Cantor Colburn February / March 2013 Newsletter
Ideas on Intellectual Property Law
Doubling down
The latest on patentability of “isolated” DNA molecule
Members of the biotech industry were much relieved in 2011 when a three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit held that an “isolated” DNA molecule is patentable. However, in another case, the U.S. Supreme Court held that the methods at the heart of a diagnostic test weren’t patentable. Taking this into account, the Federal Circuit issued a second ruling that was once again positive news for the biotech industry. This article examines the case, but a sidebar notes that further review may be on the horizon.
Association for Molecular Pathology v. U.S. Patent and Trademark Office and Myriad Genetics Inc., No. 2010-1406, Aug. 16, 2012 (Fed. Cir.); Mayo Collaborative Svcs. v. Prometheus Laboratories, Inc., No. 10-1150, March 20, 2012 (Supreme Court)
Does “social bookmarking” infringe on copyright holders?
The Internet allows materials to be more easily and economically distributed to a mass audience, but it also allows the public a ready means of copying and sharing that content without payment. This article looks at a case in which a social bookmarking site was sued for copyright infringement because it allows people to provide one another access to online materials. At issue was whether the defendant was a contributory infringer.
Flava Works, Inc. v. Gunter, No. 11-3190, Aug. 2, 2012 (7th Cir.)
One, singular sensation …
Using indefinite articles in patent language
When one technology company sued another for patent infringement, the district court dismissed the case, concluding that, for infringement to have occurred, the location facility — which performed multiple functions — must be contained on a single computer. The plaintiff appealed, arguing that the location facility could be distributed among multiple locator server computers. This article shows that the court’s ruling came down to whether the indefinite articles “a” and “an” in a patent mean “one or more” or “one only.”
01 Communique Laboratory, Inc. v. LogMeIn, Inc., No. 2011-1403, July 31, 2012 (Fed. Cir.)
Trademark: Canceled
Under trademark law, a mark’s nonuse in commerce for three consecutive years constitutes evidence of abandonment. This article discusses a case in which one company attempted to cancel another’s registration, claiming that the latter hadn’t actually used the mark as registered because it didn’t offer software to consumers as a good in trade. The court’s ruling demonstrates that trademarking in a digital marketplace may not be as straightforward as it was in the past.
Lens.com, Inc. v. 1-800 Contacts, Inc., 2011-1258, Aug. 3, 2012 (7th Cir.)
