Too obvious - Federal Circuit
extinguishes candleholder patent

In Ball Aerosol & Specialty Container, Inc. v. Limited Brands, Inc., the Federal Circuit reminded us all how easily an issued patent can be invalidated following the Supreme Court decision in KSR v. Teleflex. A district court denied a defendant's motion for a summary judgment of obviousness, but the Federal Circuit came to a different conclusion. A sidebar also discusses a key issue related to how a plaintiff can establish patent infringement.
Full Article

Video game dispute pits trademark
infringement against the First Amendment

When a video game included a fictitious strip club that had a name similar to that of a real-life counterpart, the Ninth Circuit had to decide whether the mere use of a mark defeats a First Amendment defense.
Full Article

Patentability of business methods - Resuming
the fight in a revised Federal Circuit opinion

The Federal Circuit Court of Appeals sometimes seems to like to keep people guessing. Case in point: its recent revised opinion in In re Comiskey. In the latest round of an appeal regarding a business method patent rejected for obviousness, the court stuck by its controversial decision not to actually address obviousness, instead reaching its decision on grounds not raised by the parties on appeal.
Full Article

IP in brief: Intervest Construction v.
Canterbury Estate Homes - Court warns
of "thin" protection for architectural works

When it comes to copyright infringement of architectural works, courts must often choose between substantial similarity and substantial dissimilarity. So fell the responsibility on the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals in this case. When two companies disputed the similarity of floor plans, the court, in the course of its deliberations, noted that the definition of an "architectural work" closely parallels the definition of a "compilation" under the Copyright Act, and noted that the "copyright protection in a compilation is 'thin.'"
Full Article

This publication is designed to familiarize the reader with matters of general interest relating to intellectual property law. It is distributed for informational purposes only, not for obtaining employment, and is not intended to constitute legal advice. Legal counsel should be consulted with regard to specific application of the information on a case-by-case basis. The author, publisher and distributor assume no liability whatsoever in connection with the use of the information contained in the publication.

View Online