On September 11, 2009, the Federal Circuit issued an opinion of importance in the area of patent damages in Lucent Technologies, Inc. v. Gateway, Inc. (consolidation of appeals 2008-1485, -1487, and -1495). At issue on appeal was liability by Microsoft for the alleged infringement of a patent now owned by Lucent, and the award of damages to Lucent.
Since its 2003 decision in Medinol v. Neuro Vasx, Inc., 67 U.S.P.Q.2d 1205 (T.T.A.B. 2003), the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board (the Board”) has repeatedly canceled registrations that were procured or maintained based on material misrepresentations that a registrant “should have known” to be false. Capitalizing on its first opportunity to weigh in on the growing Medinol body of law, the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit recently rejected the Board’s “should have known” standard.
The US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit’s en banc opinion in Cardiac Pacemakers, Inc. v. St. Jude Medical, Inc., Nos. 2007-1296, -1347 (Fed. Cir. Aug. 19, 2009), clarifies that 35 U.S.C. § 271(f) does not apply to method claims of patents. Section 271(f) states as follows:
Under Section 101 of the Patent Act, 35 U.S.C. $101, an ''idea'' is not patentable, but a ''process'' may be. On June 1, 2009, the Supreme Court granted certiorari in Bilski v. Doll, No. 08-964, to decide when a ''process'' is patent-eligible.
On April 8, 2009, the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit decided TransCore, LP v. Electronic Transaction Consultants Corp., 2008-1430, which made two significant changes to the law of patent exhaustion. First, the court held that a covenant not to sue is no different than a non-exclusive license for purposes of patent exhaustion.
30 December 2008 - On December 29, 2008, the Federal Circuit Court of Appeals granted a writ of mandamus and vacated Judge T. John Ward's denial of a venue transfer motion brought by TS Tech USA Corporation (TS Tech) in a patent infringement case involving automobile seat headrests. The Federal Circuit's ruling revives the previously-believed futile venue transfer motion as an option for patent defendants in the Eastern District of Texas, and may well loosen that court's vise-grip on defendants sued in the Eastern District.
31 October 2008 - On October 30, 2008, the Federal Circuit affirmed the final rejection by the Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences (BPAI) of a claimed method for hedging risks in commodities trading in In re Bilski.
15 October 2008 - On October 13, 2008, the President signed into law Senate Bill 3325, known as the “Prioritizing Resources and Organization for Intellectual Property Act of 2008” (the “Bill”). The Bill provides for increased enforcement of intellectual property laws covering such violations as copyright infringement, trademark counterfeiting and the use of false marks on goods and services. Additionally, the Bill increases penalties for some of these violations.
15 October 2008 - On October 9, 2008, a World Trade Organization (WTO) dispute settlement panel issued a mixed “interim”
ruling in a case filed by the United States alleging China fails to protect copyrights, trademarks, and other
intellectual property rights.
15 October 2008 - On October 10, 2008, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit issued an en banc opinion in In re Volkswagen of America on an issue that has affected many corporations – the filing of actions in the Marshall Division of the Eastern District of Texas despite no party to the action having any meaningful connection to that district.
In February 2008 the Thai Supreme Court resolved a prolonged legal dispute involving the copyright of one of Asia's best loved superheroes, Ultraman (Case 7457/2550). The Supreme Court ruled in favor of plaintiff Tsuburaya Productions of Japan (the "plaintiff"), ending its ten-year battle against defendants Tsuburaya Chaiyo Co., Ltd. and Sampote Saengduenchai ("Mr. Sampote").
The People's Supreme Court, People's Supreme Procuracy, Ministry of Public Security, and Ministry of Justice issued inter-ministerial No. 01/2008/TTLT-TANDTC-VKSNDTC-BCA-BTP on 29 February 2008 ("Circular 01") to establish criteria for establishing criminal responsibility for intellectual property rights infringements. This law demonstrates Vietnams' commitments to enforce intellectual property rights.
29 May 2008 - First revocation of a UK patent for an invention consisting exclusively of a business method / computer program - despite an earlier Court of Appeal decision stating it was not simply a business method.
21 May 2008 - Leading international law firm Mayer Brown has successfully revoked in High Court proceedings a long standing patent for pre-paid telephone calling cards. The cards allow users to make telephone calls from virtually any telephone in the world and charge the costs of the call to the card.
March 2008 - A recent Court of Appeal decision in Hong Kong (Wong Wing Ho v. Chong Lai Wah & Another (CACV 212/2007, 13 February 2008)) reminds one to take extreme caution before applying to strike out a defamation claim on the ground of no reasonable cause of action. The test is a stringent one: whether it is plain and obvious that the words complained of are incapable of bearing a defamatory meaning of the plaintiff.
Sotheby's, established in 1744 in London, is one of the two largest auction houses in the world. It has registered "Sotheby's" as trade and/or service marks in China and many other countries.
14 February 2008 - On January 10, 2008, the Supreme Court of India issued an important decision in the case Venture Global Engineering v. Satyam Computer Services, Ltd. regarding the enforcement in India of foreign arbitration awards. The decision has implications both for companies doing business involving India and for companies with substantial assets located in India.
28 January 2008 - A dispute between Louis Vuitton Malletier S.A. - the French manufacturer of luxury handbags and accessories - and Haute Diggity Dog LLC - a Nevada manufacturer of pet products - set the stage for one of the first cases under the relatively new Trademark Dilution Revision Act.
Mayer Brown is a global legal services organization comprising legal
practices that are separate entities (the "Mayer Brown Practices"). The
Mayer Brown Practices are: Mayer Brown LLP, a limited liability
partnership established in the United States; Mayer Brown International
LLP, a limited liability partnership incorporated in England and Wales;
and JSM, a Hong Kong partnership, and its associated entities in Asia. The
Mayer Brown Practices are known as Mayer Brown JSM in Asia. "Mayer Brown"
and the "Mayer Brown" logo are the trademarks of the individual Mayer
Brown Practices in their respective jurisdictions.
