Cantor Colburn February / March 2016 Newsletter
Ideas in Intellectual Property Law
Click here to read the newsletter in full
Playing the ratings game
Ninth Circuit provides RAND rate guidance
The interoperability of today’s technological devices requires many behind-the-scenes license agreements. For evidence, one need look no further than a recent appellate court decision regarding the proper rate Microsoft must pay another tech company to use its ubiquitous patented technology. This article explores the case, which provides valuable guidance on how such “reasonable and nondiscriminatory” (RAND) rates should be set. A sidebar looks at the role of jurisdiction in the case.
Microsoft Corp. v. Motorola Inc. No. 14-35393, July 30, 2015 (9th Cir.)
Back in the limelight
Federal Circuit expands liability for patent infringement
In some welcome news for patent owners, an appeals court recently issued a unanimous decision that expands liability for direct infringement. The ruling should make it easier for patentees to establish liability for infringement of patented methods when multiple parties carry out a method’s steps. This article traces the history of this important case and notes that further liability expansion could lie ahead.
Akamai Technologies, Inc. v. Limelight Networks, Inc., Nos. 2009-1372, 2009-1380, 2009-1416, 2009-1417, Aug. 13, 2015 (Fed. Cir.)
Muniauction, Inc. v. Thomson Corp., No. 2007-1485, July 14, 2008 (Fed. Cir.)
Peace and love? Not when it comes to trademarks
“Peace and love” is such a heart-warming sentiment — until it becomes the subject of a trademark dispute. This article describes an appeals court’s decision that demonstrates the limits of trademark protections, even for registered marks.
Juice Generation, Inc. v. GS Enterprises, LLC, No. 2014-1853, July 20, 2015 (Fed. Cir.)
Consider fair use before issuing a takedown notice
The Internet presents a challenging environment for copyright owners trying to control their content. This brief article reviews a case in which a court decreed that, under the Digital Millennium Copyright Act, copyright holders must consider fair use before issuing a takedown notice.
Lenz v. Universal Music Group, Nos. 13-16106, 13-16107, Sept. 14, 2015 (9th Cir.)
