Source: https://www.cantorcolburn.com/news-newsletters-archive.html
Timestamp: 2019-04-26 07:43:55+00:00

Document:
Design Basics, LLC v. Lexington Homes, Inc., No. 16-3817, June 6, 2017, 7th Cir.
The Cleveland Clinic Foundation v. True Health Diagnostics LLC, No. 16-1766, June 16, 2017, Fed. Cir.
Marketquest Group, Inc. v. BIC Corp., No. 15-55755, July 7, 2017, 9th Cir.
In re Stepan Co., No. 16-1811, Aug. 25, 2017, Fed. Cir.
Manufacturer vs. distributor - Who owns that unregistered trademark?
When is automation of a manual process patentable?
3DPrint.com published Bill Cass’ article, "The New Federal Trade Secrets Act – Another Way to Protect Additive Manufacturing," on June 6, 2016.
The Defend Trade Secret Act (DTSA), signed into law on May 11, 2016, provides companies their first opportunity to go directly to federal court to argue trade secret cases. Though for decades trade secret laws remained exclusively in state law domain, the new law is expected to provide monetary and injunctive relief when trade secrets are stolen at a federal level. The Defend Trade Secrets Act provides a powerful new tool to protect a business’s intellectual property.
3DPrint.com published Bill Cass’ article, “Protecting 3D Printed Designs – Can Trade Dress Rights Fill the Void?” on March 25, 2016, in which he examines the importance of agreements to establish trade dress protection with third parties for 3D-printed products. Citing Coke and Christian Louboutin shoes as examples, Bill catalogs important intellectual property options for consumer products makers and patent owners generally.
Can online search results trigger trademark liability?
Despite the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit's ruling in Amgen v Sandoz, significant uncertainty concerning two key provisions of the BCPIA remains, as Pharmaceutical Practice Group Co-Chairs Steve Coyle and Leslie-Anne Maxwell describe in their article, "Amgen v Sandoz: The Biosimilars Saga Continues" published in Life Sciences IP Review, Autumn 2015 issue.
Is that trademark too concise?
Steve Coyle, Leslie-Anne Maxwell, and Chad Dever wrote the article, "Ogres and Trolls," for Life Sciences IP Review magazine about inter-partes review and post-grant review and life sciences patents.
In 2014, Curt Krechevsky co-chaired the International Trademark Association (INTA) Presidential Task Force on Brands and Innovation. In February 2015 the Task Force submitted its final report to INTA. In March 2015 Krechevsky presented the report to the INTA Board of Directors at its meeting in New York City. Krechevsky chairs the firm's Trademark & Copyright Department.
Trademark Oppositions in the U.S.
Curt Krechevsky, Partner and Chair of the firm's Trademark & Copyright Department, and Tom Mango, Counsel, wrote an article entitled "Trademark Oppositions in the United States of America."
Partner Christopher C. Boehm wrote the chapter "Emerging Trends in Intellectual Property Law Place Increasing Burdens on Innovators" in Aspatore Thought Leadership Intellectual Property Law 2015. Associate Chad Dever provided key research and analysis.
Can an obscure online post constitute prior art?
More false advertising claims on the way?
Dude, can you copyright a hookah?
Does patent exhaustion require a sale?
Should royalties end when a patent expires?
Are wireless carriers liable for user infringement?
Can silence stifle an infringement claim?
Location is everything … or is it?
A sidebar explains why patent ownership could get more expensive.
Can an SLA constitute copyright misuse?
during patent prosecution. This article examines the court’s ruling.
Do online music providers need a license?
Intellectual Property Law Newsletter, presented by the Intellectual Property Practice Group of Whyte Hirschboeck Dudek S.C.
What makes derivative works copyrightable?
Citation: Beltronics USA Inc. v. Midwest Inventory Distribution LLC, 90 USPQ2d 1228 (10th Cir. Apr. 9, 2009).
Citation: Larson v. Correct Craft, Inc., 2008-1208 (Fed. Cir. 6-5-2009). No. 2008-1208, 2008-1209. Chou v. University of Chicago, Appeal No. 00-1317 (Fed. Cir., July 3, 2001).
