The problem of marketing an idea: how much do you tell a prospective licensee? Forbes has an interesting piece regarding marketing ideas, specifically way to protect an idea when pitching it to companies or ways to avoid “giving something away” in the process. It’s written to be easily understood by non-lawyers, and has some good general suggestions. Notably absent from the list: using the line “I’d tell you, but […] Continue Reading →
Roundup of media coverage of “KSR v. Teleflex” After last week’s arguments before the Supreme Court in KSR v. Teleflex, the media has begun to offer its perspective on the case. Below is a sampling of the media coverage, which generally appears to think that the teaching-suggestion-motivation (TSM) test will either be scrapped entirely, or at least allow other ways to prove an […] Continue Reading →
Buffett settles with alleged trademark infringer Jimmy Buffett reached a settlement with a man he accused of selling merchandise that infringed his trademarks. The alleged infringer, Robert Akard, was selling Buffett-themed merchandise via his website. The judge in the case ordered Mr. Akard’s website shut down until the conclusion of the case and to disclose how much money he had made […] Continue Reading →
Supreme Court questions Federal Circuit’s obviousness test: is it “gobbledygook”? In oral argument before the Supreme Court in KSR International Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., several Justices appeared uncomfortable with the Federal Circuit's "teaching-suggestion-motivation" (TSM) test for obviousness. Justice Scalia, in his typical direct style, characterized the TSM test at various times as "gobbledygook," "irrational," and "meaningless." Other Justices, including Chief Justice Roberts and Justice Breyer […] Continue Reading →
Supreme Court to hear key obviousness case today This morning the Supreme Court will hear oral arguments in KSR International Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., a potentially landmark case on the issue of obviousness in patent law. The case deals with adjustable automotive pedals in vehicles with electronic throttle controls. Teleflex sued KSR for infringement of patent no. 6,237,565. KSR asserted that the ‘565 […] Continue Reading →
Mattel sues makers of Bratz dolls for trade secret misappropriation Mattel, the manufacturer of Barbie dolls, sued a former employee, Carter Bryant, for trade secret misappropriation in 2004. Now, Mattel is attempting to add MGA Entertainment, makers of the relatively new Bratz dolls, to the case. Mattel alleges that Mr. Bryant conceived of the Bratz doll design while working for Mattel, and therefore Mattel owns […] Continue Reading →
US Copyright office issues new exemptions from DMCA Every three years, the United States Copyright Office seeks proposals for exemptions from the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (“DMCA”). The DMCA was enacted in 1998. As part of the DMCA, it became unlawful to circumvent access control measures copyright holders used to secure their copyrighted works. For example, it is a violation of the DMCA […] Continue Reading →
Majority of Federal Circuit appears ready to reconsider claim construction standard of review Today the Federal Circuit denied rehearing en banc in Amgen, Inc. v. Hoechst Marion Roussel, Inc., a case dealing with synthetic human erythropoietin, a protein that stimulates red blood cell production. In order to rehear a case en banc, a majority of active judges on the court must vote to rehear the case. There are […] Continue Reading →
Enablement standard for prior art less stringent than enablement standard for patents The Federal Circuit, in Impax Laboratories, Inc. v. Aventis Pharmaceuticals Inc., discussed the requirements for a prior art reference to be enabled, and thus anticipate a patent. Aventis is the owner of U.S. Patent No. 5,527,814, covering the use of the compound riluzole to treat ALS, commonly known as Lou Gehrig’s disease. Impax wanted to […] Continue Reading →
Showing a strong Spine, the Federal Circuit addresses the Doctrine of Equivalents In DuPuy Spin, Inc. v. Medtronic Sofamor Danek, Inc., the Federal Circuit concluded that the district court erred in granting summary judgment of non-infringement on Medtronics Vertex? model with regards to U.S. Patent No. 5,207,678 (the ‘678 patent). Additionally, the Federal Circuit concluded that the district court’s judgment of non-infringement for Medtronics bottom-loaded screw device […] Continue Reading →