Section Newsletters

Articles on Intellectual Property

After ReDigi: Contrasting the EU and U.S. approaches to the re-sale of second-hand digital assets By David Naylor Intellectual Property, May 2013 An overview of the ReDigi and UsedSoft decisions and contrasts what appear to be increasingly divergent approaches in the EU and the U.S.
Insurance coverage for IP-related business claims By Dale R. Kurth Corporate Law Departments, May 2013 It is important to have some understanding of what is covered, what is not, and what the basics of making an insurance claim are.
Joint CLE in Colorado? Intellectual Property, May 2013 If a CLE session in Boulder, CO in 2014 sounds appealing, make sure your voice is heard! 
Superman’s copyright kryptonite—And Sherlock Holmes finds it’s less than elementary By Margo Lynn Hablutzel Intellectual Property, May 2013 The longrunning saga of copyright ownership of Superman and his family may finally be ending, just as a case around the copyrights for Sherlock Holmes is beginning.
Intellectual Improbabilities™ By Daniel Kegan Intellectual Property, March 2013 Eclectic snippets from recent events.
IP USA Federal Date Answers By Daniel Kegan Intellectual Property, March 2013 The answers to the questions posed in the second article of this issue.
IP USA federal date quiz By Daniel Kegan Intellectual Property, March 2013 Can you name the intellectual property events associated with these events?
Plaintiff’s covenant moots counterclaim of trademark invalidity By Eric R. Waltmire Intellectual Property, March 2013 Already LLC v. Nike Inc., deals with whether a plaintiff trademark holder can easily moot a case when a defendant challenges the validity of the trademark and what impact the mooting will have on the plaintiff’s trademark rights.
Intellectual property: Do you own it and consequences of not owning it By David H. Levitt Business and Securities Law, February 2013 In patent law, the owner of the work is the inventor. In copyright law, the person who fixes the expression in a tangible medium is the creator of the work—and the owner of the copyright.
Cloze & Flesch vs. Jarndyce: In re comprehension & readability vs. legalese By Daniel Kegan Intellectual Property, December 2012 How readable is your brief, how comprehensible? Cloze and Flesch tests give objective measures.
An examination of software patents: Under Secretary of Commerce for IP & Director of the USPTO David Kappos’ November 20, 2012 
Center for American Progress 
keynote address By David Kappos Intellectual Property, December 2012 PTO Director David Kappos discusses how intellectual property (IP) is a key driver of economic growth, exports, and job creation, the global currency for creating value. Software patents, like all patents, are a form of innovation currency and ecosystem enablers. Those who invest in breakthrough innovation deserve respect for their IP. Usually key players agree to pro-consumer solutions via licenses or joint development. Patents are enshrined in the Constitution, one of the few, if not only, clauses giving Congress the right to create personal property.
Fifty shades of counsel: Fan fiction in 2012 By Shannon A.R. Bond Intellectual Property, December 2012 Fan fiction—sincere flattery or copyright infringement. Stephanie Meyer's Master of the Universe, E.L. James, Fifty Shades of Grey, and avoiding trouble.
Intellectual Improbabilities™ By Daniel Kegan Intellectual Property, December 2012 Eclectic snippets from recent events. PTO warns of insolicitous solicitations; INTA launches teen ed UnrealCampaign.com; ND CA issues ESI Guidelines; FTC recommends truth telling; Academia IP; Ars Gratia Artis; EU; etc.
T-T-A-B By John L. Welch Intellectual Property, December 2012 TTAB writes VILLAGE PEOPLE (singers of famed Y-M-C-A aerobic song) not generic; John Welch sings T-T-A-B.
The truth, nothing but the truth—And the threat to the First Amendment By Steven Helle Intellectual Property, December 2012 Plaintiffs plead for regulation of truthful speech plucked from the Internet's powerful potential for privacy invasion. Nieman v. Versuslaw; Martin v. Hearst Corp.
Contract litigation expense insurance By Kenneth T. Teglia Intellectual Property, September 2012 Contract Litigation Insurance (CLI) allows individuals and businesses to insure a significant portion of the financial risk —having to pay the winners’ attorneys’ fees—that arises concomitantly with the initiation of contract dispute litigation. Plaintiffs and defendants can apply, even after the complaint is filed. Simpler than most other insurance, there is no complicated claims adjustment or issues interpreting coverage or exclusionary language—the court's official ruling activates policy coverage.
Intellectual improbabilities™ By Daniel Kegan Intellectual Property, September 2012 Short summaries and comments on recent IP cases, Government requests for comment, and other notices.
Presentation on the proposed amendments to the EU Data Privacy Directive By Eric Goldman Intellectual Property, September 2012 The CONSENT project is a multi-year, multi-million dollar research project, funded by the European Union, to conduct empirical research on consumer privacy issues in Europe. Ultimately, the research findings should feed into the EU's evaluation of proposed amendments to the 1995 EU Data Privacy Directive. Eric Goldman summarizes and comments on the project participants' meeting in Romania.
