|
|
 |
 |
| 695 Kenmoor SE I Grand Rapids, Michigan | | | 616.949.9610 | | | www.priceheneveld.com |
|
The keyword results are in — Second Circuit issues key decision re: search engines Patent law — More madness over business methods
IP in brief: In re TS Tech USA — Patent court issues critical venue ruling
|
Internet search engine companies rejoiced a few years ago when a federal district court dismissed a lawsuit against Google which alleged the company had infringed a trademark by selling the mark as a search keyword. But now the Second U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals has vacated the dismissal. In comparing this against a previous case, the court made a distinction about how the defendant had used the plaintiff’s trademark.
A recent patent application covered a “marketing paradigm for bringing products to market.” It comprised 56 method claims and 12 paradigm claims. But the claims were rejected, since they were directed to an abstract idea that didn’t meet the “machine-or-transformation” test for patentability that was established in in re Bilski. However, a sidebar explains that the Supreme Court will soon be reviewing Bilski.
A team of songwriters sent a recording of their copyrighted song to a record executive, only to have it returned. But they sued when a similar-sounding song appeared over the airwaves. Had their song been copied? Lacking actual proof, the Sixth Circuit looked at the relationships between the studio exec and the singers, and whether mere receipt of the CD by the studio constituted grounds for infringement.
In this patent case, the plaintiff was based in Michigan and the defendants in Ohio and Canada. Yet the plaintiff filed suit in the Eastern District of Texas, often regarded as a favorable forum for patent holders. The defendants sought a transfer to Ohio. The district court said no, but the appeals court found flaws in that decision. This short article describes them