Sitemap

Spanish

AV-rated by the Martindale-Hubbell Law Directory

»   Home
»   News
»   Attorneys
»   Patents
»   Trademarks
»   Copyrights
»   Clients
»   Litigation
»   IP Blog

Welcome to the Malloy & Malloy, P.A.

Intellectual Property law Blog

Our goal is to provide some general information about recent developments and interesting news impacting Patent, Trademark and Copyright Issues.  Please feel free to check back often for the latest.

Miami International Fashion Week US Fashion Business Seminar

Cuba Libre?

Yelp! gets tangled in a dog fight alleging unfair competition and extortion.

Warner Music: A Lone Island in the Stream

Warner Music Group has announced that it will stop licensing its music to streaming services – such as Last.fm and Pandora -- that provide consumers with free, instant, and legal access to millions of songs. Generally speaking, music streaming services function like radio stations – with some, like Pandora, designed to 'guess' the musical tastes of a specific consumer and tailor suggestions based on these findings. Such services, therefore, provide new artists --and even musical genres -- with exposure to new consumers.  Nevertheless, while streaming services do pay royalties for each song played the royalties are significantly less than those a company such as Warner will earn through paid downloads.  Moreover, while some consumers may go on to purchase digital copies of favorite songs, it's unclear what proportion are simply free-riding on these service.

Warner, therefore, has come to the conclusion that "free streaming services are clearly not positive for the industry" and decided to focus on providing digital access to music by way of paid subscription services.   However, Warner’s decision to focus on paid subscription services – none of which have yet to prove popular among consumers – has been criticized as short-sighted and oblivious to the desires of consumers that have become accustomed to free and subsidized music services.  In this new landscape, many believe that any service stopping short of full-on piracy should be viewed as a positive by music labels.  This view appears to be held by several major industry players such as the senior VP of Universal Music Group who has gone on record as stating that such free services provide “a very sustainable financial model.”

It remains to be seen whether Warner’s move – which will cut access to popular artists such as REM and Muse – will negatively affect the future of music streaming services. However, as noted by the head of UK’s Music Manager’s Forum, what is clear is that “anything that's going backwards is denying where the world's going.”

For more click here

Behold the Power of Apple

Killer Heat and the binding nature of your Patent Counsel’s Litigation Strategy

Who Dat Trademark Owner?

As the New Orleans Saints get ready to take the field in their first SuperBowl on February 6th in Miami, the game is not the only battle that has the Who Dat Nation talking. The National Football League, who claims to be the owner of the "Who Dat" phrase, has sent cease and desist letters to retailers, including mom and pop shops, who are selling  merchandise with the "Who Dat"  phrase.  The NFL claims that such sales would cause confusion among Saints fans about whether such merchandise is officially licensed by the NFL.

However, the ownership of the "Who Dat" phrase may not be so clear cut.  Sal and Steve Monistere, who recorded a version of "When the Saints Go Marching In" in the early eighties incorporating the "Who Dat" chant, claim that they are the owners of the phrase.

The NFL' s actions have caused an outrage among football fans, business owners and politicians alike.  It has even prompted  Senator David Vitter, R-La., to issue a letter to NFL Commissioner Roger Goodell urging the NFL to take back its position. Senator Vitter claims he will sell his own shirts with the "Who Dat" phrase and even challenged the NFL to sue him if he did so. Senator Vitter's letter states that:

"The "Who Dat?" trademark" was probably first heard in New Orleans minstrel shows well over 130 years ago. Much more recently, but before it was used in connection with the Saints, it was used as a rallying cry by St. Augustine High School in New Orleans. In the 1980s it was adopted by Saints fans in a completely spontaneous way. Only later did any legal persons, including the Saints and the NFL, try to claim it through registration."

To view Senator Vitter's letter to the NFL, click here.

ANNUAL INVENTION EXPO - FEBRUARY 6, 2010

The Inventors Society of South Florida hosts its Annual Invention Expo on Saturday, February 6, 2010 from 11:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m. at the Main Branch of the Broward County Library located at 100 S. Andrews Avenue in Fort Lauderdale, Florida. The Expo is an excellent opportunity for inventors to display their inventions and obtain valuable feedback from the general public regarding various aspects of thier inventions, including desirability, usefulness, expected cost, aesthetics, etc. Exhibitors must register by February 1, 2010. For more information, please visit the Inventors Society of South Florida - click here.

Independent Record Label sues Google and Microsoft

Florida-based independent blues label Blues Destiny Records, LLC has filed a lawsuit for copyright infringement  in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Florida against Microsoft and Google, and the German file sharing service Rapidshare.  Blues Destiny alleges that Microsoft and Google are liable for contributory and vicarious copyright infringement due to the search functions of Google and Microsoft's Bing, which allow users to search for artist names and album titles and locate websites featuring illegal downloads of Blues Destiny's copyrighted works that are hosted by Rapidshare.

To view the Amended Complaint, click here.

POPULAR PLACES TO ENFORCE YOUR PATENT

NEWS FLASH: KODAK SUES APPLE FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT

Yesterday, in the Western District of New York, Eastman Kodak Company ("Kodak") filed two separate lawsuits against Apple, Inc. ("Apple") alleging infringement of a total of five patents generally directed to cameras, digital photography and imaging technology, and certain computer processes.  Kodak asserts that Apple's iPhone 3GS, Mac Mini, iMac, Mac Pro, MacBook, iPod Touch, and Xserve Nehalem are infringing devices.

Copies of the Complaints can be found here and here.

USPTO to Revise Patent Term Adjustment Calculations

GOOGLE AdWORDS II - ATTACK OF THE BILLBOARD SNATCHERS

A hot topic of late in the world of IP is the controversy over Google AdWords and its policy of allowing, and in some instances suggesting, that advertisers purchase the trademarks of their competitors as “AdWords” so that they will come up as a sponsored link when the competitor’s brand is searched.  Now a recently published Patent application filed by Google in June 2008 may signal a practice that could put an entirely new wrinkle on the AdWord controversy.

In its patent application, Google is essentially seeking to protect a method for identifying potential advertising locations within “an online geographic view”, such as its Street View feature within Google Maps, so as to allow for real time advertising to be positioned or superimposed into that view.  For example, if you are looking at an image of Times Square, Google could cover an actual billboard image with a targeted advertisement of its own.  While at first blush some might question whether replacing an old stale ad from an old image with a new fresh ad is a cause for concern, regardless of whether a patent ever issues, the practice described therein could be a virtual Pandora’s box of IP related issues.

