<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"><channel><title>Intellectual Property Law</title><description>Intellectual property law explained for Los Angeles businesses, founders, and creators.</description><link>https://iplawyerla.com/</link><item><title>Appian v. Pegasystems: How a $2 Billion Trade-Secret Verdict Came Undone</title><link>https://iplawyerla.com/blog/appian-v-pegasystems-trade-secret-damages/</link><guid isPermaLink="true">https://iplawyerla.com/blog/appian-v-pegasystems-trade-secret-damages/</guid><description>Liability stood, but the largest damages award in Virginia history collapsed over a single jury instruction. The case is a masterclass in trade-secret causation — and a warning that revenue is not damages.</description><pubDate>Sat, 27 Jun 2026 00:00:00 GMT</pubDate></item><item><title>Bartz v. Anthropic: Transformative Training, Unforgivable Acquisition</title><link>https://iplawyerla.com/blog/bartz-v-anthropic-ai-training-fair-use/</link><guid isPermaLink="true">https://iplawyerla.com/blog/bartz-v-anthropic-ai-training-fair-use/</guid><description>Judge Alsup held that training a large language model on books is &apos;exceedingly transformative&apos; fair use — while refusing to extend that blessing to the pirated library that fed it. The $1.5 billion settlement that followed shows where the real exposure lies.</description><pubDate>Thu, 25 Jun 2026 00:00:00 GMT</pubDate></item><item><title>Kadrey v. Meta: A Fair-Use Win That Reads Like a Plaintiffs&apos; Brief</title><link>https://iplawyerla.com/blog/kadrey-v-meta-ai-fair-use/</link><guid isPermaLink="true">https://iplawyerla.com/blog/kadrey-v-meta-ai-fair-use/</guid><description>Two days after Bartz, Judge Chhabria also found AI training to be fair use — but went out of his way to say the result reflected a failure of advocacy, not a vindication of the practice. His &apos;market dilution&apos; theory is the doctrine to watch.</description><pubDate>Tue, 23 Jun 2026 00:00:00 GMT</pubDate></item><item><title>Thomson Reuters v. Ross: The First Refusal of Fair Use in the AI Era</title><link>https://iplawyerla.com/blog/thomson-reuters-v-ross-ai-fair-use/</link><guid isPermaLink="true">https://iplawyerla.com/blog/thomson-reuters-v-ross-ai-fair-use/</guid><description>Before the generative-AI rulings, a Delaware court rejected fair use for using copyrighted material to build an AI legal-research tool — and pointedly distinguished the software cases the technology industry had relied upon. Its reach is narrower than its reputation.</description><pubDate>Sat, 20 Jun 2026 00:00:00 GMT</pubDate></item><item><title>Lehrman v. Lovo: Why the Right of Publicity — Not Copyright — Governs AI Voice Cloning</title><link>https://iplawyerla.com/blog/lehrman-v-lovo-ai-voice-cloning/</link><guid isPermaLink="true">https://iplawyerla.com/blog/lehrman-v-lovo-ai-voice-cloning/</guid><description>A federal court let voice actors&apos; right-of-publicity and contract claims against an AI voice-cloning company proceed while dismissing their copyright theories. The decision maps the legal terrain for performers facing synthetic replicas of their voices.</description><pubDate>Thu, 18 Jun 2026 00:00:00 GMT</pubDate></item><item><title>Vidal v. Elster: A Unanimous Judgment, a Divided Court, and the Limits of History</title><link>https://iplawyerla.com/blog/vidal-v-elster-names-clause/</link><guid isPermaLink="true">https://iplawyerla.com/blog/vidal-v-elster-names-clause/</guid><description>The Supreme Court upheld the Lanham Act&apos;s bar on registering marks that use a living person&apos;s name without consent. The 9-0 result conceals a methodological fracture over whether history alone can resolve a First Amendment question.