April May 2017 Ideas on Intellectual Property Law Newsletter
Click here to read the newsletter in full
Can’t you hear me?
Court turns deaf ear to wireless radio patent-holder
When the Federal Circuit hears cases regarding the patent eligibility of abstract ideas, it subjects them to a two-part test established by the U.S. Supreme Court. Recently, the court found that two patented inventions failed both parts of the test. This article summarizes the facts of the case and the court’s opinion. A sidebar reviews a similar patent infringement claim that fell flat.
Affinity Labs of Texas, LLC v. DIRECTV LLC, No. 2015-1845, -1846, -1847, -1848, Sept. 23, 2016 (Fed. Cir.)
Mayo Collaborative Services v. Prometheus Laboratories, Inc., No. 10-1150, March 20, 2012 (U.S.)
Alice Corp Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int’l, No. 13-298, June 19, 2014 (U.S.)
Affinity Labs of Texas, LLC v. Amazon.com Inc., No. 2015-2080, Sept. 23, 2016 (Fed. Cir.)
How the disavowal exception trashed a patent infringement claim
Courts in infringement cases construe terms in patent claims by their plain and ordinary meaning — usually. This article explains why the Federal Circuit doesn’t take that approach when the disavowal of claim scope applies. It also highlights the importance of careful patent drafting.
Poly-America, L.P. v. API Industries, Inc., No. 16-1200, Oct. 14, 2016 (Fed Cir.)
Fair use doctrine
Comedy routine fails to get laughs from plaintiff — or court
Imitation may be the sincerest form of flattery. But imitation can also be unlawful infringement if use of copyrighted material isn’t deemed “fair.” This article explains what happened when the fair use doctrine was applied to a theater company’s use of a famous Abbott and Costello comedy routine. Much to the surprise of the parties, the Second Circuit provided a twist ending.
TCA Television Corp v. McCollum, No. 16-134, Oct. 11, 2016 (2d Cir.)
Court shoots down trademark infringement defendant
Two firearms manufacturers came out shooting when a dispute arose over which one had the right to use the mark “SCAR” for guns and related items. As this article relates, the Eleventh Circuit considered the common trademark issue of priority of use, as well as the less-common unlawful use doctrine.
FN Herstal SA v. Clyde Armory Inc., No. 15-14040, Sept. 27, 2016 (11th Cir.)