One basic issue is the simple fact that someone owns that billboard, and someone else paid to place their ad on that billboard, yet in the virtual world, it is Google and its advertising customers that are benefiting from the existence and placement of that billboard.  This issue, however, is not new, as in 2002 several Times Square advertising companies unsuccessfully sued Sony over its alteration of billboards in the movie Spider-Man. (more).  Unfortunately for Google, the scenario could be vastly different if it pursues what this new technology outlines.  

What if every time a consumer enters the search term Starbuck’s to search for a nearby location using Google maps, the Street View showing that location also shows an image the billboard next door with a Dunkin Donuts ad, the latest special, and a note that they are right up the road. Indeed, there arguably doesn’t even need to be an actual billboard in the image, as any open space could get a virtual billboard.  A Honda billboard next to a Ford dealership, an Ace Dentistry Sign next to Alpha Dentisty's building ... the posibilities are endless and all up for the highest bidder. 

Because the arguments that Sony successfully used in its Spider-Man case were largely First Amendment arguments related to the artistic aspects of the movie, and Google’s potential virtual ads would seem to be entirely commercial in nature, Google may not be able to rely on that prior decision.  More likely this would be viewed as AdWords II – Attack of the Billboard Snatchers (more)

Head Over Heels

The French fashion house, Balenciaga Corp. has sued New York shoe company, Steve Madden Ltd. in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York claiming infringment of its trade dress and copyrights for manufacturing and selling knockoffs of its "Lego" shoe. Interestingly, "LEGO" is a registered trademark of Lego Juris A/S/ Corp.

Balenciaga's "Lego" shoe was famously worn by Beyonce Knowles at the 2007 American Music Awards.

To view the Complaint, click here

A New Opinion on Determining the Distinctiveness of Trademarks

Happy New Year

As we say farewell to 2009 we take the opportunity to thank our clients and colleagues for allowing us to protect your intellectual property. And while this year has brought us all many challenges it has also afforded us many opportunities. Today we thank you for your patronage, trust and confidence. We hope that 2010 will bring you all much success, prosperity and happiness.  

Last Call at Tavern on the Green

            Specifically, this New Year’s Eve, Tavern on the Green will close its doors after 75 years in New York City’s Central Park.  And while many question how this landmark that declared $38 million in gross revenue in 2007, making it the second highest grossing restaurant in the US, now finds itself in bankruptcy, we want you to consider that despite the Baccarat and Waterford Chandeliers, the restaurant’s most valuable asset may be its trademark. 

           After the final service at the Tavern this evening, the Bankruptcy Court must decide if this $19 million asset belongs to the City of New York and is therefore outside the proceeding, or if it belongs to the LeRoys personally, also arguably putting it outside of bankruptcy, or if it is owned by the bankruptcy estate and should be liquidated.   To Read More Click Here

False Marking of Unpatented Articles

The federal false patent marking statute, 35 U.S.C. § 292, prohibits the false marking of "any unpatented article" with the word "patent" or other suggestions, such as advertising, that would indicate that the article is patented.  The goal of the statute is to avoid public deception as to whether a particular good is in fact patented. 

Several qui tam lawsuits, which are generally lawsuits brought by private individuals on behalf of the government, have been filed based on alleged violations of the false marking statute, and seek to impose up to a $500 penalty for each article that has been falsely marked.  For example, some of these lawsuits have been brought by consumers who have noticed expired patent numbers or false patent markings on everyday products, including paper cups and plastic utensils.     

There has been much debate over the appropriate penalty for falsely marking a patent number on a manufactured article.  On the one side of the debate are those, such as the consumers that filed the above-mentioned lawsuits, who contend that a penalty should be assessed for each and every manufactured article that bears the false marking.  They contend that, if a manufacturer decides to mark 1,000 products with a false patent marking, then the maximum penalty under the statute should be $500,000, or $500 per article, for each of the 1,000 items marked.   

On the other side of the debate are those, accused of false marking, that contend that the penalty should be imposed for each decision to mark a quantity of manufactured articles.  According to their contention, the statute should be interpreted such that, if a manufacturer were to decide to mark 1,000 items with a patent number, and the marking was later ruled to be a false marking, then the maximum penalty would be $500, based on the one decision to mark the articles. 

Earlier today, the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit issued a ruling that should clear up much of the debate.  In today's decision, the appellate court interpeted the false patent marking statute, 35 U.S.C. § 292, to require a penalty for each article or good that is falsely marked with a patent number, and not for each decision to mark a number of goods, as suggested by one of the parties.  The appellate court did note, however, that $500 is the maximum penalty for each falsely marked article, and that judges will continue to have discretion to assess a lower penalty, according to the circumstances of a given case.  

You can read the Federal Circuit's decision in Forest Group, Inc. v. Bon Tool Company et. al., here.

The Word is in: Microsoft Word is out.

Earlier this year the District Court for the Eastern District of Texas ordered Microsoft to stop selling versions of Microsoft Word that infringed U.S. Patent No. 5,787,449 ("the '449 patent") owned by i4i Limited Partnership.  The '449 patent is directed to a method for processing and storing information about the structure of electronic documents and XML editing technology.  After a seven day trial, the jury found Microsoft liable for willful infringement and awarded a total of $240 million to i4i.  The Court then granted i4i’s motion for a permanent injunction.  Microsoft appealed both the jury verdict and the permanent injunction on multiple grounds.

Today, the Federal Circuit affirmed the lower court’s findings on validity, willful infringement, enhanced damages, and permanent injunctive relief.  The Federal Circuit reiterated that the permanent injunction narrowly “applies only to users who purchase or license Word after the date the injunction takes place,” which is January 11, 2010, and that “[u]sers who purchase or license Word before [January 11, 2010] may continue using Word’s custom XML editor, and receiving technical support.”

After January 11, 2010, Microsoft will be prohibited from selling, offering to sell, or importing into the U.S. any infringing Word products with the capability of opening XML files with custom XML, using Word to open an XML file containing custom XML, instructing or encouraging anyone to use Word to open an XML file containing custom XML, providing support or assistance that describes how to use Word to open an XML file containing custom XML, and testing, demonstrating, or marketing Word’s ability to open XML files containing custom XML.

The Federal Circuit decision can be found here. 

