It was a big year for intellectual property at the U.S. Supreme Court as the justices issued eight decisions on patents, copyrights and trademarks. In the first of a two-part series, Law360 looks at the key takeaways from each case, including decisions that reined in damages in design patent cases and set rules on when apparel can be protected by copyright.
Google must globally deindex the website of a company that allegedly sold stolen networking technology, the Canadian Supreme Court ruled Wednesday, taking a position that the web giant has argued would quell free expression online.
Administrators at Iowa State University asked the Eighth Circuit on Tuesday to consider for a third time the issue of whether denying pro-marijuana students access to the school’s trademarks steps on the students' free-speech rights, saying the court should now give the case en banc review.
Fetzer Vineyards on Wednesday fought allegations that it infringed the Buffalo Trace bourbon trademark owned by Sazerac Co., calling an industry specialist and a marketing expert to testify during a bench trial that there was no way consumers would confuse the wine and bourbon products.
A California magistrate judge on Wednesday granted Intel's request for a protective order safeguarding its highly confidential information from Qualcomm's in-house counsel in the Federal Trade Commission’s antitrust suit over Qualcomm’s patent licensing practices, saying the risks to Intel outweigh the benefits to Qualcomm.
Jammin Java Corp. urged a California federal judge Tuesday to reconsider his May ruling that the coffee company owes companies connected to Bob Marley $2.4 million for selling Marley-branded coffee after a trademark license agreement between the companies was terminated, arguing that the court failed to consider whether the alleged infringement was willful.
International patent filing is increasing for global patent owners, with Brazil, China, India and Russia becoming more and more recognized as major patent hubs, according to a report issued on Wednesday by foreign patent filing service provider Inovia that examines intellectual property trends in 2016.
An Illinois state court has tripled Playboy’s $5 million damages award, denied a bid by the maker of an energy drink bearing Playboy’s name for a new trial and granted Playboy fees and costs in a long-running trademark infringement case, bringing its winnings in the case to nearly $19 million.
Ropes & Gray LLP’s patent litigation team is approximately half the size it was five years ago, and the firm’s patent prosecution team is set to leave later this year. Here, former partners and the firm’s leadership offer their disparate views on the group’s drastic transformation.
Walmart, Skechers and New Balance are urging the Federal Circuit to rule that Converse cannot protect its Chuck Taylor sneaker with trademark law, saying the shoe’s design had been “ubiquitously sold for decades by numerous companies.”
Pharmaceutical company Amgen Inc. sparred Wednesday in Delaware federal court with competitor Hospira Inc. over expert reports each side is hoping to use at a September patent infringment trial on Hospira’s efforts to produce a biosimilar version of Amgen’s anti-anemia drug Epogen.
Pfizer and a proposed class of direct purchasers who allege the drugmaker used fraudulent patents to delay generic-drug competition for its Celebrex painkiller filed dueling motions for summary judgment in Virginia federal court Tuesday about whether Pfizer was wrongly reissued an invalid patent.
In the second part of our series examining the ramifications of the U.S. Supreme Court’s eight intellectual property decisions this term, Law360 highlights rulings that set new limits on where patent suits can be filed and struck down the federal government’s ban on registering disparaging terms as trademarks.
The owner of Vogue magazine has filed a trademark infringement lawsuit seeking to block a Taiwanese company from selling a “Legend Vogue” line of jewelry in the United States, saying the company’s use of Vogue’s trademark is likely to deceive consumers as to the origin of its goods.
Neal Katyal seemingly tried to educate Justice Samuel Alito about a well-known Latin phrase, Justice Sonia Sotomayor prayed aloud that she wouldn’t be assigned a mind-numbing opinion, and Justice Elena Kagan needled a lawyer who confused her with another justice. Here, Law360 wraps up the top moments of legal levity from the latest high court term.
Since the death of Justice Antonin Scalia last year, a new U.S. Supreme Court justice has emerged as the most talkative at oral arguments — and the titleholder should come as no surprise to court watchers.
The justices’ level of engagement at oral argument can provide a crucial window into their thinking on an issue, but interpreting what that might mean for how they’ll rule is an elusive art. Here, Law360 looks at the sessions in which each justice engaged the most.
