Amster, Rothstein Ebenstein, LLP

Infringement Of Product-By-Process Claims In US Clarified

Thu, 30 Jul 2009 10:45:00 EST

Abbott Labs. v Sandoz, Inc., No. 2007-1400, and Lupin Ltd v Abbott Labs., No. 2007-1446, US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, 566 F.3d 1282, 18 May 2009 (en banc).
- July 28, 2009

Author(s): Charles R. Macedo

Amster, Rothstein Ebenstein LLP Patent Law Alert

Tue, 21 Jul 2009 10:45:00 EST

How The Supreme Court Should Resolve Bilski v. Doll
- July 20, 2009

Author(s): Charles R. Macedo, Norajean McCaffrey

How The Supreme Court Should Resolve Bilski

Tue, 21 Jul 2009 10:40:00 EST

In 1998, the Federal Circuit had the forethought and insight to recognize that the revolution in information technology and availability of the Internet would radically change the way that the world does business and that U.S. patent law would need to adapt to this new technological and commercial reality by confirming the availability of patent protection for business method patents.
- July 20, 2009, IP LAW 360

Author(s): Charles R. Macedo, Norajean McCaffrey

Amster, Rothstein Ebenstein LLP Patent Law Alert

Wed, 08 Jul 2009 16:00:00 EST

Rehearing En Banc Granted In Tafas v. Doll
- July 8, 2009

Author(s): Charles R. Macedo, Marion Metelski, Norajean McCaffrey

Patent Assignment Found Ambiguous As A Result Of Too Much Specificity

Sun, 05 Jul 2009 16:00:00 EST

Virtually every patent assignment or patent licence typically includes not only the enumerated patent applications or issued patents, but also ‘any and all divisional applications, continuations, and continuations in part together with the entire right, title and interest in and to said applications’ or other similar language to confirm that the assignment or license extends to all related patent applications and patents...
- July 5, 2009

Author(s): Charles R. Macedo

Amster, Rothstein Ebenstein LLP Trademark Alert

Fri, 12 Jun 2009 16:00:00 EST

Facebook To Offer Personalized URLs
- June 12, 2009

Author(s): Anthony Lo Cicero, Max Vern

Amster, Rothstein Ebenstein LLP Patent Litigation Alert

Fri, 12 Jun 2009 16:00:00 EST

FTC Closes Rambus Investigation
- June 12, 2009

Author(s): Joseph Casino, David Boag

Amster, Rothstein Ebenstein LLP Patent Law Alert

Mon, 01 Jun 2009 23:00:00 EST

Supreme Court Grants Cert For In Re Bilski
- June 1, 2009

Author(s): Charles R. Macedo, Norajean McCaffrey

Secondary Meaning Must Be Attributed To Business To Afford Trade Mark Protection Under US Law

Mon, 01 Jun 2009 11:00:00 EST

An arbitrary term that, through the trade mark owner's promotional activities, became recognized as a synonym for a geographic location, was not protectable under US trade mark law.
- Journal of Intellectual Property Law Practice, May 20, 2009

Author(s): Charles R. Macedo

Secondary Considerations of Non-Obviousness Must Still Be Considered

Fri, 17 Apr 2009 08:00:00 EST

A US District Court erred in granting summary judgment of obviousness and in failing to consider secondary considerations of non-obviousness.
- Journal of Intellectual Property Law Practice, April 17, 2009

Author(s): Charles R. Macedo

Patent Law Alert: March 24, 2009

Tue, 24 Mar 2009 12:00:00 EST

Tafas v. Doll ? Round II: One Down, Three To Go
- March 24, 2009

Author(s): Charles R. Macedo, Marion Metelski

Tafas v. Doll -- Round II: One Down, Three to Go

Tue, 24 Mar 2009 01:00:00 EST

On Friday, March 20, 2009, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (?the Federal Circuit?) weighed in on the
controversial Final Patent Rules regarding Claims and Continuation Practice (?the Final Rules,? see Changes to Practice for Continued Examination Filings, Patent Applications Containing Patentably Indistinct Claims, and Examination of
Claims in Patent Applications...
- IP Law360, March 24, 2009

Author(s): Charles R. Macedo, Marion Metelski

Permanent Injunction Affirmed in US Patent Case

Thu, 19 Mar 2009 12:00:00 EST

A US District Court was entitled to find irreparable harm even though the patentee had previously granted licences to other competitors.
- Journal of Intellectual Property Law Practice, March 29, 2009

Author(s): Charles R. Macedo

New Test for Design Patent Infringement in the USA Eliminates Separate 'Point of Novelty' Inquiry

Thu, 12 Mar 2009 15:22:57 EST

design patent infringement in the Usa is determined by comparing the accused product with the patented design from the perspective of an ?ordinary observer? knowledgeable of the prior art, and not by a separate ?point of novelty? inquiry.
- Journal of Intellectual Property Law Practice, March 12, 2009

Author(s): Charles R. Macedo