BRANDS GO BUST

Brands often tend to have life cycles.  Even longstanding or big-name brands may inevitably die out.  With trademarks and trademark law being strongly linked to brands (sometimes the terms "brand" and "trademark" are even used synonymously), the death of a brand can raise interesting trademark-related issues.  For example, questions arise as to whether, or when, others are free to pick up and start using the trademark of a defunct brand.  For a list of some familiar brands that appear to be on the brink, click here.

Following the Egyptian Goddess

In a recent Federal Circuit case for design patent infringement involving footwear (International Seaway Trading Corp. v. Walgreens Corp. (2009-1237)), the Court abandoned the "point of novelty" test as applied in an anticipation analysis, and further clarified the Court's role in considering only those portions of the product that are visibale during "normal use."

In particular, while applying the "ordinary observer test," and abandoning the "point of novelty test" in its anticipation analysis, the District Court held that Seaway's U.S. Patent No. D529,263 ("the '263 patent") was invalid as anticipated by U.S. Patent No. D517,789 to Crocs, Inc.  In its analysis, the District Court did not consider the insoles of the shoes, as the insoles are hidden by the user's foot during "normal use."  Figures representative of the designs in the '263 and '789 patents are reproduced below.

             

                    Figure 2 in the '263 Patent                         Figure 1 in the '789 Patent

Applying the decision in Egyptian Goddess, Inc. v. Swisa, Inc., 543 F.3d 665 (Fed. Cir. 2008), which held that the "point of novelty test" should no longer be used in the analysis of infringement, and that the "ordinary observer test" is the sole test for determining whether a design patent has been infringed, the Federal Circuit agreed with the District Court and similarly abandoned the "point of novelty test" for anticipation as well.  The Federal Circuit stated that "[i]n light of Supreme Court precedent and our precedent holding that the same tests must be applied to infringement and anticipation, and our holding in Egyptian Goddess that the ordinary observer test is the sole test for infringement, we now conclude that the ordinary observer test must logically be the sole test for anticipation as well." 

The Federal Circuit, however, further stated that the "normal use" of the shoe is not limited to the time when it is worn, and that "[t]he wearer may remove the clog temporarily to stretch out his or her toes, leave the clogs on the beach to go for a swim, or engage in countless other activities that would leave the insole exposed."  The Figures below illustrate the insoles of the shoes in the '263 and '789 patents.

         Figure 6 in the '263 Patent                              Figure 6 in the '789 Patent

Recognizing the different insole patterns, the Federal Circuit remanded the case for further proceedings on whether the differences are suffient enough to bar a finding of invalidity.

Facebook faces a Federal Trade Commission Complaint

Sotomayor Contemplates Speed Dating

Perhaps signaling that the clock may soon run out on pure 'Business Method' patents, several of the Supreme Court Justices, during oral arguments in Bilski and Warsaw v. Kappos last month, joked whether patents should be permitted for innovations such as methods of horse whispering, methods of speed dating, or a method of teaching antitrust law. Although the exchange took on an air of judicial levity, the underlying message seems to point towards a decision invalidating an entire segment of already issued patents. This type of exchange ratchets up the anticipation and angst already being felt by a patent and corporate world that anxiously awaits the determination of whether "Business Method" patents will be dumped or stay the current bell of the ball. For more on this click here

Hail to the Redskins! Hail (their Trademark) Victory!

A Declaratory Judgment Shift in Patent Cases

Last week, the Federal Circuit’s decision in Hewlett-Packard, Co. v. Acceleron, LLC, (Fed. Cir. 2009) lowered the bar for declaratory judgment jurisdiction in patent cases where the patent owner is a holding company.

In this case, Acceleron, the owner of U.S. Patent No. 6,948,021 (“the ‘021 patent”), sent a letter to Hewlett-Packard (“HP”) informing HP of the ‘021 patent and attempting to initiate discussions with HP regarding the same. Acceleron further asked HP to agree that the information exchanged between the parties would not be used for litigation purposes and would not create an actual case or controversy.

HP responded stating that HP would agree not to file a declaratory judgment action for 120 days, if Acceleron would similarly agree not to file an infringement action in the same 120 day period. Acceleron rejected the 120 day standstill offer, and simply stated that Acceleron does not believe HP had any basis to file a declaratory judgment action anyway.

Soon thereafter, HP filed a declaratory judgment action in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware, quickly followed by Acceleron’s motion to dismiss.

While finding in favor of HP and broadening the standard for declaratory judgment jurisdiction in patent cases, the Federal Circuit emphasized the fact that Acceleron is a holding company and that “without enforcement, it receives no benefits from its patents.” This added to the significance that Acceleron refused to accept HP’s 120 day standstill offer, and that Acceleron imposed a short, two-week deadline for HP to respond to its letters.

Recognizing that there is “no bright-line rule for distinguishing those cases that satisfy the actual case-or-controversy requirement from those that do not,” the Federal Circuit stated that its decision in this case “undoubtedly marks a shift from past declaratory judgment cases.”

The entire Federal Circuit Opinion can be found here.

Tweet Tweet

            Now that we too are tweeting it is time we blog about Twitter. As some of you may know, the Pew Internet Project report recently found that 19 percent of all US Internet users are using Twitter or similar services to share social updates, a number which is an 8 percent increase from last year.  Not surprisingly the increase is mainly attributed to three groups: (1) young Internet users 18-44, (2) mobile users and (3) those who already utilize social networks, such as Facebook and MySpace.  The survey results were based on 2,253 phone responses from U.S. consumers 18 and older between Aug. 18 and Sept. 14. The 18-44 demographic can be broken down further. Specifically, usage nearly doubled from 19 percent in December 2008 to 37 percent in the 18 to 24 age group. Those 25-35 were not far behind they were up 20 points to 31 percent.  While users 35-44s went up 10 points to 19 percent. 

Surveys aside, we have seen an increase in client questions about social media, specifically, about liability for defamation, privacy torts, trade secret disclosures and Intellectual Property Infringement as a result of employee “posts” on corporate blogs, Facebook pages and Twitter accounts.  Just like all publications, posts on these sites may trigger liability by including a third party's intellectual property, such as copyrighted material and/or trademarks. For example, in Anthony La Russa v. Twitter, Inc., et al., a case before the Superior Court of San Francisco, LaRussa, the manager of the Saint Louis Cardinals, alleged that the twitter.com/TonyLaRussa site contained unauthorized photographs of him and statements falsely attributed to LaRussa which constituted trademark infringement, false designation of origin, trademark dilution, cybersquatting, misappropriation of name, misappropriation of likeness, invasion of privacy, and intentional misrepresentation.  Twitter had the case removed to the United States District Court of California and denied that the parties were in settlement discussions. However, on June 26, 2009, La Russa filed a notice of voluntary dismissal stating that the parties had settled the lawsuit.

