Francis Ford Coppola is suing a small Italian restaurant over its name, Tavola, arguing that he owns a trademark in the term. But does he?

On March 20, 2012, the Supreme Court unanimously reversed the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit’s decision and held in Mayo v. Prometheus that methods for determining the adequate dosage of thiopurine drugs in the treatment of certain diseases was not patentable under 15 U.S.C. § 101 as the methods only recited a process of the law of nature.

A court in the Southern District Court of New York recently denied the claim of pharmaceutical company Dey, Inc. that a defendant, Sunovion Pharmaceutical Inc., had been infringing on Dey’s patents. Sunovion argued that Dey’s patents were not valid because Sunovion had conducted clinical trials on the chemical compound more than a year prior to Dey’s applying for the patent. The court found that because those clinical trials amounted to public use, Dey’s patents were not valid and therefore Sunovion did not infringe.

Edgar Rice Burroughs Inc., a company owned by Edgar R. Burroughs’ family, is suing distributor Dynamic Forces and publisher Dynamic Entertainment for trademark infringement and unfair competition, claiming that their comic-book series “Lord of the Jungle” and “Warlord of Mars” infringe on Burroughs’ characters, namely Tarzan of the Apes and John Carter of Mars.

“The purpose of copyright is to create incentives for creative effort.” Sony Corp. of America v. Universal City Studios, Inc., 464 U.S. 417, 450 (1984). Well, Article I, Section 8, Clause 8 of the U.S. Constitution certainly has led to creative litigation. In a recent example, a defendant in a file-sharing and copyright infringement lawsuit has revived the time-tested argument that pornography does not qualify as copyrightable work. File-sharing pornography, therefore, involves no copyright infringement.

A complaint filed by the Board of Governors of West Virginia University alleging that a Morgantown t-shirt maker is infringing on the University’s protected rights gives rise to a much debated issue of trademark protection over university color schemes.

Barnes & Noble has found a new and interesting way to challenge Microsoft’s patent infringement claims: arguing that Microsoft’s patent infringement claims are baseless because Microsoft’s patents are not valid. For proof, Barnes & Noble offers a significant list of prior art publications and patents to test Microsoft’s inventions’ novelty and non-obviousness.

The media have covered Barnes & Noble’s rebellion against Microsoft’s aggressive litigation to enforce Microsoft’s patent rights. Yet it is uncertain whether Microsoft is violating antitrust laws and it seems equally uncertain how courts may delimit the difference between the rightful protection of one’s rights and the unlawful abuse of one’s dominant position in the marketplace.

The Council of Europe has come up with an international convention creating criminal sanctions for the manufacturing and trafficking of counterfeited drugs. The Convention, which should come into force in the near future, also creates interesting legal alternatives for trademark and patent holders against infringements of their rights.

UK police are facing charges of copyright infringement for allegedly copying and marketing software that allows its users to recover data from mobile phones.