US Courts Split On Legality Of Music Sampling 28/06/2016 by Steven Seidenberg for Intellectual Property Watch 1 Comment De minimis non curat lex – the law does not concern itself with trifles. This venerable legal principle is applied throughout the world, but not in one part of US copyright law. Copying any part of a sound recording, no matter how tiny, is actionable copyright infringement, according to an eleven year-old US appellate court ruling. Following that ruling, pop star Madonna found herself sued because her hit song, Vogue, allegedly copied a fraction of a second of another song. That copyright infringement suit was thrown out on 2 June, however, when a different appellate court ruled that de minimis infringements of sound recordings do not create any liability. Now US copyright law is in a muddle.
US High Court To Consider IP Protection For Clothing Design 24/05/2016 by Steven Seidenberg for Intellectual Property Watch Leave a Comment Fashion in the US generates over $330 billion in annual revenues, but it is more than a business. Fashion is a well-recognized art, displayed in numerous museum exhibitions throughout the world. This art, however, receives little IP protection in the US. But a case before the US Supreme Court could change that.
In US, Growing Battle Over Offensive Trademarks 26/04/2016 by Steven Seidenberg for Intellectual Property Watch Leave a Comment The US Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) is not admitting defeat. It is still refusing to register trademarks that disparage people, even though this policy violates the First Amendment’s guarantee of free speech, according to a December decision by the Federal Circuit Court of Appeals. The USPTO has appealed the court ruling, and many experts expect the Supreme Court will soon rule on whether there is constitutional protection for disparaging marks. [Updated!]
Despite Supreme Court Ruling, Foreign Sales Don’t Affect US Patent Rights 29/03/2016 by Steven Seidenberg for Intellectual Property Watch Leave a Comment The controversial ruling was perhaps to be expected. The Federal Circuit Court of Appeals doggedly hewed to its existing interpretation of patent law. Unfortunately, the court’s decision in Lexmark International v Impression Products conflicts with recent Supreme Court jurisprudence, according to many experts – thus leaving unresolved some important questions about how much control patentees can maintain over their patented products.
Despite US Reforms, Patent Trolls Are Thriving – For Now 26/02/2016 by Steven Seidenberg for Intellectual Property Watch Leave a Comment The United States has spent over a decade trying to rein in so-called “patent trolls.” Nevertheless, a recent study suggests that patent trolls are a bigger problem than ever.
Despite US Efforts, Patent Litigation Grows Apace 24/02/2016 by Steven Seidenberg for Intellectual Property Watch 3 Comments The United States worked hard over the last five years to reduce patent infringement suits. Congress enacted patent reform, the courts handed down important anti-patentee rulings, and the US Patent and Trademark Office began a campaign of energetically rejecting patents and patent claims. Despite all this, from 2014 to 2015, new patent infringement suits increased 18 percent and the number of defendants sued for patent infringement increased 21 percent. What went wrong?
US Agency Stripped Of Power To Regulate Internet 16/12/2015 by Steven Seidenberg for Intellectual Property Watch Leave a Comment America’s International Trade Commission is a tempting venue for US intellectual property owners. The agency acts quickly, has a history of supporting IP owners, and offers a powerful means to stop infringing products from entering the US. So when the ITC expanded its jurisdiction last year, claiming the power to stop online infringements, many IP owners cheered. And many internet companies fretted. Until last month, when the Federal Circuit had its say.
TPP Strengthens Controversial IP Arbitration 30/11/2015 by Steven Seidenberg for Intellectual Property Watch 3 Comments The US government has been less than candid about the Trans-Pacific Partnership. While the agreement was being negotiated, the US Trade Representative stated that a much-criticized arbitration process included in the TPP would not apply to intellectual property. Turns out, it does apply to IP. And it provides foreign corporations with a huge advantage in IP disputes – private arbitrations that can override courts and statutes, effectively rewriting a nation’s IP laws.
US Court Adds Confusion To #Trademarks 29/09/2015 by Steven Seidenberg for Intellectual Property Watch Leave a Comment Once, hashtags (like #cute_cat) merely identified topics on Twitter, Facebook, and other social media. No longer. A rapidly growing number of companies are using hashtags (like #HowDoYouKFC) as trademarks. There is one problem, however. A court in the US has recently ruled that hashtags can never receive trademark protection.
US High Court Removes Economics From Patent Law 08/07/2015 by Steven Seidenberg for Intellectual Property Watch Leave a Comment Economics be damned. So said the US Supreme Court on 22 June, when it reaffirmed a 50 year-old ruling that limits how patent owners can license their patents. The court conceded the limit does not make economic sense, but asserted that patent law has its own logic. That could change many aspects of patent law, according to experts.