But Twitter is not the only defendant these days; in July, Horizon Group Management LLC sued their tenant Amanda Bonnen for defamation after she tweeted about the company.  Click here to see the complaint. Bonnen who had 20 followers on Twitter faces $50,000 in potential liability for her one tweet.  And so as these social sites becoming more and more popular in the corporate sphere so does the potential for liability. For these and many other reasons we recommend that client’s consider not only who is representing them on these sites but all the consequences before they post.

Accelerated Examination for Patent Applications Directed to "Green Technology"

American Airlines Settles Internet Trademark Infringement Lawsuit Against Yahoo!

Many cases have been filed around the country, based on the offering for sale, or using of keywords, in connection with search engine-driven internet advertising.  One such case, which I wrote about in an article that was published recently, and which can be found here, involved American Airlines and Yahoo!, the popular internet search engine. 

In that case, American Airlines alleged that Yahoo's practice of offering its trademarks and brand names as keywords to advertisers, including to the airline's competitors, amounted to trademark infringement.  However, the lawsuit was recently settled before a decision could be reached in the case.   

U.S. Supreme Court Hears Bilski

There’s A Lawsuit For That

IS “HOTELS.COM” GENERIC?

Return of the Supreme Court.

The Supreme Court returned to session this morning in accordance with a long-held tradition of opening the annual term on the first Monday in October.   The recent changes to the Court's composition, coupled with the potential impact of the decisions looming on the horizon, promise to make this session a particularly interesting one.

Specifically, though the Supreme Court remained unchanged in the eleven years between1994 and 2005, the last four years have borne witness to three new justices -- including a new Chief Justice and the Court's first Hispanic member.  Because Justice Sotomayor replaced Justice Souter -- who was typically viewed as being fairly liberal -- the Court's idealogical make-up, which has generally been characterized as being evenly divided between liberals and conservatives, is expected to remain unchanged.  However, until Justice Sotomayor's idealogy unfolds itself in the coming term, the truth behind this prevailing wisdom will remain in question.

In addition to cases concerning gun rights, animal cruelty, and freedom of political speech, the Court is slated to decide Bilski v. Doll:  a case concerning the patentability of a formula for buying and selling commodities on Wall Street.   By determining the scope of business method patents, the case has the potential to drastically impact the protection that will be afforded to software and biotechnology.  

It's no surprise then that the "Supreme Court's new session has court-watchers curious."

Michael Jackson's Estate Sues Heal the World Foundation

         The administrators of Michael Jackson's estate have filed a lawsuit in federal court against the Heal the World Foundation on the grounds that the foundation is illegally using trademarks and websites that give the false impression that Michael Jackson is associated with the foundation. In 1992, Jackson founded a Heal the World Foundation based on his hit single, but that enterprise was abandoned a decade later. The suit claims that "Defendants' acts of infringement and unfair competition have been committed with the intent to cause confusion, mistake and to deceive" by including photos and trademarks of Michael Jackson, and statements made by Melissa Johnson, the founder of the Heal the World Foundation, which falsely suggest she had a history of working with Jackson's charity. Additionally, the lawsuit alleges that the defendants violated "cybersquatting" laws by registering domain names such as “mjaid.net,” “healtheworldfoundation.net,” and “mjquotes.net” that imply legitimate ties to Jackson and his estate. The website "healtheworldfoundation.net" has numerous sections devoted to Mr. Jackson and his charitable work. The defendants were also subject to a recent CBS investigative report, which concluded that their cause had become a "magnet for fans searching for a Michael Jackson charity." This lawsuit is part of a continuing effort by Jackson's estate to control unauthorized use of Michael Jackson's name and likeness.

Adam Goldman contributed to this entry.

Facebook is . . . being sued for patent infringement.

Watching the WAVE, In Re Bose clarifies the issue of fraud and intent

Google Book Search Settlement Agreement Under Attack from Top U.S. Copyright Official

            In testimony before the House Judiciary subcommittee, U.S. Register of Copyrights, Marybeth Peters criticized the proposed agreement between Google and the Author's Guild, which would allow Google to create and maintain a vast digital library of scanned books. Specifically, this settlement would give Google the right to digitize millions of books, including "orphan books" (books for which there is no clear copyright owner), without permission from copyright holders. Consequently, Google would be shielded from liability and would establish a registry that would sell access to books to libraries and individuals. Revenue would be split among Google, authors, and publishers.

            Ms. Peter's testimony, which could prove to be a crucial factor in the settlement agreement's fairness hearing on October 7th, argued that this registry created a back-door for Google to get around copyright restrictions by allowing them to sell books without prior author consent. She equated this situation to that of a compulsory license, in which the rights holder is forced to license his/her work to others, as Google would now have the right to display book text and control the sale of downloads. Most importantly however, Ms. Peters claimed that this settlement agreement usurped Congressional authority because only Congress, not the courts, can enact such licenses.

            The U.S. Copyright Office originally favored this agreement, but later changed its view because the class action settlement addressed future behavior instead of just past actions. Ms. Peters stated, "[t]he settlement would bind authors, publishers, their heirs and successors to these rules, even though Google has not yet scanned and may never scan their works." Google would be selling and displaying out-of-print books without permission and without fear of legal redress.

            Google, who would pay $125 million to settle the case subject to Court approval, claims that the agreement would let authors retain control of their books because authors can always request to have their work taken down, and would expand access to millions of out-of-print books. Furthermore, in an attempt to cure any anti-trust concerns, Google said that they would allow rival retailers to sell online digital copies of out-of-print books that Google had scanned from libraries.

Adam Goldman contributed to this enrty.

The Ellen DeGeneres Show Sued for Copyright Infringement

On September 9, 2009 some the largest music recording and entertainment companies filed suit in the Middle District of Tennessee against The Ellen DeGeneres Show alleging copyright infringement of over 1,000 sound recordings of "virtually every major current artist of popular music, numerous Grammy and other award-winning recordings, and classic recordings that have stood the test of time."  The Plaintiffs allege that the show uses these sound recordings without permission during her popular dance sequence following the open monologue, and that this dance sequence forms a crucial part of the show.

