Ab Coaster
-
Getting Back on the Rails
I have written extensively in the past about what I consider a misapplication of the anti-trafficking provision of Section 10 of the Lanham Act. Section 10 has a special provision that limits when one can assign an intent-to-use trademark application. After the 1989 amendment to the Lanham Act, companies could file trademark applications before actually… Continue reading
-
Questionable Decision on Assigning an ITU
I recently wrote about a case which held that, while there was an assignment of an invention, a continuation-in-part application was not assigned because it had new matter. I’m not sure if the outcome was right; at least I suspect that many drafters of assignment language haven’t thought about it that way. The same decision… Continue reading
-
Assignment of a Part of a Continuation-in-Part?
Plaintiff AB Coaster Holdings Inc. claimed to be the owner of patents that were subject to terminal disclaimers. Some of the patents were expressly assigned and some were not. Here are the pairings: ‘633 (assigned) and ‘079 (not expressly assigned)‘445 (not expressly assigned) and ‘263 (assigned)‘079 (not expressly assigned) and ‘263 (assigned) The defendant argued… Continue reading
About Me
Learn more about me at my website, Chestek Legal
Recent Posts
Categories
- copyright
- domain name
- moral rights
- patent
- right of publicity
- social media
- trade dress
- trade libel
- trade secret
- trademark
- Uncategorized