Copyright and trademark registrations have long held at least one advantage over patents, the © and ® symbols which efficiently denote registered intellectual property. Proper marking of patented articles requires display of the word “Patent” or “Pat.” together with the number of the relevant patent or an internet address where the number may be found. However, the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office held an open house to develop icons for patented articles, as well as a number of other intellectual property concepts, and recently published its selections.
Latest firm news
Google has won a major victory in its ten-year legal fight with authors over its Google Library Project, which digitizes and indexes millions of copyrighted books for an online library without consent from the copyright owner. Since 2004, as part of the Google Library Project, Google has scanned, rendered machine-readable, and indexed more than 20 million books, which includes both public domain and copyrighted works, for its Google Books search engine. The search engine allows users to search words or terms that yields a list of all books in the database in which those words or terms appear, as well as the number of times the word or term appears in each book. The search also provides a brief description of each book which gives some basic additional information, such as a list of the words and terms that appear with most frequency in the book. Users are also allowed a limited viewing of the text of the book to see “snippets” of text containing the searched-for terms. The search sometimes provides links to buy the book online and identifies libraries where the book can be located.
Shawn “Jay Z” Carter has won a copyright infringement case originally filed back in 2007, involving his 1999 hit single “Big Pimpin.” In a rare instance in which a copyright case involving a hit song actually reached the trial stage, U.S. District Court Judge Christina Snyder dismissed the lawsuit against Jay Z and his producer Timbaland, ruling that the heir of an Egyptian composer lacked standing to pursue the copyright infringement claim.
Firm Appeals to Supreme Court to Seek Full Attorney Fees for Client Wrongly Accused of Downloading Porn
After successfully defending a client who was falsely accused of illegally downloading pornographic videos by a major adult-film studio, the Firm was dissatisfied that the trial court awarded only partial attorney fees. The court reasoned that the studio became aware of the erroneous allegation only after the Firm demonstrated by electronic evidence that the client did not commit the infringement, so the fee award was limited to the continued defense of the case after that point. The Firm has argued through appeals that 100% of legal fees and expenses should have been awarded because the studio – widely regarded as a copyright “troll” that routinely obtains money settlements based in part on the potential of public humiliation of individual defendants – did not adequately investigate its claim before filing suit. The case has been closely watched by the media. http://www.law360.com/articles/715505/porn-co-malibu-faces-high-court-challenge-over-atty-fees.
The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas recently granted a Motion for Summary Judgment seeking to dismiss a patent infringement suit on the basis that the asserted claims are directed to ineligible subject matter under the two-step test recently reaffirmed by the United States Supreme Court in Alice Corporation Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank International, 134 S. Ct. 2347 (2014). Reportedly, one effect of the ruling was to dispose of 168 patent cases pursued by the same Plaintiff, asserting the same claims against separate Defendants. The Court has also requested briefing on an award of attorney’s fees.
The standard for willful patent infringement will be reviewed this term by the Supreme Court of the United States, as reported by SCOTUSblog. The Court agreed to accept two cases that involve the issue of enchanced damages in patent infringement litigation, Halo Electronics v. Pulse Electronics, and Stryker Corp v. Zimmer. Under the Patent Act, the owner of a patent may seek triple damages where willful infringement has been proven. The Supreme Court is expected to consider the proper framework for determining whether infringement in a particular case is willful. A decision in these consolidated cases will be rendered by June 2016.