</description><pubDate>Thu, 18 Jun 2026 00:00:00 GMT</pubDate></item><item><title>Structured Asset Sales v. Sheeran: The Deposit Copy and the Limits of Owning a Groove</title><link>https://iplawyerla.com/blog/structured-asset-sales-v-sheeran-thinking-out-loud/</link><guid isPermaLink="true">https://iplawyerla.com/blog/structured-asset-sales-v-sheeran-thinking-out-loud/</guid><description>The Second Circuit affirmed that Ed Sheeran&apos;s &apos;Thinking Out Loud&apos; does not infringe &apos;Let&apos;s Get It On,&apos; reaffirming that a common chord progression and harmonic rhythm are not protectable — and that pre-1978 song copyrights are bounded by the deposit copy.</description><pubDate>Tue, 16 Jun 2026 00:00:00 GMT</pubDate></item><item><title>Hachette v. Internet Archive: The End of &apos;Controlled Digital Lending&apos; as a Fair-Use Theory</title><link>https://iplawyerla.com/blog/hachette-v-internet-archive-controlled-digital-lending/</link><guid isPermaLink="true">https://iplawyerla.com/blog/hachette-v-internet-archive-controlled-digital-lending/</guid><description>The Second Circuit held that scanning print books and lending the digital copies — even one-to-one — is not fair use. The decision turns on a narrowed conception of transformative use and the primacy of the licensing market.</description><pubDate>Mon, 15 Jun 2026 00:00:00 GMT</pubDate></item><item><title>Dewberry Group v. Dewberry Engineers: Corporate Separateness Survives the Lanham Act</title><link>https://iplawyerla.com/blog/dewberry-v-dewberry-trademark-profits/</link><guid isPermaLink="true">https://iplawyerla.com/blog/dewberry-v-dewberry-trademark-profits/</guid><description>A unanimous Supreme Court held that a trademark plaintiff awarded the &apos;defendant&apos;s profits&apos; may recover only the named defendant&apos;s profits — not those of its non-party affiliates. The result is a $43 million award vacated and a lesson in how to plead.</description><pubDate>Fri, 12 Jun 2026 00:00:00 GMT</pubDate></item><item><title>Amgen v. Sanofi: The Enablement Tax on Functional Genus Claims</title><link>https://iplawyerla.com/blog/amgen-v-sanofi-enablement/</link><guid isPermaLink="true">https://iplawyerla.com/blog/amgen-v-sanofi-enablement/</guid><description>A unanimous Supreme Court invalidated Amgen&apos;s antibody patents for failing to enable the full scope of what they claimed. The decision revives a demanding, century-old conception of the patent bargain with particular force in the life sciences.</description><pubDate>Tue, 09 Jun 2026 00:00:00 GMT</pubDate></item><item><title>LKQ v. GM: The Federal Circuit Dismantles the Design-Patent Obviousness Test</title><link>https://iplawyerla.com/blog/lkq-v-gm-design-patent-obviousness/</link><guid isPermaLink="true">https://iplawyerla.com/blog/lkq-v-gm-design-patent-obviousness/</guid><description>Sitting en banc, the Federal Circuit overruled the four-decade-old Rosen-Durling framework and folded design-patent obviousness into the flexible Graham analysis used for utility patents. Design patents just became easier to challenge.</description><pubDate>Sat, 06 Jun 2026 00:00:00 GMT</pubDate></item><item><title>EcoFactor v. Google: The Federal Circuit Sharpens the Gatekeeper&apos;s Knife on Damages</title><link>https://iplawyerla.com/blog/ecofactor-v-google-patent-damages-daubert/</link><guid isPermaLink="true">https://iplawyerla.com/blog/ecofactor-v-google-patent-damages-daubert/</guid><description>Sitting en banc, the Federal Circuit threw out a patent-damages verdict because the royalty expert&apos;s per-unit rate rested on lump-sum licenses that did not support it. The decision is a Rule 702 warning to the patent-damages bar.