2012
NPEs By The Numbers
David Swetnam-Burland / 0 CommentsWe read with interest the report of Article One Partners (HT: IPWatchdog), regarding the results of a survey pertaining to IP litigation issues across various sectors. While noteworthy on other grounds, we at IP Wise found most interesting the (sobering) statistics pertaining to non–practicing entity a/k/a troll litigation: NPE litigation in the high technology industries...
Read More2012
Is Innovation Another Cost of Defense?
David Swetnam-Burland / 0 CommentsPeople in the patent and tech communities have strong opinions about patent trolls/non–practicing entities, not even agreeing on what to call them. The moniker “patent troll” reflects the fact that these entities only use the patents they own negatively, i.e., to block other people from engaging in the sphere of productivity allegedly covered by the...
Read More2012
No Privilege for Plaintiff’s Patents
David Swetnam-Burland / 0 CommentsWe’ve blogged, oh, a time or two, about the Federal Circuit’s opinion in ResQNet v. Lansa and the aftershocks in the district courts. Since ResQNet, at least some courts have allowed defendants (at least in certain circumstances) the ability to get a peek at the man behind the curtain, to examine the negotiations behind license...
Read More2012
What Did YouTube Know, And When Did It Know It
David Swetnam-Burland / 0 CommentsViacom sued YouTube for copyright infringement of approximately 79,000 video clips posted to the popular DIY video site. In 2010, YouTube argued that it couldn’t be held responsible for infringing conduct by people posting clips to YouTube without the company’s knowledge. The district court agreed, ruling on summary judgment that YouTube was entitled to safe...
Read More2012
Taking Trademark Infringement Personally
David Swetnam-Burland / 0 CommentsToday’s entry is a cautionary note to corporate officers about trademark infringement. The Chicago IP Litigation Blog highlighted a recent decision from a federal court in Chicago concluding that an individual acting as a corporate officer can be held personally liable for trademark infringement he or she was personally involved in or aware of. The...
Read More2012
When The Game Is Not Worth The Candle
David Swetnam-Burland / 0 CommentsWe’ve spoken as to the merits of creative case management before—particularly when the cost of the defense appears to be driving the litigation train. In a recent scheduling order set in the case of Brandeis University & GFA Brands, Inc. v. East Side Ovens Inc. et al. (the “et al.” standing in for a number...
Read More2012
Prometheus Rebound
David Swetnam-Burland / 0 CommentsThe Supreme Court issued its opinion today in the case of Mayo v. Prometheus, which asked the Court to determine whether a diagnostic process that employed a law of nature could be patented. After an oral argument which left many of the justices uncertain where to draw the line between patentable processes and unpatentable laws...
Read More2012
The (Patented) Ide(a)s of March
David Swetnam-Burland / 0 CommentsUnless you’ve been living under a rock, you’ve probably heard of the upcoming patent infringement battle looming between Yahoo! and Facebook, on the eve of Facebook’s IPO. It seems everyone has something to say on the topic (seemingly with the ironic exception of Yahoo!’s Facebook page). Irony coming in twos, one of those with something...
Read More2012
Will This Opinion Drive The Supreme Court To Abstraction?
David Swetnam-Burland / 0 CommentsAs we’ve previously reported, in August 2010, a federal district court in Los Angeles ruled that a patent–holder’s claims against Hulu and WildTangent had to be dismissed because the patent asserted was directed at the abstract idea of requiring visitors to view advertisements before being able to access free online content. In September 2011, the...
Read More2012
Unlucky Horseshoes for Patent Plaintiff
David Swetnam-Burland / 0 CommentsThe usual rule in American civil litigation is that each side pays its own attorneys regardless of who wins in the end. The patent statute provides, however, that a losing party will have to pay the winning party’s fees in an “exceptional” case. The Federal Circuit Court of Appeals has set the bar high for...
Read More