Articles in Featured
In a victory for Watson Laboratories, the Federal Circuit rejects the District of Nevada’s novel formulation of obviousness and reiterates that prior art teachings must be considered in combination, not in series.
Google responds with comprehensive brief in Viacom’s appeal of last year’s Viacom v. YouTube decision. Google still feels that YouTube is protected by safe harbor, but Viacom is hard at work trying to get the Second Circuit to think otherwise.
Can you copyright the melody of an infinite mathematical constant? The implications of music structure and source when two musicians spar over whether you can own the melody of pi.
On May 28, The Court of Federal Appeals decided the case of Citigroup Inc. v. Capital City Bank Group, Inc., denying Citibank’s opposition to Capital City Bank’s (“CCB”) application for four standard character service marks. …
Famous New Jersey hot dog restaurant Rutt’s Hut sues newly-named Mutt’s Hut for trademark infringement.
Last Friday, an administrative law judge at the U.S. International Trade Commission (USITC) issued a final determination, finding that Apple did not infringe any of Nokia’s mobile phone and electronic device patents. Although this determination …
Today is April Fools’ Day, and I can reasonably say this day is my favorite just after my birthday, during which I psychologically force my family and friends into covering me with gold. In France, …
Social Security law firm and daytime commercial masters Binder & Binder brought suit against Disability Group, Inc. for buying “Binder and Binder” as a Google AdWord. Willful infringement was found as clients were significantly confused as to who they were actually calling.
The United States District Court for Western Virginia recently denied a motion for preliminary judgment filed by Virginia Tech against Hokie Real Estate, Inc. Virginia Tech argues, and will need to prove at trial, that Hokie Real Estate infringed on their ‘Hokie’ trademark.
On March 22, 2011, after two years of debate, Judge Denny Chin rejected the Google Book Settlement. The controversy began in 2004 when Google entered into agreements with several research libraries to digitally copy books and other writings, but did not receive permission from the copyright owners to scan the books…
