Filewrapper-old

USPTO Issues Report on Virtual Patent Marking Under the AIA
October 01, 2014

    Among the provisions of the America Invents Act that went into effect on September 16, 2011 was a change to the patent marking provisions contained in 35 U.S.C. § 287(a). Marking an article as with a patent number provides constructive notice to the public that the article is patented, and failure to appropriately mark an article can preclude the recovery of damages for infringement until effective notice is....... Read More


    Copyright 3-year Statute of Limitations Trumps Laches Defense
    May 20, 2014

      PETRELLA v. METRO-GOLDWYN-MAYER, INC. Frank Petrella wrote two screenplays and one book based on the life of boxing champion Jake LaMotta. One of the screenplays, registered in 1963, identifies Patrella as the sole author, written in collaboration with LaMotta. LaMotta and Patrella assigned their rights in the screenplay, including renewal rights, to Chartoff-Winkler Productions, Inc. in 1976, who in turn sold....... Read More


      Jury Returns Verdict for Apple in Patent Infringement Suit
      May 06, 2014

        On Friday, May 2, 2014 a jury found Samsung Electronics Co. ("Samsung") liable for infringing two patents owned by Apple, Inc. ("Apple"). The two patents are U.S. Patent No.5,946,647, which is directed to systems and methods that analyze text for things that can be hyperlinked, e.g., email addresses, websites, and phone numbers, and then provides quick link options; and U.S. Patent No.8,046,72....... Read More


        Supreme Court Revises Standards for Sanctions in Exceptional Patent Cases
        April 29, 2014

          Two U.S. Supreme Court opinions issued today—Octane Fitness, LLC v. Icon Health & Fitness, Inc. and Highmark Inc. v. Allcare Health Management System, Inc.—have changed the framework for which exceptional cases are analyzed under § 285 of the Patent Act. For years, the controlling case with regard to § 285 of the Patent Act was Brooks Furniture Mfg., Inc. v. Dutailier Int'l, Inc. In....... Read More


          New and Useful - July 10, 2013
          July 10, 2013

            · InConvolve v. Compaq Computer the Federal Circuit affirmed in part the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York ruling that Compaq Computer Corp., Seagate Technology, LLC., and Seagate Technology, Inc. did not misappropriate 11 of 15 alleged trade secrets from Convolve, Inc. In addition, the Federal Circuit affirmed the district court’s judgment that 8 claims of U....... Read More


            Federal Circuit affirms importance of secondary indicia of non-obviousness
            April 05, 2013

              The Federal Circuit has recently decided the case ofPower Integrations, Inc. v. Fairchild Semiconductor International, Inc. Power Integrations, Inc. (Power) sued Fairchild Semiconductor International, Inc. (Fairchild) in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware, alleging infringement of Power’s four patents covering chargers for mobile phones. In a bifurcated trial, the claims of the patents ....... Read More


              New and Useful - April 5, 2013
              April 05, 2013

                · In Power Integrations, Inc. v. Fairchild Semiconductor International, Inc. the Federal Circuit clarified several points relating to claim construction, determinations of non-obviousness, and calculation of damages. The court confirmed that claiming a “circuit” in conjunction with a sufficiently definite structure for performing the identified function is adequate to bar means-plus-fu....... Read More


                New and Useful - January 23, 2013
                January 23, 2013

                  · In Wax v. Amazon Techs., the Federal Circuit upheld the TTAB’s denial of registration of the mark AMAZON VENTURES. Applicant filed and intent-to-use application to register the mark for “investment management, raising venture capital for others, . . . and capital investment consultation.” Amazon Technologies, Inc.—online retailer and owner of several AMAZON.COM marks&mdas....... Read More


                  New and Useful - Janurary 14, 2013
                  January 14, 2013

                    · The Supreme Court handed down its decision in Already, LLC v. Nike, Inc. The Court held that Nike’s covenant not to sue Alreadyfor alleged infringement of Nike’s AIR FORCE 1 trademark—entered into after Nike had filed suit and Already had filed a counterclaim challenging the mark’s validity—rendered both Nike’s claims and Already’s counterclaims moot. Th....... Read More


                    Another Billion Dollar Patent Verdict
                    January 03, 2013

                      Another billion dollar verdict has been handed out in a patent case. Read the verdict in Carnegie Mellon University v. Marvell Technology Group, LTD. here. This latest case continues a string of billion dollar verdicts highlighted by Jonathan Kennedy in the latest edition of MVS Briefs. Carnegie Mellon brought suit alleging infringement of two of its patents, Patent No. 6,201,839 and Patent No. 6,438,180, relat....... Read More


                        Newer Posts Older Posts  

                      Purpose

                      The attorneys of McKee, Voorhees & Sease, P.L.C. designed this blog as an informational and educational resource about intellectual property law for our clients, other attorneys, and the public as a whole. Our goal is to provide cutting-edge information about recent developments in intellectual property law, including relevant case law updates, proposed legislation, and intellectual property law in the news.

                      Disclaimer

                      McKee, Voorhees & Sease, P.L.C. provides this blog for general informational purposes only. By using this blog, you agree that the information on this blog does not constitute legal or other professional advice and no attorney-client or other relationship is created between you and McKee, Voorhees & Sease, P.L.C. Do not consider this blog to be a substitute for obtaining legal advice from a qualified, licensed attorney. While we try to revise this blog on a regular basis, it may not reflect the most current legal developments. We consciously refrain from expressing opinions on this blog and instead, offer it as a form of information and education, however if there appears an expression of opinion, realize that those views are indicative of the individual and not of the firm as a whole

                      Connect with MVS

                      Enter your name and email address to recieve the latest news and updates from us and our attorneys.

                      Subscribe to: MVS Newsletter

                      Subscribe to: Filewrapper® Blog Updates

                        I have read and agree to the terms and conditions of McKee, Voorhees & Sease, P.L.C.