W. John Eagan
Mr. Eagan earned his bachelor’s degree in Mechanical Engineering from Lehigh University and his law degree, with honors from the University of Miami. While at the University of Miami he served as the Inter-American Citator and an Articles and Comments Editor for the Inter-American Law Review. Mr. Eagan is admitted to practice law in the State of Florida and concentrates his practice in Intellectual Property litigation.
Copyright and trademark registrations have long held at least one advantage over patents, the © and ® symbols which efficiently denote registered intellectual property. Proper marking of patented articles requires display of the word "Patent" or "Pat." together with the number of the relevant patent or an internet address where the number may be found. However, the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office held an open house to develop icons for patented articles, as well as a number of other intellectual property concepts, and recently published its selections.
The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas recently granted a Motion for Summary Judgment seeking to dismiss a patent infringement suit on the basis that the asserted claims are directed to ineligible subject matter under the two-step test recently reaffirmed by the United States Supreme Court in Alice Corporation Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank International, 134 S. Ct. 2347 (2014). Reportedly, one effect of the ruling was to dispose of 168 patent cases pursued by the same Plaintiff, asserting the same claims against separate Defendants. The Court has also requested briefing on an award of attorney's fees.
The latest chapter in the Apple v. Samsung saga, previously blogged about here, involves an amicus brief filed by several large technology firms in support of a rehearing on the amount of damages owed to Apple by Samsung. If granted, the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit will hear again arguments that those damages should be based on profits attributable to only the infringing portion of the Samsung device, rather than profits made on the entire device. If the Federal Circuit is persuaded, the decision could lower exposure for patent infringement across the industry.
Last March, the District Court for the Northern District of California entered a final judgment in the Apple v. Samsung saga, awarding Apple almost $930 Million in damages for Samsung’s infringement of Apple's trade dress, both registered and unregistered, and design and utility patents. After several appeals, the Federal Circuit announced that Apple’s trade dress is functional and remanded to the District Court for entry of final judgment on damages only pertaining to the various patent infringements.
According to the documents produced in response to a recent USPTO FOIA request, the Sensitive Application Warning System (SAWS) is “designed as an information gathering system to apprise various areas of the PTO of the prosecution of patent applications that include sensitive subject matter.” “Sensitive” subject matter, in this case, has rather broad scope including applications disclosing frivolous, silly, or controversial subject matter, especially subject matter generating extensive media coverage. A 1989 memo initially detailing the SAWS project was publicized in 2006, but the most recent FOIA request provides additional insight, including USPTO internal memoranda to each technology center outlining specific topics for each center as well as protocol for flagging and reviewing “sensitive” applications.
To most motorsport enthusiasts, Eau Rouge is evocative of speed, precision, and a certain intestinal fortitude required of those whose hobbies involve donning fire-proof suits. It is no wonder, then, that Infiniti would choose the moniker to adorn its latest sports concept, and furthermore, seek to register the term as a trademark.
In a 6-3 decision, the Supreme Court of the United States held that Aereo “performs” the copyrighted works “publicly” as those terms are defined by the Copyright Act, thus infringing the copyrights of the content owners.
By most accounts, Robert Indiana is ambivalent about his career as an artist. Perhaps his most famous work is LOVE, the iconic motif consisting of the letters L and O stacked atop V and E. All success aside, the proliferation of unauthorized copies emblazoned on countless trinkets and souvenirs made Indiana appear overexposed and commercialized relative to his Pop Art peers, according to at least one New York Times article. Indiana was unable to stop the swell of knock-offs because the work was not properly copyrighted. Today, Indiana feels that it prevented him from gaining critical recognition as an artist.
The fires of the long running trade dispute between Antigua and the U.S., previously blogged about here, were recently stoked by the January 21, 2013 Speech from the Throne. In it, Governor General Dame Louise Lake-Tack reiterated the intent to suspend TRIPS obligations to the U.S., but did not provide any substantive direction regarding what that might entail.
One of a handful of patent cases accepted by the Supreme Court this term, Icon Fitness v. Octane Health and Fitness presents the question of whether Brooks Mfg. v. Dutailier, Inc., 393 F.3d 1378 (Fed. Cir. 2005) should be overturned to the extent that it “shoehorned” the rigid, two-part test for sham litigation into the Patent Act’s test for fee shifting. The petitioner, Octane Fitness, LLC, recently filed its brief arguing that the standard should be relaxed and raises several notable points.