S.C. § 101 as not being directed to one of the four statutory categories of inventions identified in 35 U.S.C. 101. Claim 60 is set forth below: 60. A universal speech-recognition interface that enables operative coupling of a speech-recognition engine....... Read More
The United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit recently decided the appeal for Apple v. Samsung, involving allegations of trade dress dilution, design patent infringement, and utility patent infringement. The case relates to Samsung's alleged copying of Apple's popular iPhone smartphone. A jury previously found that Samsung infringed Apple’s design and utility patents and diluted Apple’s....... Read More
Trade dress is a form of intellectual property related to trademarks, which deals with characteristics of visual appearance, usually of a product or its packaging, but also potentially of a commercial space such as a store or restaurant. Like trademarks, trade dress signifies to consumers the source of a product or service.Also, like trademarks, trade dress is protected by both common law and federal statu....... Read More
Under the Copyright Act of 1909, a work was protected when it was published with the notice of copyright protection. Although changed by the Copyright Act of 1976, releasing a sound recording of a composition under the 1909 act (i.e., musical notes and lyrics) did not constitute “publication” of a musical work. Thus, for musical works before the 1976 Act, protection was not typically afforded until the own....... Read More
The award of damages in patent infringement cases is governed by 35 U.S.C. § 284. The statute provides "[u]pon finding for the [patent owner] the court shall award the claimant damages adequate to compensate for the infringement, but in no event less than a reasonable royalty for the use made of the invention by the infringer, together with interest and costs as fixed by the court." The statute does not de....... Read More
The attorneys of McKee, Voorhees & Sease, P.L.C. designed this blog as an informational and educational resource about intellectual property law for our clients, other attorneys, and the public as a whole. Our goal is to provide cutting-edge information about recent developments in intellectual property law, including relevant case law updates, proposed legislation, and intellectual property law in the news.
McKee, Voorhees & Sease, P.L.C. provides this blog for general informational purposes only. By using this blog, you agree that the information on this blog does not constitute legal or other professional advice and no attorney-client or other relationship is created between you and McKee, Voorhees & Sease, P.L.C. Do not consider this blog to be a substitute for obtaining legal advice from a qualified, licensed attorney. While we try to revise this blog on a regular basis, it may not reflect the most current legal developments. We consciously refrain from expressing opinions on this blog and instead, offer it as a form of information and education, however if there appears an expression of opinion, realize that those views are indicative of the individual and not of the firm as a whole.
Dedicated to the practice of intellectual property law and service to clients as a faithful advocate.