2017
A Sovereign Shield
Stacy Stitham / 0 CommentsA previously-little known loophole in the patent system, which permits Native American tribes to assert sovereign immunity as defense in inter partes review (IPR) is getting a great deal of attention these days, following an unpopular deal by Allergan to shelter its patents with the Saint Regis Mohawk Tribe. In brief, Allergan transferred a set...
Read More2017
Understanding the Exceptional Trademark Case
Stacy Stitham / 0 CommentsThe buzz in the (IP) blogosphere this week relates to Romag Fasteners v. Fossil, Inc., in which the Federal Circuit joined the Third, Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, and Ninth Circuits in concluding that fee recovery under the Lanham Act follows the standards of the Supreme Court’s decision in Octane Fitness. Translation: The same standard governing recovery...
Read More2017
Skepticism from the Heartland
Stacy Stitham / 0 CommentsLast week we reported on the initial efforts to apply the Supreme Court’s opinion in TC Heartland, with particular interest in what impact that case may end up having on the business of patent litigation in the Eastern District of Texas. As we noted, on first read, TC Heartland seemed to herald the end of the...
Read More2017
A Case of First Impression
Stacy Stitham / 0 CommentsIt will hardly come as a surprise to frequent readers of this blog that the U.S. Supreme Court has (once more) jettisoned a legal principle fashioned by the Federal Circuit, nor that the opinion was largely without dissent (Justice Ginsburg did dissent in part). The case, Impression Products v. Lexmark International, concluded that a patentee’s decision...
Read More2017
The Genericide of Google?
Stacy Stitham / 0 CommentsIf you’ve ever referred to any pain relieving drug as an “aspirin,” asked for a Kleenex when seeking any form of handheld tissue, or interchanged the terms “photocopy” with “Xerox,” you have an inkling of the dangers that may result when a product or service becomes so successful that it jeopardizes its own trademark protection....
Read More2017
Patent Points to Ponder
Stacy Stitham / 0 CommentsThe Supreme Court recently decided the Federal Circuit was incorrect in concluding that the supply of a single component of a multicomponent invention for manufacture abroad gives rise to liability under Section 271(f)(1) of the Patent Act, which prohibits the supply from the United States of “all or a substantial portion of the components of...
Read More2017
Changing of the Guard
Stacy Stitham / 0 CommentsLaw360 and Crain’s Chicago Business are reporting that the infamous Niro Law Firm is dissolving, following the recent death of its founder, Ray Niro. For a time, the Niro name caused consternation to retailers receiving cease & desist letters on patent claims, as the firm made a name for itself by aggressively suing on behalf...
Read More2017
The Platform of Patent Infringement?
Stacy Stitham / 0 CommentsA little over a year ago, Judge Martinez of the Western District of Washington adopted an advisory jury verdict finding that Amazon.com Inc. did not “offer to sell” several third party pillowcases available for purchase through Amazon.com which allegedly infringed certain design patents. As is often the case with legal questions, the issue was just...
Read More2016
Give Me A C….
Stacy Stitham / 0 CommentsThe Supreme Court recently heard arguments in the case of Star Athletica v. Varsity Brands, a copyright case seeking resolution of the appropriate test to determine when a feature of a “useful article” is protectable under section 101 of the Copyright Act. Section 101 provides that “the design of a useful article” will be considered...
Read More2016
Pleadings 2.0
Stacy Stitham / 0 CommentsRule 8 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure requires a “a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief.” A decade ago, pleading a patent case was approximately as easy as: “You have a product/website/method/service and I have a patent. You owe me money.” With the Supreme...
Read More