A copy of the Complaint can be found here. 

Protect Your GUI

A graphical user interface or “GUI” is a collection of graphical icons, pictures, and other visual indicators that are used to interact with electronic devices, software applications, and/or web sites.  It is the GUI that each end user interacts with when accessing the associated software application or web site.  It should thus come as no surprise that the owner of a web site employing a unique GUI will often seek to protect the GUI from being copied or imitated by others.

For instance, copyright is often used as a way to protect certain original artistic features of the GUI.  Importantly, however, U.S. Copyright Laws do not prevent others from independently creating the same form of expression, e.g., without “copying” the owner’s GUI. 

This may be one reason companies like Google are turning to the use of design patents as an additional layer of protection.  In general, design patents protect the original and ornamental design of a functional device.  35 U.S.C. 171 (“Whoever invents any new, original and ornamental design for an article of manufacture may obtain a patent therefor…”). 

As shown below, Google’s most recent design patent, U.S. Patent No. D599,372, for a “Graphical User Interface for a Display Screen of a Communications Terminal” issued on September 1, 2009. 

Evolving Logos & Trademarks

The figure below shows the fascinating evolution of PepsiCo, Inc.'s "PEPSI" logo throughout the years, the first logo being used in 1898.  

Interestingly, although the "PEPSI" logo has evolved a number of times, Coca-Cola's original 1886 "COCA-COLA" stylized logo, shown below, continues to be used today.

Whether creating a new logo, or deciding if an existing logo should be modified or "modernized," it may be important to consider some of the following points.  For instance, a logo is deemed "abandoned" if the user discontinues use of the mark with the intent not to resume use.  Prima facie evidence of abandonment occurs after failing to use the mark for three consecutive years.  Working somewhat against this notion is the "tacking" doctrine, which generally states that minor changes in a mark will not lead to abandonment.  

With that in mind, which of the "PEPSI" logos could potentially fall under the "tacking" doctrine?

David i4i vs. the Microsoft Goliath.

Earlier this month, the Honorable Leonard Davis of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas made a determination of willful patent infringement in favor of a thirty (30) employee Canadian based software manufacture who sued the software giant, Microsoft.  The lawsuit filed by Infrastructures for Information Inc., known as i4i claimed that MS Word 2003 and 2007 included an Extensible Markup Language or XLM tagging feature that infringed its patent.  The plot was thickened by the fact that i4i developed a product based on the patent and even negotiated the possibility of a license with Microsoft which triggered allegations of willful infringement on the part of the software giant who is no stranger to litigation.  

Specifically, in May of this year, the jury found in favor of i4i and awarded it $200 million.  But earlier this month, Judge Davis found that the infringement was willful and added $40 million to the damages award along with pre-judgment interest in the amount of $37 million.  He then issued a permanent injunction prohibiting Microsoft from selling MS Word in the US and giving Microsoft 60 days to comply with the injunction. 

Initially, word of the injunction lead to much speculation about Microsoft’s ability to develop a patch for the software that disabled the custom XLM and roll it out in an update for MS Word within the 60 days compliance period.  Therefore, no one was surprised when Microsoft appealed the ruling and sought an expedited hearing claiming that compliance with the injunction would irreparably harm the company. Now with a hearing set for September 23 before the Federal Court of Appeals rumor has it that Microsoft, who has vowed to invalidate the patent, is talking settlement.  Till then, many will be anxiously awaiting the software giant’s irreparable harm arguments.

Petition of Cert to Supreme Court on Issue of Obviousness

In Medela AG v. Kinetic Concepts, Inc., a writ of certiorari petitioning the Supreme Court was filed last week, seeking to supplant juries in deciding the issue of obviousness in patent cases in favor of judges.  The petition, filed by Medela, posed the following question to the Supreme Court:

“[w]hether a person accused of patent infringement has a right to independent judicial, as distinct from lay jury, determination of whether an asserted patent claim satisfies the “non-obvious subject matter” condition for patentability.”

Medela appeals a ruling from the Federal Circuit which they argue conflicts with other circuits.  In support, Medela relies on the recent and seminal case KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398 (2007) for the proposition that obviousness is a legal determination, and urge that therefore it is an issue which should be decided by judges rather than juries.  A copy of the writ of certiorari can be found here.

The Supreme Court has yet to decide whether to grant the petition.

Political Satire or Copyright Infringement?

A 20 year-old college student, Firas Alkhateeb,  downloaded the October 23rd Time Magazine cover of Barack Obama, and using Adobe Photoshop, manipulated the image to resemble the Joker from "Batman."  He then uploaded the image to Flickr, a photo-sharing web-site. 

It wasn't long until another individual found Alkhateeb's image and manipulated it further, removing the reference to "TIME" and captioning the image with the word "Socalism."  The "Socialism" image was then distributed in hard copy around Los Angeles, and further printed on T-shirts and bumper stickers, which were, presumably, sold for profit. 

The original Time Magazine cover, and both manipulated images can be found below:

MIAMI COMPANY SUES TRAVEL CADDY FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT

Balanzza, a Miami company, has filed a patent infringement action against Travel Caddy, Inc., an Illinois company, alleging infringement of U.S. Patent No. 7,550,684, entitled "Portable Handheld Electronic Scale". 

The accused device  is Travelon's Ultra-Light Electronic Luggage Scale, Style No. 12243:

The action is pending before Senior U.S. District Judge William M. Hoeveler, of the Southern District of Florida.     

The Spanish Supreme Court to Hear Bacardi's Appeal in "Havana Club" Trademark Case

Bacardi claims it owns the "Havana Club" rum brand by virtue of purchasing the trademark from its original legal owners.  In 1935 the Arechabala family created "Havana Club" rum in Cuba, and subsequently, in 1959, the Cuban government, allegedly without compensation, confiscated Arechabala's "Havana Club" brand.  In the early 1990's, the Cuban government reached an agreement with Pernod Ricard, a French producer of alcholic beverages, to globally exploit the "Havana Club" brand through a joint-venture called Havana Club Holding.

In 1999, Bacardi, Jose Arechabala, S.A., and members of the Arechabala family sued Havana Club Holding and the Republic of Cuba in Spain to invalidate the transfer of a Spanish trademark registration for "Havana Club" from Jose Arechabala, S.A.  The Spanish Supreme Court has decided to hear Bacardi's appeal in the case.

