MVS Filewrapper – Blog:Supreme Court Revises Standards for Sanctions in Exceptional Patent Cases Two U.S. Supreme Court opinions issued today—Octane Fitness, LLC v. Icon Health & Fitness, Inc. and Highmark Inc. v. Allcare Health Management System, Inc.—have changed the framework for which exceptional cases are analyzed under § 285 of the Patent Act. For years, the controlling case with regard to § 285 of the Patent Act was […] Continue Reading →
Competing Without Practicing – Preliminary Injunctions for Patent Infringement InTrebo Manufacturing, Inc., v. Firefly Equipment, LLC, the Federal Circuit held that a plaintiff seeking a preliminary injunction for patent infringement does not need to practice the patent at issue in order to receive an injunction, so long as it sells a competing product. Trebro brought suit alleging that FireFly's sod harvester product infringed its […] Continue Reading →
The Ongoing Battle of Copyright Protection and Pre-1972 Sound Recordings Federal Copyright Law generally protects works that are fixed in a tangible medium from unauthorized use, including copying, performance, exhibition, and broadcasting. However, sound recordings from before 1972 are treated uniquely under the law—a situation that has resulted in real legal problems. When enacted, the Federal Copyright Law preempted any state rights relating to copyright […] Continue Reading →
USPTO Issues New Examination Guidelines for Patent Subject Matter Eligibility The basic requirements for filing a U.S. utility patent are rather straightforward. Patents are granted for new, useful and non-obvious processes, products or compositions of matter. Similarly, any new, useful and non-obvious improvement to these categories of inventions may be granted a patent. Although seemingly straightforward, the three basic requirements for patentability are impacted by […] Continue Reading →
Who May Bring a Federal False Advertising Suit? The Supreme Court's recent decision in Lexmark International, Inc. v. Static Control Components, Inc. prescribed the appropriate framework for determining whether a plaintiff has standing in a false advertising action under the 15 U.S.C. 1125(a). Prior to this decision, there were three competing approaches to determining whether a plaintiff has standing to bring suit under […] Continue Reading →