Citation: A.V. v. iParadigms, LLC (April 16, 2009), No. 08-1424.
Citation: In re Fallaux (Fed. Cir. May 6, 2009).
Can you prove copyright infringement without proof of copying?
E.S.S. Entm't 2000, Inc. v. Rock Star Videos, Inc., No. 06-56237 (9th Cir. 11/5/08).
In re Comiskey (Fed. Cir. 1/13/09).
Intervest Constr., Inc. v. Canterbury Estate Homes, Inc. (11th Cir. 12/22/08).
Picking up the pieces: Court weighs in on liability for patent-infringing components.
Pencils down! Federal Circuit adopts definitive test for method patentability.
How do team colors hold up in a trademark dispute?
IP in brief: Sold sculptures prompt copyright claim.
Court declares appropriate test for design patent infringement.
Can an implied license defeat a copyright claim? The importance of addressing ownership rights using written agreements when developing intellectual property.
The importance of association: Automotive trademark faces likelihood of confusion test.
Citation: AutoZone, Inc. v. Strick, 543 F.3d 923 (7th Cir. 2008).
Congress enacts additional IP protections.
Don’t get burned-- Patent’s inequitable conduct defense requires intent and materiality.
Citation: Star Scientific, Inc. v. R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co., 537 F.3d 1357, 88 U.S.P.Q.2d 1001 (Fed. Cir. 2008).
Proving secondary meaning for trademarks.
Citation: E.T. Browne Drug Co. v. Cococare Products, Inc., 538 F.3d 185, 87 U.S.P.Q.2d 1655 (3d Cir. 2008).
How the first sale doctrine affects foreign-made infringing copies.
Citation: Omega S.A. v. Costco Wholesale, --- F.3d ----, 2008 WL 4058640 (9th Cir. 2008); Quality King Distributors, Inc. v. L’anza Research Int’l, Inc., 523 U.S. 135 (1998).
Notice of patent infringement trips up defendant.
Citation: DSW, Inc. v. Shoe Pavilion, Inc., No. 2008-1085 (Fed. Cir. 2008); Wine Railway Appliance Co. v. Enterprise Railway Equipment, 297 U.S. 387 (1936).
Photo finish-- Archives in copyright case ruled privileged. Citation: Greenberg v. National Geographic Society, No. 05-16964 (11th Cir. 2008); New York Times Co. v. Tasini, 533 U.S. 483 (2001).
Sweet dreams-- Supreme Court enforces patent exhaustion doctrine.
Citation: Quanta Computer, Inc. v. LG Electronics, Inc., 128 S.Ct. 2109 (U.S. 2008); Motion Picture Patents Co. v. Universal Film Mfg. Co., 243 U.S. 502 (1917); U.S. v. Univis, 316 U.S. 241 (1942).
“Families” feud over trademark ownership.
Citation: Estate of Coll-Monge v. Inner Peace Movement, 524 F.3d 1341, 86 U.S.P.Q.2d 1598 (D.C. Cir. 2008).
Generic trademark lets defendant duck injunction.
Citation: Boston Duck Tours, L.P. v. Super Duck Tours, LLC, No. 07-2078 (1st Cir. 2008).
Can meta tags form the basis for trademark infringement? Citation: North American Medical Corp. v. Axiom Worldwide, Inc., 522 F.3d 1211 (11th Cir. 2008); Brookfield Communications, Inc. v. West Coast Entertainment Corp., 174 F.3d 1036 (9th Cir. 1999); eBay Inc. v. MercExchange, L.L.C., 547 U.S. 388 (2006).
Citation: Tafas v. Dudas, 541 F.Supp.2d 805, 86 U.S.P.Q.2d 1623 (E.D. Va. 2008).
Can’t get more than one satisfaction: Court applies one-satisfaction rule in copyright case.
Citation: BUC Int’l Corp. v. Int’l Yacht Council Ltd., 517 F.3d 1271 (11th Cir. 2008).
Court broadly interprets “video” license.