The article can be read here.

LAWYERS AVOID $755,000 SANCTION IN PATENT INFRINGEMENT ACTION BROUGHT AGAINST CITRIX

In Orenshteyn v. Citrix Systems, Inc., the Federal Circuit reversed in part a ruling from the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida, which entered summary judgment of non-infringement in a patent infringement action brought by the inventor of  U.S. Patent 5,889,942 and U.S. Patent 6,393,569, both entitled "Secured System for Accessing Application Services from a Remote Station."  The appellate court also reversed a sanction of $755,633.17, imposed against the Plaintiff inventor, and two of his attorneys.  

While the Federal Circuit found that the "case was not litigated well by [Plaintiff] and his counsel," it did find that there was a triable issue with regard to at least one of the asserted claims of the patents-in-suit, and reversed the summary judgment as to that claim, but affirmed the summary judgment as to all other asserted claims.  Accordingly, the case was remanded to the district court for trial on the remaining asserted claim, and the defendant's non-infringement and invalidity defenses.  

Based on the reversal, as well as the fact that the Defendant's Rule 11 motion for sanctions was served after entry of summary judgment, thereby depriving Plaintiff and his attorneys of the 21-day safe harbor, the appellate court found that an award of Rule 11 sanctions was an abuse of discretion.  However, because an issue remained as to whether the Plaintiff's attorneys should have corrected the Plaintiff's testimony regarding pre-filing investigation conversations, the appellate court left open for the district court's determination whether sanctions were appropriate for vexatious litigation, but cautioned that any award should be limited to the "costs, expenses, and fees attributable to the multiplication of the proceedings that resulted," which it predicted would be "a fraction of the total litigation cost".   

Will Bilksi Affect Your Biotech Patent?

Gene Patents Challenged On Grounds of Public Policy

Florida to Require Publication of Intent to Use a Ficticious Name

Pursuant to Florida SB 872 the sate ficticious name statute 865.09, F.S, is being amended to require that a business publish its intent to use said ficticious name.  While some have noted some exceptions to this requirement, such as a valid Florida Trademark Registration, here, certaily the publication requirement offers a new way to police existing Sate and Federal Trademark rights.   

En Banc Federal Circuit Will Rehear Case Challenging Proposed PTO Rules

Yesterday, July 6, 2009, the Federal Circuit granted an en banc rehearing on the Tafas v. Doll case where Plaintiffs challenged proposed PTO rules that would provide certain limitations and/or requirements for continuing patent applications, requests for continued examinations, and the number of claims presented in a given patent application.  In doing so, the Federal Circuit vacated its March 20, 2009 opinion (Tafas v. Doll, 559 F.3d 1345) which held (1) that all of the proposed PTO rules at issue were procedural in nature, and (2) that a rule limiting an applicant to two continuation applications, unless the applicant files a petition showing that the amendment, argument, or evidence could not have been submitted earlier, is inconsistent with 35 U.S.C. §120.

The Federal Circuit's July 6, 2009 order can be read here, and the previous, now vacated, March 20, 2009 decision can be read here.

The King of Pop's Patent

Many titles were bestowed upon Michael Jackson during his lifetime, but one not commonly associated with him was "inventor".  

But indeed, The King of Pop is listed as a co-inventor of United States Patent Number 5,255,452, entitled "METHOD AND MEANS FOR CREATING ANTI-GRAVITY ILLUSION", and covering shoes of the type worn while performing dance routines in his hit single "Smooth Criminal", where he famously incorporated a 45-degree lean in the choreography.

Can Downloading Music Cost $9000 Per Song

New USPTO Director

Last week the White House announced its intent to nominate David J. Kappos as the new Director of the United States Patent and Trademark Office ("USPTO").  Mr. Kappos is expected to bring a significant amount of experience in intellectual property law to the position.  In particular, Mr. Kappos is currently the Vice President and Assistant General Counsel, Intellectual Propery Law, of IBM Corp., and among other duties, is responsible for managing IBM's patent and trademark portfolios and protecting and licensing IBM's intellectual property worldwide.  The White House announcement can be found here.

SUCCESSFUL PATENT INFRINGEMENT SUITS MAY POINT TO GOOD EXAMPLES OF PATENT CLAIMS

INTERNET AFFILIATE MARKETING CASE DRAWS MEDIA ATTENTION

A federal lawsuit that involves one of the firm's clients, Money4Gold Holdings, Inc., has drawn media attention, due to its implications on internet commerce and online marketing .  Among the issues raised by this lawsuit is whether companies that utilize affiliate marketing can be held responsible for alleged acts of infringement by individual affiliate marketers, also known as "publishers".   

An article written by Vanessa Blum, a special reporter to the Daily Business Review, can be found here. 

Facebook to Offer Profile URL's: Should Trademark Owners Be Concerned?

More on Bilski and Business Method Patents

Sebastian Ohanian Contributed to this Entry

Supreme Court To Review Method Patent Case

The Supreme Court of the United States has decided to review the federal appellate court decision of In re Bilski, a seminal decision concerning method patents, in which the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit proposed a "machine-or-transformation" test for determining whether a process or method was capable of being patented. 

The Supreme Court's docket reveals that the "Questions Presented" for this appeal (as framed by the party seeking review, in this case the patent applicant), are the following:

Whether the Federal Circuit erred by holding that a "process" must be tied to a particular machine or apparatus, or transform a particular article into a different state or thing ("machine-or-transformation" test), to be eligible for patenting under 35 U.S.C. § 101, despite this Court's precedent declining to limit the broad statutory grant of patent eligibility for "any" new and useful process beyond excluding patents for "laws of nature, physical phenomena, and abstract ideas."

Whether the Federal Circuit's "machine-or-transformation" test for patent eligibility, which effectively forecloses meaningful patent protection to many business methods, contradicts the clear Congressional intent that patents protect "method[s] of doing or conducting business."  35 U.S.C. § 273.

John Fulton, Jr.  contributed to this blog entry.

RAPID LEGAL DEVELOPMENT FOLLOWS ECONOMIC SUCCESS

WHEN IS A SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT MORE THAN JUST A SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT? GOOGLE IT.

