Source: https://cisloandthomas.com/february-2016/
Timestamp: 2019-04-22 07:03:21+00:00

Document:
Cislo & Thomas LLP has been diligently perfecting its PatentFiler Provisional Patent Portal to provide the most efficient and effective online provisional patent filing service. PatentFiler now allows inventors to assign and record at the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”) their provisional patent application automatically to an assignor through PatentFiler’s seamless process of filing a provisional patent application with no additional cost to the filer.
For more information, please visit Patentfiler.com and/or speak to an IP attorney at Cislo & Thomas LLP.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirmed the district court’s summary judgment in Rosebud LMS Inc. v. Adobe Sys. Inc. that Adobe Systems Inc. was not liable for pre-issuance damages under 35 U.S.C. § 154(d) because it had no actual notice of the published patent application that led to the asserted patent.
The Federal Circuit did not agree with Adobe that § 154(d)’s requirement of actual notice requires an affirmative act by the applicant giving notice of the published patent application to the infringer. “Certainly, ‘actual notice’ includes a party affirmatively acting to provide notice. But the ordinary meaning of ‘actual notice’ also includes knowledge obtained without an affirmative act of notification.” Correspondingly, the Federal Circuit equates ‘actual notice’ with knowledge.
The Court also corrected Adobe by stating that “the legislative history [maintains] that the applicant must not only affirmatively give notice of the published application to the accused infringer, but must also “explain what acts are regarded as giving rise to provisional rights”—an additional requirement that was not mentioned in the text of § 154(d).
The Court compares Section 287(a), which explicitly requires an act of notification, unlike § 154(d), which merely requires “actual notice” and offers that the difference suggests that the two statutes are to be interpreted differently.
The Court further acknowledges that if Congress wishes, it can amend the statute to require an affirmative act by the patentee and that the Court cannot, and thus interprets the actual notice requirement of § 154(d) as it is clearly written to convey ordinary meaning.
With the recent passing of Supreme Court Justice Scalia, we now take the time to consider his contributions to the field of patent law. Scalia served for just shy of 30 years having been confirmed to the Court on September 17, 1986. During his tenure, Scalia developed a well-earned reputation as a renowned jurist who made important contributions to many fields of law.
Patent law however, as Scalia himself often indicated, was simply not one of his interests. Patent cases he said, bored him. During his tenure, Scalia authored few of the major decisions on patent law considered by the Court, but rather tended to join with the majority in most cases.
It should be said however, that patent law is an area of little ideological contention on the Court. 5-4 split decisions breaking down along ideological lines are rare in patent cases and, in fact, the majority of the Court’s patent decisions over the last decade have been unanimous or nearly unanimous.
eBay, Inc. v. MercExchange, LLC (2006) (holding that victorious patent owners do not have an automatic right to permanent injunctions).
Interestingly, the cases were all unanimous or near unanimous decisions of the Court, in which Scalia either joined or concurred with the majority. In following the lead of the majority, Scalia once said that he often followed the lead of Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg whom he considered to be more knowledgeable on patent issues.
Although Scalia authored few of the major patent decisions during his tenue on the Court, this is not to say that he authored no decisions on the subject. In MedImuune, Inc. v. Genentech, Inc. (2007), Scalia authored the majority opinion which held that patent licensees need not stop paying royalties on a license, and thus open themselves to infringement liability, in order to have standing to bring a suit for declaratory judgement of invalidity of the licensed patent. Scalia also authored the majority opinion in Eli Lilly Co. v. Medtronic, Inc. (1990) and Merck KgA v. Integra Lifesciences, Ltd. (2005), both of which broadened the safe harbor from infringement provision provided in patent law for generic drug companies engaged in premarket activities.
In sum, it would be fair to say that Scalia, a lion of modern Supreme Court jurisprudence, had a modest but meaningful impact on patent law. It would not appear that Scalia had any particular guiding philosophy when it came to patent law. Rather, his opinions suggest that, as in all his cases, he was interested in clear reasoning and in establishing a readily determinable precedent that could provide guidance to the lower courts.
The Fine Brothers are one of the biggest YouTube content creators and have more than 13 million followers. In 2015, the brothers applied to trademark terms, including “Kids React”, “Adults React” and “Celebrities React”, as well as the word “react” itself, which could be used to form new variations of the format.
In early February, they announced a licensing scheme called React World, which they said would let other video-makers use the “react” title and assets such as their graphics and music.
However, the YouTube community reacted negatively since many people have already been making similar reaction videos and found that The Fine Brothers have gone too far past just protecting their own content from being stolen.
The Fine Brothers have clarified that they are planning to license only a complete package of “structural elements” and assets, and that they were “in no way claiming [that] reaction content, in general, is [their] intellectual property.” “We are not going after/shutting down/suing anyone who makes reaction-based content,” they wrote.
Since their announcement on Tuesday, the Fine Brothers have lost more than 170,000 followers from their YouTube channel. Depending on how The Fine Brothers react to this public outrage, their future in the YouTube space may be very different from what they had imagined when filing for their trademarks and announcing their licensing scheme.
The San Diego Comic-Con started in 1970 and has grown to be one of the iconic convention for enthusiasts of the comic world while the Salt Lake Comic Con, not associated with the San Diego Comic-Con, started in September 2013 with an estimated 72,000 people showing up and then more than 120,000 people attended the following year.
Consequently, Salt Lake Comic Con and San Diego Comic-Con have been in court battling over trademark rights after San Diego Comic-Con filed a trademark infringement suit against the rapidly growing Salt Lake convention in August 2014.
The San Diego Comic-Con organizers say they have legal ownership of the term “comic con” in all its forms, and that the name of the Salt Lake event is so similar that people will think they are affiliated.
The United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”) is withholding judgment and has suspended its own ruling in November until the federal case could be resolved. Interestingly, in July, the USPTO awarded Salt Lake Comic Con a trademark for its name, stating that “comic con” was too generic to trademark but “Salt Lake Comic Con” was specific enough to qualify.
The two parties have agreed to come to a settlement agreement by March and will hopefully result in a distinction between the two organizations that will not only help the public recognize the non-affiliation, but also allows both organizations to still promote their respective objectives.

References: v. 
 § 154
 § 154
 § 154
 § 154
 § 154
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.