February March 2017 Ideas on Intellectual Property Newsletter
Click here to read the newsletter in full
The Halo effect
Appeals court upholds enhanced damages for willful infringement
The article discusses a Federal Circuit Court “test drive” of the U.S. Supreme Court’s June 2016 Halo Electronics, Inc. v. Pulse Electronics, Inc. ruling. Halo had rejected the notion that patent infringers can escape liability for enhanced damages if they muster a reasonable defense at trial. As the appeals court’s decision made clear, infringers can’t conjure defenses at trial to evade enhanced damages. A sidebar talks about how the same court clarified the potential weight of secondary considerations of nonobviousness.
Halo Electronics, Inc. v. Pulse Electronics, Inc. No. 14-1513, June 13, 2016 (U.S.)
WBIP, LLC v. Kohler Co., No. 15-1038, -1044, July 19, 2016 (Fed. Cir.)
Third parties allowed to assert work-for-hire defense
Work-for-hire agreements generally give the hiring party, instead of the creator, ownership of any work’s copyright. But as a recent Second Circuit case proves, third parties may be able to rely on the work-for-hire doctrine to crush a copyright infringement claim by a work’s creator. This article summarizes the case.
Urbont v. Sony Music Entertainment, No. 15-1778, July 29, 2016 (2nd Cir.)
When is automation of a manual process patentable?
Cases involving the patent eligibility of computer-related methods have been flooding the Federal Circuit Court of Appeals. This article describes a case involving a method of animating lip synchronization sequences of 3-D animated characters. At issue was whether the invention simply automated an existing manual process or automated a new process.
McRO, Inc. v. Bandai Namco Games America Inc., No. 2015-1080, Sept. 13, 2016 (Fed. Cir.)
The naked truth
Valid assignments and agreements determine trademark rights
Recently, “Crazy Horse” was the subject of a complicated trademark dispute between adult entertainment venue owners. As this article details, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals found that, even in the world of strip clubs, trademark and contract law hold firm and valid assignments and agreements determine parties’ rights.
Russell Road Food and Beverage, LLC v. Spencer, No. 14-16096, July 22, 2016 (9th Cir.)
