Source: http://cisloandthomas.com/february-2016/
Timestamp: 2017-06-29 09:05:07
Document Index: 792523122

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 154', '§ 154', '§ 154', '§ 154', '§ 154', '§ 154']

February 2016 | Cislo & Thomas LLP, Patent Copyright and Trademark Law
February 2016Home / Newsletter / February 2016
Cislo & Thomas’ PatentFiler® Implements Automatic Assignment of Provisional Patent Rights 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.
Liability for Pre-Issuance Damages May Only Provide For Damages Before A Patent Issues If The Infringer Has Actual Notice of the Published Patent Application 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 stated that “[g]enerally, patent owners may only collect damages for patent infringement that takes place during the term of the patent.” The narrow exception to Section 154(d) is that it only provides for damages that take place before a patent issues if the infringer “had actual notice of the published patent application … [and] unless the invention as claimed in the patent is substantially identical to the invention as claimed in the published patent application.”
The nature of § 154(d)’s “actual notice” requirement is an issue of first impression for the Federal Circuit, which stated that it “agree[d] with Adobe and the district court that constructive knowledge would not satisfy the actual notice requirement.”
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.
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.
YouTube Community Reacts Negatively To The Fine Brothers New Licensing Scheme
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.
Ryan Morrison, a video gamer turned lawyer, is vocalizing his opposition of the Fine Brothers’ trademark filings and has now offered to help video-makers fight the Fine Brothers’ trademark applications. “The public has 30 days to file an opposition,” he said. “Had the Fine Bros kept quiet for another month, they almost certainly would have gotten this trademark, as no-one seemed to notice it. Instead, they announced their ridiculous licensing program and turned all eyes on them.”
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.
Supreme Court Hints Favoring Discretion For Boosting Penalties for Patent Infringement The U.S. Supreme Court recently heard arguments from Halo Electronics Inc. v. Pulse Electronics, No. 14-1513 and Stryker Corp. v. Zimmer Inc. et al, No. 14-1520 and indicated their inclination to give federal judges more discretion to boost penalties for patent infringement.
Duaing Conic Cons—Salt Lake Comic Con v. San Diego Comic-Con
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.