• Archive for January, 2013

    Standing is a Lot Easier for Copyrights

    by  • January 16, 2013 • copyright, featured, patent • 0 Comments

    I’m curious about the different legal standards that the courts apply in patent versus copyright cases when deciding whether a plaintiff who acquired the rights through transfer has standing. Patent law seems draconian, as exemplified by Abraxis Bioscience, Inc. v. Navinta, LLC.  In Abraxis (blogged here and here), standing for a patent infringement suit...

    Read more →

    It’s Not Really a “Work Made for Hire”

    by  • January 10, 2013 • copyright • 1 Comment

    One of the most misunderstood aspects of copyright law is work-made-for-hire.  The lay understanding is that a work created at the request of another in exchange for payment is a “work for hire.” That’s not true, as explained by the Supreme Court in 1989 in Community for Creative Non-Violence v. Reid, but nevertheless it...

    Read more →

    Why Can’t More Decisions Be This Short?

    by  • January 7, 2013 • patent • 0 Comments

    Short and to the point from the Federal Circuit: a reversion of the assignment of a patent as a remedy for a breach of contract claim does not give the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit jurisdiction to hear the appeal. Appeal transferred to the Fourth Circuit. Patently-O gives you the details here....

    Read more →

    What Is an “Ongoing and Existing” Business?

    by  • January 2, 2013 • trademark • 2 Comments

    Section 10 of the Lanham Act has what’s called an “anti-trafficking” provision, which prohibits the assignment of intent-to-use applications “except for an assignment to a successor to the business of the applicant, or portion thereof, to which the mark pertains, if that business is ongoing and existing.” The provision was added by the Trademark...

    Read more →