EU highest court rules ISPs not required to identify P2P users allegedly infringing copyrights In a decision released today, the highest court in the EU, the European Court of Justice, ruled that under EU law, internet service providers (ISPs) are not required, in the course of a civil lawsuit, to disclose the identity of an individual subscriber associated with a particular IP address. The case arose out of an […] Continue Reading →
Fourth Circuit: Subpoena to foreign corporation valid even though no U.S. business contacts The Fourth Circuit last week addressed a district court's ability to issue subpoenas to foreign witnesses in USPTO administrative proceedings. The court held that a district court may issue a Rule 30(b)(6) subpoena to a foreign corporation who is party to an opposition, even if the party has no officers, directors or managing agents who […] Continue Reading →
Term defined in specification limited even though partially characterized as exemplary In a recent decision, the Federal Circuit vacated and remanded a limited exclusion order by the International Trade Commission. The ITC entered an exclusion order that prevented importation of products produced by a method that infringed two patents.The Federal Circuit vacated the finding of infringement, holding that under the correct claim construction, there was no […] Continue Reading →
Dramatic change in UK trademark policy; Australia eliminates obligation to disclose search reports There have been two interesting changes in foreign IP practice over the past month. Effective October 1, 2007, the UK Trade Marks Office changed its policy such that it will no longer raise objections to applications based on prior existing applications/registrations. Instead, it will be the policy to write to owners of earlier potentially conflicting […] Continue Reading →
More examination outsourcing by the USPTO? According to a news release published today, the USPTO is exploring the feasability of having the Swedish Patent and Registration Office (PRV) perform the search and examination of international applications filed under the PCT in the U.S. receiving office. In the release, the USPTO notes that it receives about 50,000 international applications and about 400,000 […] Continue Reading →
Tenth Circuit: First Amendment analysis required when public domain works “restored” to copyright In an important copyright decision posted today (but apparently filed yesterday), the Tenth Circuit addressed the First Amendment implications of the "restoration" of public domain works to copyright protection as a result of the Uruguay Round Agreement Act (URAA). The URAA implemented Article 18 of the Berne Convention, which brought works back under copyright that […] Continue Reading →
Patent Prosecution Highway pilot program opens between USPTO and UK Intellectual Property Office In a press release today, the USPTO announced an extension of its pilot Patent Prosecution Highway program to include the UK Intellectual Property Office. Under the program, an applicant who receives notice from either the USPTO or the UK IPO that at least one claim is allowable in its application may request expedited consideration of […] Continue Reading →
UK rejects proposal for 20 year copyright extension for sound recordings Yesterday the UK Department for Culture, Media & Sport issued a report rejecting a suggestion to push for an extension of copyright term in the EU for sound recordings of 20 additional years, from 50 to 70 years. Citing the Gowers Review of the UK's intellectual property framework, the report notes: [The Gowers Review] concluded […] Continue Reading →
Australia’s High Court weighs in on obviousness There is a good post over at the Patent Prospector about a decision by the High Court of Australia (the equivalent to the U.S. Supreme Court) regarding the issue of obviousness in patent law. One notable passage: as a basic premise, obviousness and inventiveness are antitheses and the question is always "is the step taken […] Continue Reading →
Today’s opinions in KSR v. Teleflex and Microsoft v. AT&T Click here for the opinion in KSR v. Teleflex. Click here for the opinion in Microsoft v. AT&T. More to come once we've had a chance to review the decisions. Continue Reading →