Citation: Intersport Inc. v. NCAA --- N.E.2d --- (Ill. App. 2008).
Foreign relations: Are famous overseas trademarks protected in the U.S.?
Citations: ITC Ltd. v. Punchgini, Inc., 518 F.3d 159, 86 U.S.P.Q.2d 1115 (2d Cir. 2008); Grupo Gigante S.A. de C.V. v. Dallo & Co. , 391 F.3d 1088 (9th Cir. 2004).
Patentee strikes out: Elements matter under doctrine of equivalents.
Citation: Miken Composites, L.L.C. v. Wilson Sporting Goods Co., 515 F.3d 1331, 85 U.S.P.Q.2d 1865 (Fed. Cir. 2008).
Sewing up patent law’s on-sale bar.
Citation: Atlanta Attachment Co. v. Leggett & Platt, Inc. (Fed. Cir. 2008).
All’s fair (use) in copyright infringement.
Citation: Dudnikov v. Chalk & Vermilion Fine Arts, Inc., 85 U.S.P.Q.2d 1705, 514 F.3d 1063 (10th Cir. 2008).
Court remands trade secrets case.
Citation: Patriot Homes, Inc. v. Forest River Housing, Inc. 512 F.3d 412 (7th Cir. 2008).
Can you use copyrighted thumbnails?
Not in the “Nick of Time,” Court rejects retroactive copyright license.
Citation: Davis v. Blige, 505 F.3d 90, 84 U.S.P.Q.2d 1353 (2d Cir. 2007).
Citation: BMC Resources, Inc. v. Paymentech, L.P., 498 F.3d 1373 (Fed. Cir. 2007).
Citation: Freecycle Network, Inc. v. Oey, 505 F.3d 898, 84 U.S.P.Q.2d 1530 (9th Cir. 2007).
Too many at bats for a trademark applicant.
Citation: Central Mfg., Inc. v. Brett 492 F.3d 876 (7th Cir. 2007).
Foreign application provides patent priority.
Citation: Frazer v. Schlegel, 83 U.S.P.Q.2d 1850 (Fed. Cir. 2007); Boston Scientific Scimed, Inc. v. Medtronic Vascular, Inc. (Fed. Cir. 2007).
Court says no enablement, no patent protection.
Citation: Ormco Corp. v. Align Technology, Inc., 2007 WL 2404723, 84 U.S.P.Q.2d 1146 (Fed. Cir. 2007).
No copyright protection for NYMEX selling prices.
Citation: New York Mercantile Exchange, Inc. v. Intercontinental Exchange, Inc. 497 F.3d 109 (2d Cir. 2007).
A secondary consideration: Court rejects third-party liability for copyright, trademark infringement. Citation: Perfect 10 v. Visa Int’l, --- F.3d ----, 83 U.S.P.Q.2d 1144, (9th Cir. 2007).
It’s in the way that you use it: Court allows some “use” prior to patent application. Citation: Motionless Keyboard Co. v. Microsoft Corp., 486 F.3d 1376, 82 U.S.P.Q.2d 1801 (Fed. Cir. 2007); Egbert v. Lippman, 104 U.S. 333 (1881); Electric Storage Battery Co. v. Shimadzu, 307 U.S. 5 (1939).
Damages awarded for unauthorized but unused copies. Citation: Thoroughbred Software Int’l v. Dice Corp., 488 F.3d 352, 83 U.S.P.Q.2d 1040 (6th Cir. 2007).
Patented pedals hit the brakes: Supreme Court lowers the “obviousness” bar. Citation: KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., No. 04-1350 (U.S. 2007); Graham v. John Deere Co. (1), 383 U.S. 1 (1966).
Made in America? Foreign-copied software escapes U.S. patent law. Citation: Microsoft Corp. v. AT&T Corp., No. 05-1056 (U.S. 2007).
Court finds lawyers too generic: Lawyers.com, that is. Citation: In re Reed Elsevier Properties, Inc., No. 06-1309 (Fed. Cir. 2007).
What Does Forum Shopping in the Eastern District of Texas Mean for Patent Reform?

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.