Removing Kindle From the Fire

 Anyone who has happened upon Amazon.com over the past several months has undoubtedly noticed Amazon’s painstaking efforts to market its new Kindle 2 device to readers-at-large.  The Kindle – a hardware device about the size and weight of an average book – allows users to directly download e-books (up to 1500 at a time) and read the titles on its “electronic paper” display.    Of all of the Kindle 2's new features, the most heavily promoted is its ability to “read” books aloud to the user by relying on text-to-speech software.

However, this new feature has come under attack by the Author’s Guild which contends that a purchaser of an "e-book" buys only the right to read the book -- not the right to have the book read out loud.  In fact, the concern that this feature will cannibalize the market for audio-books was apparently big enough to incite the President of the Author's Guild to author a New York Times opinion column on the issue.  As noted in his article, technology has advanced to a point where the “computerized voices” on text-to-speech software are “almost indistinguishable from human ones”; with some of these programs going so far as to include an occasional ‘um,’ ‘er’, sigh and -- even -- coughs, in order to accurately simulate a human reader.  Thus, the threat posed to audiobooks by text-to-speech software is greater than would have been possible in the past.

However, much to the disappointment of those interested in a definitive legal opinion on this dispute (and, one would imagine, the parties' attorneys) Amazon has decided to avoid the expense of litigation and yield to these objections.  Specifically, Amazon has announced that it will allow copyright holders to decide whether or not they wish to enable the read-aloud Kindle feature on a title-by-title basis. Of course, the number authors that ultimately exercise this option will likely shrink if it turns out that consumers are more inclined to purchase a title that includes the read-aloud feature.

An article on this dispute is available here.

LIL BO AND HIS PEEPS PREVAIL IN COPYRIGHT INFRINGEMENT CASE

Rap artists Lil Jon, Lil Bo, and Big Sam, who together comprise the hip hop group Lil Jon and the East Side Boyz, prevailed in a copyright infringement case regarding the song "The Weedman", from their platinum album, "Kings of Crunk".  The case was brought by a freelance musician and producer who claimed copyright ownership of the work, and the artists prevailed after successfully asserting a defense which was primarily based on the existence of an implied license for the use of the work.  

The decision rendered by the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit can be found here.

Lapping the PACER?

For years now the federal judiciary has made documents filed in federal court litigation available through a search platform known as PACER (Public Access to Court Electronic Records.)    While the documents available through PACER are in the public domain, access to the documents requires registration as the documents are not indexed by commercial search engines.   Moreover, a government fee of eight cents a page is charged for reading, printing, or downloading the documents.  

The registration and fee requirements arguably have the effect of limiting public access to these records.  Accordingly, an individual named Carl Malamud has been asking paying users of PACER to send him their documents and has begun publishing these for free on his website.   

Given the nature of the documents involved, its unlikely that Malamud's actions could be said to run afoul of any intellectual property laws or that PACER will be altered to make this, or similar projects, less feasible. Nevertheless, even if Malamud's project is here to stay, PACER is unlikely to go away given its superior search mechanism and the fact that PACER is "both revolutionary and cheap when compared to the state and local courts that have no electronic records at all."

More details on Malamud's project are available here.

Tommy, Can You Seize Me?: A Recent Ruling on The Tariff Act

The U.S. Bureau of Customs and Border Protection ("CBP") prevailed in a recent decision from the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, which concluded that CBP was authorized to seize watches bearing the counterfeit trademark "TOMMY", and impose a fine as a civil penalty on the importer, even though the owner of the mark at issue did not make or sell watches at the time of the seizure.  The case is entitled United States of America v. Able Time, Inc., and the decision can be found here. 

As discussed in the decision, the Tariff Act authorizes the Bureau of Customs and Border Protection to seize any  "merchandise bearing a counterfeit mark" and impose a fine as a civil penalty.  19 U.S.C. §1526(e) & (f).   The Defendant, Able Time Inc., attempted to import watches bearing the trademark "TOMMY," a mark owned by the Tommy Hilfiger Licensing Corp.  

In the proceedings before the trial court, Able Time argued that the watches were not counterfeit, and thus any seizure or fine was improper because Tommy Hilfiger did not make or sell watches at the time of the seizure by CBP.  As grounds for their argument, Able Time pointed to other trademark statutes, such as the Lanham Act, to illustrate that an "identify of goods or services" is required to establish that a mark is counterfeit. 

The Court of Appeals disagreed, and concluded that, unlike related trademark statutes, the Tariff Act does not contain an "identity of goods or services" requirement, and thus CBP was entitled under the Tariff Act to seize the watches and impose a civil penalty on the Defendant, Able Time. 

The CBP's ability to seize goods bearing counterfeit marks, and impose hefty civil penalties, is another of the several benefits conferred on the owner of a federal trademark registration.  Without a federal registration, it is highly unlikely, if not impossible, for the CBP to detect counterfeit marks, and prohibit their importation.     

In re Bilski: What Constitutes a Statutory "Process" Under §101?

On October 30, 2008, in an en banc decision, the Federal Circuit affirmed the Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences concluding that Bilski's claims directed to a method of hedging risk in the field of commodities trading is not patent-eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. §101. 

The Court adopted the two-branched "machine-or-transformation" test to determine whether a claimed process is patent-eligible under section 101.  Specifically, the Court explained that a process claim is patent-eligible if:

(1) it is tied to a particular machine or apparatus, or

(2) it transforms a particular article into a different state or thing.

In reaffirming that the "machine-or-transformation" test is the proper test to apply, the Court concluded that the "useful, concrete and tangible result test" previously articulated in State Street Bank & Trust Co. v. Signature Fin. Group, 149 F.3d 1368 (Fed. Cir. 1998) is inadequate.

Additionally, the Court refused to categorically exclude software and business methods from patent eligibility - so long as the "machine-or-transformation" test is satisfied.  Particularly, in a footnote, the Court stated that:

although invited to do so by several amici, we decline to adopt a broad exclusion over software or any other such category of subject matter beyond the exclusion of claims drawn to fundamental principles set forth by the Supreme Court.

The entire en banc decision can be found here.

HAVE YOU PLAYED GUITAR HERO YET?

