ARE Patent Law Alert: Supreme Court to Decide Whether Foreign Sale Exhuasts Copyrights
(April 23, 2010) On April 20, 2010 the Supreme Court announced that it has accepted certiorari in Costco Wholesale Corp. v. Omega, S.A., Docket No. 08-1423 (2010) to determine whether an authorized foreign sale of a product exhausted applicable U.S. copyrights. In Costco, Omega, a watch manufacturer, filed suit against Costco, a retailer, alleging that […]
ARE Trademark Law Alert:
Second Circuit Decides Tiffany v. eBay Appeal
On April 1, 2010, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit affirmed most aspects of the decision of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York in Tiffany v. eBay. See Tiffany (NJ), Inc. v. eBay Inc., No. 08-3947-cv, Slip op. (2d Cir. Apr. 1, 2010). Tiffany is significant because […]
ARE Trademark Law Alert: Second Circuit Decides Tiffany v. eBay Appeal
On April 1, 2010, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit affirmed most aspects of the decision of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York in Tiffany v. eBay. See Tiffany (NJ), Inc. v. eBay Inc., No. 08-3947-cv, Slip op. (2d Cir. Apr. 1, 2010). Tiffany is significant because […]
ARE Patent Law Alert:
Developments in the Law of Inducement and Direct Infringement
(March 8, 2010) As discussed more fully in our accompanying article, SEB v. Montgomery Ward: Extending the Reach of U.S. Patent Laws to Foreign Defendants—Developments in the Law of Direct Infringement and Inducement, the Federal Circuit’s decision in SEB S.A. v. Montgomery Ward & Co., 2009-1099, 2009-1108, 2009-1119 (Fed. Cir. February 5, 2010) is significant […]
ARE Patent Law Alert: Developments in the Law of Inducement and Direct Infringement
(March 8, 2010) As discussed more fully in our accompanying article, SEB v. Montgomery Ward: Extending the Reach of U.S. Patent Laws to Foreign Defendants—Developments in the Law of Direct Infringement and Inducement, the Federal Circuit’s decision in SEB S.A. v. Montgomery Ward & Co., 2009-1099, 2009-1108, 2009-1119 (Fed. Cir. February 5, 2010) is significant […]
ARE Patent Law Alert:
Federal District Courts in Texas Have Begun to See The First of What Could Be a Wave of Lawsuits Alleging False Patent Marking in Violation of 35 U.S.C § 292
(February 25, 2010) As discussed in our January 6, 2010 ARE Patent Law Alert (see contact us to discuss how to minimize the risk of your company being burdened with a false marking claim. * Joseph Casino was a partner and David Boag was an associate at Amster, Rothstein & Ebenstein LLP. 449429.1
ARE Patent Law Alert: Federal District Courts in Texas Have Begun to See The First of What Could Be a Wave of Lawsuits Alleging False Patent Marking in Violation of 35 U.S.C § 292
(February 25, 2010) As discussed in our January 6, 2010 ARE Patent Law Alert (see www.arelaw.com/publications), the Federal Circuit’s Decision in The Forest Group, Inc. v. Bon-Ton Tool Co., No. 2009-1044 (Fed. Cir. 2009) confirmed that the false marking statute requires the assessment of a penalty of up $500 for each unit sold that has […]
ARE Patent Law Alert:
Federal Circuit Confirms That Fines for False Patent Marking are to be Imposed for Each Unit Falsely Marked
(January 6, 2010). On December 28, 2009 in The Forest Group, Inc. v. Bon Tool Co., No. 2009-1044 (Fed. Cir. 2009), the Federal Circuit clarified the law of false patent marking and confirmed that 35 U.S.C. § 292 requires the assessment of a penalty of up to $500 for each unit sold that has been […]
ARE Patent Law Alert: Federal Circuit Confirms That Fines for False Patent Marking are to be Imposed for Each Unit Falsely Marked
(January 6, 2010). On December 28, 2009 in The Forest Group, Inc. v. Bon Tool Co., No. 2009-1044 (Fed. Cir. 2009), the Federal Circuit clarified the law of false patent marking and confirmed that 35 U.S.C. § 292 requires the assessment of a penalty of up to $500 for each unit sold that has been […]
ARE Patent Law Alert:
Tafas v. Doll Round IV: Down For The Count
On Thursday, October 8, 2009, the USPTO announced that it was rescinding its controversial Final Rule regarding claim examination and continuation applications (“the Final Rule,” see Changes to Practice for Continued Examination Filings, Patent Applications Containing Patentably Indistinct Claims, and Examination of Claims in Patent Applications, 72 Fed. Reg. 46,716 (Aug. 21, 2007). The Final […]