Expiration of biotech crop patents—Issues for growersBy Roger A. McEowenAgricultural Law, December 2011The patent expiration of the first generation of Roundup Ready soybean trait in 2014 will be the first time that a major biotech trait will become potentially subject to competition with generic traits.
Expiration of biotech crop patents—Issues for growersBy Roger A. McEowenIntellectual Property, December 2011The patent expiration of the first generation of Roundup Ready soybean trait in 2014 will be the first time that a major biotech trait will become potentially subject to competition with generic traits.
PTO focuses on feedbackBy Daniel KeganIntellectual Property, December 2011While the dedicated attention and oft’ times quick responses of Craig Morris and his team at the PTO are making communicating with the Trademark Office much more efficient, it still requires an experienced trademark professional to know the meaning of the diverse electronic choices and to efficiently evaluate how to respond to the non-automated examiners’ office actions.
Covenants not to compete in Illinois—The muddle of the legitimate business interest testBy Harold B. OakleyIntellectual Property, September 2011This article first examines Steam Sales and Reliable. It then addresses what these decisions, which dealt with sales positions wholly unrelated to the health care industry, may nevertheless mean for health care providers in Illinois.
En banc decision provides guidance for evaluating modified products within a contempt proceedingBy Brian R. MichalekIntellectual Property, September 2011On April 20, 2011, the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, sitting en banc, vacated a $110 million award against Echostar Corporation and implemented a new test for evaluating product redesigns within a contempt proceeding. The en banc Court overruled and modified the KSM test, effectively merging the old two-step test into one. Under the new test, the Courts are to inquire as whether the newly accused product was so different from the infringing product so as to create a fair ground of doubt as to the wrongfulness of the defendant's conduct.
Immigrants beware—Trademark counterfeiting Is aggravated felony INA §101By Joseph T. NaborIntellectual Property, September 2011Criminal trademark counterfeiting is counterfeiting, and an aggravated felony under INA § 101(a)(43)(R), 8 USC § 1101(a)(43)(R), and supported Immigration judge's removal order. Ninth Circuit rejects argument "counterfeiting" referred only to currency. Rodriguez-Valencia v. Holder, 99 USPQ2d 1476 (9th Cir. 2011).
Trust meBy Shannon A.R. BondIntellectual Property, September 2011“Trust me” is a phrase that often presages disaster. Many times, when trust is involved in contractual agreements, the family that does business together winds up in court together. Eva’s Bridal Ltd. discovered that the hard way when a naked trademark license got between trusting family members and the failure to hash out all the details resulted in a loss of trademark protection. Similarly, trusting property buyers lost millions and learned the importance of reading all the terms of an agreement after realizing that the Trump name had been merely licensed to the property developers.
Two new procedural options for trade mark infringement claims in the Federal Court of CanadaBy Joshua W. SpicerIntellectual Property, September 2011Two recent decisions of the Federal Court of Canada and the Federal Court of Appeal offer new procedural options to pursue trade mark infringers in Canada. Typically an action, protreacted discovery and interlocutory motions and a trial were required to seek an injunction, damages, lost profits, or other substantive relief. However, in Louis Vuitton Malletier S.A. v. Singga Enterprises (Canada June 2011) the Federal Court for the first time granted judgment under new summary trial provisions of the Federal Court Rules, setting a meaningful precedent for the expedited procedure. In BBM Canada v. Research in Motion Limited the Federal Court of Appeal held that an application—a summary procedure akin to a motion with no discovery—may be used to pursue an injunction and damages for trade mark infringement and that such claims are not confined to proceeding as an action.
What do Chicago’s Grant Park, moral rights, the Seventh Circuit and wildflowers have in common?By Kristin L. LingrenIntellectual Property, September 2011This article examines the decision by the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals in the case of Kelley v. Chicago Part District within the context of the federal Visual Artists Rights Act of 1990 ("VARA"). The court considered whether a wildflower garden planted and maintained in a public park was a protected "work of visual art" under VARA and whether the park district's reduction and modification of the garden constituted a violation of the creators moral right of integrity. It concluded that the garden did not fall within the purview of VARA because it did not qualify as copyrightable within the meaning of the Copyright Act, lacking the elements of "authorship" and "fixation" required to support copyright and eligibility for protection under VARA. In dicta, the Seventh Circuit questioned the First Circuit's position in Phillips v. Pembroke Real Estate that VARA provided no protection for site-specific art.
Department of Commerce takes on trademark bulliesBy Joseph T. NaborIntellectual Property, June 2011The Department of Commerce recently released its report which studied whether or not some trademark owners are using their trademark rights in an overly aggressive enforcement effort—commonly known as the Trademark Bullies report.
ICANN likely to open new general top-level domain names this yearBy John AmbrogiCorporate Law Departments, May 2011The Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) is a not-for-profit corporation formed in 1998 that is dedicated to keeping the Internet stable, secure and interoperable. The new top level domain (TLD) offerings will enable businesses, governments, and organizations to own and operate a TLD of their choosing.
The break upBy Shannon A.R. BondIntellectual Property, April 2011This past August, Starbucks offered $750 million to Kraft in an attempt to “break up” with the distributor and exercise more control over the Starbucks retail products. Reports conflict about whether Starbucks’ decision was foreseeable or completely unexpected, and there are a lot of allegations about who caused the break up.
Intellectual Improbabilities™By Daniel KeganIntellectual Property, April 2011News updates affecting intellectual property attorneys.
“Obama Pajamas” trademarks laid to restBy Steven L. Baron & Rebecca A. EdwardsIntellectual Property, April 2011Time will tell if other applicants attempt to register trademarks such as “Clinton’s Mittens” “Sotomayer’s Attire” or “Emanuel Flannels” without permission. But for now, this USPTO decision seems to have put this issue to bed.
Copyright noticesBy Daniel KeganIntellectual Property, December 2010Copyright Office Notices.
Discovering Electronically Stored Information (ESI): Self-Reliance and FRCivP 26*By Daniel KeganIntellectual Property, December 2010Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26 (b)(2)(B) now requires an early conference among attorneys to discuss and plan discovery, including Electronically Stored Information (ESI). Attorneys cannot simply delegate to clients or commercial services the responsibility of understanding ESI and ESI discovery planning. The attorney has a non- delegable responsibility to know, not only traditional discovery relevance but also enough about email, computers, file archiving, the client’s business, and human nature to competently supervise others. This article presents an efficient procedure for self-reliant attorneys and firms to successfully manage the ESI discovery process. Guidelines are presented for both Macintosh and Windows computers.
Intellectual Improbabilities™By Daniel KeganIntellectual Property, December 2010Sad Sap $1.65b verdict favoring Oracle for admitted copyright liability. Judge should refer even clearly meritless mandamus writ when his spouse is on defendant's board (In re Specht, trademark suit). Baha'i organizational divorce 40 years later, where's the contempt. Judge Posner clarifies "exceptional Lanham Act cases."
7th Circuit’s trade dress regretsBy Shannon A.R. BondIntellectual Property, October 2010Attorneys should keep the Jay Franco & Sons, Inc. v. Clemens Franek case in mind when approached by a client about protecting product design trade dress.
Supreme Court ruling leaves window open for business method patentsBy Brian R. MichalekIntellectual Property, October 2010This past June, the Supreme Court issued the much-anticipated opinion in Bilski et al. v. Kappos. The 5-4 majority opinion held the claims of the patent application at issue were directed to an abstract idea and therefore were not patentable under 35 U.S.C. Section 101.
