Year End 2017 IP Newsletter
Click here to read the Year End 2017 IP Newsletter in full
Supreme Court disparages ban on offensive trademarks
What’s offensive is often in the eye of the beholder. Where federal trademark registration is sought, this has long meant that registration could be denied if the mark was considered disparaging. This article examines a landmark 8-0 decision in which the U.S. Supreme Court struck down the so-called “disparagement clause” in federal trademark law, opening the door to the registration of marks that may have been rejected as offensive in the past. A sidebar looks at how the Court handled the question of whether trademarks are commercial speech.
Matal v. Tam, No. 15-1293, June 19, 2017 (U.S.)
Exhausted yet?
SCOTUS clarifies doctrine limiting patent rights
Anyone who has ever tried to avoid the high prices of toner cartridges by purchasing refills from remanufacturers will be interested in a recent ruling from the U.S. Supreme Court — and many patent owners should be interested, too. This article reviews the U.S. Supreme Court’s clarifications to a relevant case involving the patent exhaustion doctrine, which limits a patentee’s rights.
Impression Products, Inc. v. Lexmark Int’l, Inc., No. 15-1189, May 30, 2017 (U.S.)
A road map for patent obviousness
It probably comes as no surprise that inventions that are obvious aren’t eligible for patents. Yet arguments over obviousness land in the courts all the time. This article reviews a recent ruling that illustrates several arguments that can arise when the obviousness of an invention — and therefore the validity of its patent — is at issue.
Millennium Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v. Sandoz Inc., No. 2015-2066, July 17, 2017 (Fed. Cir.)
Defining “seller” for copyright infringement liability
What’s a copyright holder to do when counterfeit products show up on the massive online marketplace Amazon.com? Well, one thing it probably can’t do is successfully sue Amazon for infringement. This article reviews why, in one case, the company wasn’t considered a “seller” for purposes of the Copyright Act.
Milo & Gabby LLC v. Amazon.com, Inc., No. 2016-1290, May 23, 2017 (U.S.)