Recap of the Fourth Trademark Scholars Roundtable at DePaul University By Eric Goldman Intellectual Property, September 2012 The fourth Trademark scholars Roundtable discussed trademark boundaries at its DePaul University meeting: how trademark law abuts other legal doctrines such as copyright, patent, publicity, and legally unregulated areas. Summary of discussion and Eric Goldman's neo-classical economical perspective.
Did Bosch v. Pylon change the landscape for permanent injunctions? By Natasha White Intellectual Property, June 2012 Although the federal Circuit's Bosch v. Pylon decision eliminated the presumption of irreparable harm, it also affirmed the lack of a presumption against irreparable harm and weaved the exclusive right of a patentee into the injunctive relief analysis factors. Practical effects are discussed.
Intellectual improbabilities™ By Daniel Kegan Intellectual Property, June 2012 An eclectic gathering of recent intellectual property news and cases.
LLC members in online store Venture Bound by Partnership Fiduciary Duties—Health and Body Store v. Justbrand Limited By Venkat Balasubramani Intellectual Property, June 2012 Another group of people attempt a Web venture with zero documentation and end up in court. One of the many perennial themes of this blog is that people must spell out the terms of any Web venture in advance. This includes everything from a joint blogging arrangement to a jointly operated online store or a simple Web development agreement.
Tea Partiers wage war against each other over a Google Groups account—Kremer v. Tea Party Patriots By Eric Goldman Intellectual Property, June 2012 It's crucial for newly formed organizations to definitively address the ownership of trademarks and other virtual assets from day one, when everyone still loves each other. When the ownership issue comes up later, it's usually because the principals are locked in a death-match and are beyond the point of reaching sensible compromises.
Small and medium enterprises considering exporting to China should be mindful of protecting their intellectual property rights By John J. Tufano Business and Securities Law, April 2012 For small and medium enterprises considering exporting to China, understanding how to protect intellectual property rights abroad is a key component to due diligence.
Beware: Damages for pursuing baseless claim construction By Brian R. Michalek Intellectual Property, March 2012 The Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirmed a District Court's award of $4.6 million in attorney's fees and expert fees based on Plaintiff MarcTec's frivolous litigation. The Federal Circuit found MarcTec's assertion of infringement baseless given its untenable initial claim construction position and untestable expert theory. MarcTec's pursuit of infringement, even after the District Court's unfavorable claim construction order, further reflected its bad faith and ultimately resulted in the Court's affirmation of attorney and expert fees.
The debate is on: Is the Federal Judicial Center’s patent tutorial video too pro-plaintiff? By John D. Gilleland Intellectual Property, March 2012 Mock jury research at TrialGraphix qualitatively measured jurors’ top impressions after watching the Federal Jury Center’s patent tutorial video concludes that the video strongly improves juror’s understanding of patents, increases their awareness that patents can be invalidated, may have a slight pro-plaintiff/patentee bias, but significantly also educates jurors on key defense principles.  
Hyperlinks not defamatory according to Supreme Court of Canada By Emir Aly Crowne & Arif A. Mahmood Intellectual Property, March 2012 The Supreme Court of Canada held hyperlinks to defamatory material is not “publication” of the material, but a neutral reference to the material’s existence without communicating or exerting control over the destination content, like a footnote. Crookes v. Newton, 2011 SCC 47. Freedom of expression and the information linking function of the Internet weighed against the application of a traditional publication rule.
PTO notes By Daniel Kegan Intellectual Property, March 2012 News updates regarding the U.S. Patent & Trademark Office.
Trademark scam warning By Daniel Kegan Intellectual Property, March 2012 Be aware that private companies not associated with the United States Patent and Trademark Office often use trademark application and registration information from the USPTO’s databases to mail or e-mail trademark-related solicitations.
Canadian Federal Court of Appeal provides direction for patentability of business methods in Canada By Kent Daniels, Brett Slaney, & Anil Bhole Intellectual Property, December 2011 While Canada's Federal Court of Appeals declined to determine the patentability of the “one-click” technique used by Amazon.com, Inc., it held that “there is no basis to determine conclusively that a business method should not be patentable subject matter.”

Select a Different Subject