A California federal judge Tuesday shot down a sanctions motion by drugmaker Collidion alleging rival Sonoma Pharmaceuticals relied on a forged letter to bring its trade secret suit, saying the motion was filed too early and that other evidence suggests the allegations in the disputed document are accurate.
The Federal Circuit on Tuesday vacated and sent back to the Patent Trial and Appeal Board a decision to invalidate a patent that advanced noninvasive prenatal testing for genetic conditions such as Down syndrome.
The U.S. Food and Drug Administration's recently confirmed leader on Tuesday took fresh actions to jump-start approvals of lower-cost generics, making good on promises to focus the agency's mission more aggressively on drug prices.
In Neil Gorsuch, Clarence Thomas seems to have found a U.S. Supreme Court justice after his own heart. The court’s newest member and its most silent one cast identical votes in case after case this year, at times taking positions deemed more conservative than those of their fellow Republican appointees on the court.
The U.S. Supreme Court on Monday put tighter restrictions on where patent owners can file infringement lawsuits, a decision that upends nearly 30 years of established practice and will likely force many lawsuits out of the patent litigation hotbed of the Eastern District of Texas. Here, check out all of our best coverage of the case.
As an Asian-American, I have had a lot of hateful and derogatory names thrown at me throughout my life, and yet I found the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in Matal v. Tam, rejecting the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office’s ban on registering disparaging terms as unconstitutional, gratifying in many ways, says Jennifer Ko Craft of Dickinson Wright PLLC.
The Patent Trial and Appeal Board has a near-perfect track record of issuing a final written decision within 12 months of instituting trial in post-grant proceedings. However, in four cases — all involving joinder of third parties to the original petition — it did not meet the one-year "deadline," says Daniel Parrish of Brinks Gilson & Lione.
While the California federal judge's criminal referral in the trade secrets lawsuit between Uber and Waymo may not be typical, it provides important lessons about the criminal issues that lawyers should understand when litigating civil trade secrets cases, say Joshua Robbins and Adam Sechooler of Greenberg Gross LLP.
In December 2015, an amendment to Rule 26 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure was implemented with the intent of putting reasonable limits on civil discovery. The many subsequent cases that have applied the amended rules provide guideposts for litigants and practitioners, say Brandee Kowalzyk and Christopher Polston of Nelson Mullins LLP.
The simple practice of asking jurors important and substantive questions early can help make trial by jury a more reliable form of dispute resolution, say Stephen Susman, Richard Lorren Jolly and Dr. Roy Futterman of the NYU School of Law Civil Jury Project.
In 2016, intellectual property cases accounted for less than 5 percent of those pending before the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation. But the U.S. Supreme Court's TC Heartland decision may spark a significant uptick, says Timothy Sendek of Lathrop Gage.
A fairly routine civil trade secrets lawsuit between Uber and Waymo recently took a more dramatic turn, with a criminal referral from the presiding judge. Grand juries, federal agents and indictments are not standard fare for the lawyers who typically handle trade secrets disputes. But they may become more familiar in the years to come, say Joshua Robbins and Adam Sechooler of Greenberg Gross LLP.
It was a privilege to spend a half-hour on the phone with the nation's foremost First Amendment lawyer. Floyd Abrams and I discussed his career, his new book and what he sees in his free-speech crystal ball. And he was a very good sport when I asked if it is constitutionally protected to yell inside a movie theater: “Citizens United is a terrible decision and should be set on fire,” says Randy Maniloff of White and Williams LLP.
Recent surveys show that law firms won't be able to rely on the flood of associates their business model demands as long as they require them to dedicate all day, most nights, every weekend and all holidays to firm business, says Jill Dessalines, founder of Strategic Advice for Successful Lawyers and former assistant GC at McKesson Corp.
Since the enactment of the Defend Trade Secrets Act last year, savvy defendants have established a viable strategy: moving to dismiss the claim where the plaintiff has only alleged facts that show acts of misappropriation occurring prior to the law's enactment date. At least a half-dozen courts have tackled this “timing defense” and defendants raising it in motions to dismiss have seen mixed results, says Jonathan Shapiro of Epstein Becker Green.