Earlier this year, Gibson Guitar Corp. became involved in litigation related to the enforcement of its patents against the makers and retailers of the GUITAR HERO video game.   With the emergence of the GUITAR HERO video game into the popular culture, the results of this litigation could have interesting consequences.  Here is one of the first news articles on this topic:   www.msnbc.msn.com/id/23732204/

I've Got Good News (for Plaintiffs) and Bad News (for Defendants)

Design Patent Infringement Revisited

In an en banc decision, the Federal Circuit considered the appropriate legal standard to be applied in design patent infringement, and in particular, whether the "point of novelty" test should continue to be used.  In granting the defendant's motion for summary judgment of non-infringement, the lower court stated that the plaintiff "must prove both (1) that the accused device is 'substantially similar' to the claimed design [i.e., the ordinary observer test] ... and (2) that the accused device contains 'substantially the same points of novelty that distinguised the patented design from the prior art' [i.e., the point of novelty test].  The Federal Circuit, however, held that:

the "point of novelty test" should no longer be used in the analysis of a claim of design patent infringement ... Instead ... the "ordinary observer" test should be the sole test for determining whether a design patent has been infringed.

The entire decision can be found here.

Patents - "Page Down" to Find Their True Meaning

Microsoft was recently awarded U.S. Patent  7,415,666 for a Method and System for navigating paginated content in page-based increments which has some up in arms at the notion that Microsoft could patent 'Page-Up' and 'Page-Down'  keystrokes. (link)  However, as you consider the outrage, remember that patents are much more than what is set forth in their titles and abstracts, and a true understanding of what is covered can only result from 'paging down' through the text of the patent to the claims.  They are the starting point for revealing the true scope of a patent, which in most cases is much more nuanced than what may originally be thought. 

HARRY POTTER AND THE IRREPARABLE HARM

J.K Rowling emerged victorious in a copyright decision that was announced earlier today by the Southern District of New York.  The work at issue?  A Harry Potter encyclopedia written by a librarian and rabid Harry Potter fan.  In permanently blocking publication of the work, the court rejected the defendant's "fair use" defense, finding that the encyclopedia incorporated "too much of Rowling's creative work" and would cause J.K Rowling "irreparable harm" as a writer.  

Obviously, a guide to a "fictional universe" must necessarily incorporate lengthy references and passages of the underlying fictional work.   However, today's decision highlights the limited applicability of the "fair use" defense to such works (which are not, in a strict sense, academic.)   Accordingly, future authors of such literary guides may want to consider seeking a copyright holder's consent prior to beginning any such endeavor.  Otherwise, they too will risk having their book tossed into a 'goblet of fire' (or 'chamber of secrets') by an adverse copyright ruling.

Find the story here.

Find an explanation of the "fair use" defense here.

Southern Cal beats South Carolina

In a battle of Division I-A Schools, the University of Southern California prevailed over the University of South Carolina in a decision from the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board concerning the use of the mark "SC" on various goods.  Read the decision here.

BRATZ TRIAL - COPYRIGHT OWNERSHIP AND INFRINGEMENT

PTO to Hold Independent Inventors Conference Aug 8-9

The USPTO is having its 13th Annual Independent Inventors conference in Alexandria Virginia August 8-9, 2008.  There is also a pre-conference workshop billed to be for anyone interested in learning about the basics of patents and the importance of intellectual property protection Click here For Registration infromation.

Section 101 as applied to a Computer-Implemented System and Method

In Ex Parte Wasynczuk, No. 2008-1496, a patent applicant appealed a 35 U.S.C. 101 final rejection on two sets of claims, namely, claims directed to “a computer-implemented system” and a “computer-implemented method.”  In general, the invention relates to computer programs that simulate physical systems.

In particular, the Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences (BPAI) found that although the computer-implemented method simply solves “purely mathematical representations of physical systems,” and that “the claimed simulating does not receive information from real world physical systems nor does it output data that controls a real world physical system,” it nevertheless qualifies as a Section 101 “process.”  Specifically because the method claim “recites that the first simulating step is performed on a ‘first physical computing device’ and the second simulating step is performed on ‘a second physical computing device’” the claim recites a “particular apparatus,” and thus “the method operates on another class of statutory subject matter such that the method is a patentable ‘process.’”

As for the system claims, the BPAI found that unlike the method claims, they lack any "particularly claimed combination of elements."  Specifically, the computer-implemented system comprises a first and second "executing process," each of which set forth a series of functions.  The sole structural limitation is the "computer-implemented system" recited in the preamble, and thus the BPAI concludes that the system claims are merely directed to an "abstract idea" rather than a patentable system.  (See Article here)

The entire BPAI decision can be found here.

Copyrighting Mother Nature's Images

 "One of California's most popular specialty license plates — depicting the tail of a Pacific humpback whale rising out of misty waters — could soon become endangered itself.  Robert Wyland, the artist who created the pale blue image and gave it to the state more than a decade ago to help it raise money for marine programs, is now demanding 20 percent of any future revenue for his art foundation." 

STORY LINK:  HERE 

THE LICENSE PLATE IN QUESTION:  HERE

Considering the number of works of art that incorporate images found in nature, it's worth taking a moment to consider the extent to which such works should be protected.   While works of art that depict animals or plants in their natural state likely fall within the public domain; works taking more artistic liberties will likely be accorded more protection.   An interesting article discussing the issue in more detail is available HERE.  

Eleventh Circuit Issues En Banc Decision in Copyright Case

In an en banc decision, the Eleventh Circuit issued a ruling in the case of Greenberg v. National Geographic Society, holding that National Geographic was privileged, under the Copyright Act, to reproduce its print magazine issues on a digital CD-ROM format, without compensating a freelance photographer who had contributed items to the print magazine issues.  The Court, relying heavily on a United States Supreme Court named New York Times v. Tasini, 533 U.S. 483 (2001), reasoned that the addition of a montage to the CD-ROM did not make it "new" under copyright law, sufficient to require National Geographic to compensate the freelance photographer for publication of the photographs in the CD-ROM format.  Instead, the Court held that the changes contained in the CD-ROM constituted a revision to a collective work, which fell squarely within a privilege contained in the Copyright Act.  The complete decision is available HERE. 

New Patent Appeal Rules To Take Effect Dec. 10, 2008

New rules concerning ex parte patent appeals are set to take effect Dec. 10, 2008.  In response to their publication in June 2008, many in the field are characterizing them as making the process more costly and cumbersome, while proponents claim they provide much needed standardization to the process.  (Article Here)

Malloy & Malloy IP Blog

Welcome to the Malloy & Malloy, P.A. IP Blog where you will find general information about recent developments and interesting news impacting Patent, Trademark and Copyright Issues.