The legal blog with what has to be the longest name ever, the Los Angeles Intellectual Property Trademark Attorney Blog, brings our attention to an almost perfect trifecta of intellectual property ownership, where jeans are protected by patent, trademark and copyright. Almost perfect, because while the same stitching design on the back pockets is...
Read more →A couple of ownership cases of interest. First, Oren Tavory failed in his effort to join in the NTP jackpot also known as the RIM settlement – he’s not a co-inventor because he didn’t have evidence that his contribution to the invention was more than simply the exercise of ordinary skill in the art....
Read more →It was big news when Lucent Technologies won a $1.5 billion patent infringement suit against Gateway, Dell and Microsoft. Less memorable was when the jury award was tossed on a motion for judgment as a matter of law (Lucent Technologies Inc. v. Gateway, Inc., 509 F.Supp.2d 912 (S.D.Cal. 2007)). Now, the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit has affirmed the...
Read more →THERASENSE, INC., Plaintiff, v. BECTON, DICKINSON AND COMPANY, Defendant.No. C 04-02123 WHAConsolidated with No. C 04-03327 WHA, No. C 04-03732 WHA,No. C 05-03117 WHAUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 76716 July 14, 2008, DecidedJuly 14, 2008, Filed OPINION ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO DISMISS Abbott Laboratories filed this...
Read more →Positive Technologies whiffed the first patent infringement complaint by filing in the name of the wrong entity, Positive-California, when it should have been filed in the name of Positive-Nevada. Positive calls a mulligan and refiles in the correct entity’s name, then the two companies merge into Positive Technologies, Inc. The standing problems aren’t over...
Read more →The name “Aerotel” is fairly well known in the UK, at least among software companies. The UK doctrine on patentability of business methods and software is known as Aerotel/Macrossan, after the pair of cases decided in Aerotel Ltd v Telco Holding Ltd and others, and Neal William Macrossan’s application EWCA 1371 (Civ) (2006-10-27)....
Read more →This IP Finance blog post points us to a publication by the UK Intellectual Property Office giving some basics for licensing intellectual property. It looks like a useful handbook to remind us of the various points to remember when doing licensing work.
Read more →This is a story that makes lawyers groan “if only I could’ve been there.” The plaintiff, Miller, had an idea for a four-way induction unit for an air handling system. He told his idea to Shutes, who introduced him to defendant M&I Heat Transfer Products, a company that designed and manufactured induction units. M&I,...
Read more →The Patent Prospector reports on an inventor who invented, changed companies, and the new employer filed the patent applications. Didn’t work out so well for the patent infringement claim, but that’s not even the end of the worries. Patent Prospector here.News story here.
Read more →Iris Corp. Berhard v. U.S. is a fairly routine analysis of an exclusive licensee’s standing to sue for patent infringement. Of course, an exclusive licensee only has standing if the patentee has conveyed all substantial rights in the patent to the licensee. There’s a bit of a twist here, though; the patent owner had...
Read more →Attorney Advertising. Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome.
© 2013-2022 Pamela S. Chestek. All rights reserved.