</description><pubDate>Thu, 04 Jun 2026 00:00:00 GMT</pubDate></item><item><title>Authorship Without an Author: Thaler v. Perlmutter and the Human Floor of Copyright</title><link>https://iplawyerla.com/blog/thaler-v-perlmutter-ai-authorship/</link><guid isPermaLink="true">https://iplawyerla.com/blog/thaler-v-perlmutter-ai-authorship/</guid><description>The D.C. Circuit held that the Copyright Act requires a human author, foreclosing registration of a work generated autonomously by an AI system — and the Supreme Court has now declined to disturb that conclusion.</description><pubDate>Sat, 30 May 2026 00:00:00 GMT</pubDate></item><item><title>When Purpose Eclipses Meaning: Warhol v. Goldsmith and the Narrowing of Transformative Fair Use</title><link>https://iplawyerla.com/blog/warhol-v-goldsmith-visual-art-fair-use/</link><guid isPermaLink="true">https://iplawyerla.com/blog/warhol-v-goldsmith-visual-art-fair-use/</guid><description>The Supreme Court&apos;s 7-2 decision in Andy Warhol Foundation v. Goldsmith (May 18, 2023) reframed fair use&apos;s first factor, holding that a commercial use sharing the same purpose as the original photograph does not become &apos;transformative&apos; merely by adding new artistic meaning.</description><pubDate>Thu, 28 May 2026 00:00:00 GMT</pubDate></item><item><title>Where Ideas End and Expression Begins: The Ninth Circuit Revives Tangle&apos;s Sculpture Suit Against Aritzia</title><link>https://iplawyerla.com/blog/tangle-v-aritzia-idea-expression/</link><guid isPermaLink="true">https://iplawyerla.com/blog/tangle-v-aritzia-idea-expression/</guid><description>In Tangle, Inc. v. Aritzia, Inc., the Ninth Circuit reversed a Rule 12(b)(6) dismissal, holding that the selection and arrangement of otherwise unprotectable sculptural elements can be protected and that kinetic, manipulable works are sufficiently &apos;fixed.&apos;</description><pubDate>Tue, 26 May 2026 00:00:00 GMT</pubDate></item><item><title>The Server Test Survives: Hunley v. Instagram and the Public Display Right for Embedded Images</title><link>https://iplawyerla.com/blog/hunley-v-instagram-server-test/</link><guid isPermaLink="true">https://iplawyerla.com/blog/hunley-v-instagram-server-test/</guid><description>In Hunley v. Instagram (9th Cir. 2023), the Ninth Circuit reaffirmed the Perfect 10 &apos;server test,&apos; holding that embedding an Instagram photo does not &apos;display a copy&apos; and so cannot anchor direct or secondary infringement liability.</description><pubDate>Sun, 24 May 2026 00:00:00 GMT</pubDate></item><item><title>When a Bundle Beats the Blanket: The MLC&apos;s Section 115 Royalty Fight With Spotify</title><link>https://iplawyerla.com/blog/mlc-v-spotify-mechanical-royalties/</link><guid isPermaLink="true">https://iplawyerla.com/blog/mlc-v-spotify-mechanical-royalties/</guid><description>Inside Mechanical Licensing Collective v. Spotify, the S.D.N.Y. dispute over whether adding audiobooks turns Premium into a royalty-discounted &apos;bundle&apos; under the Section 115 compulsory mechanical license.</description><pubDate>Fri, 22 May 2026 00:00:00 GMT</pubDate></item><item><title>Can a TV Buyer Enforce the GPL? SFC v. Vizio Heads Toward a Landmark Trial</title><link>https://iplawyerla.com/blog/sfc-v-vizio-open-source-gpl/</link><guid isPermaLink="true">https://iplawyerla.com/blog/sfc-v-vizio-open-source-gpl/</guid><description>A December 2025 summary-adjudication order in Software Freedom Conservancy v. Vizio narrows the case but leaves the central question intact: whether an ordinary purchaser can enforce open-source copyleft as a third-party beneficiary on the eve of an August 2026 trial.</description><pubDate>Wed, 20 May 2026 00:00:00 GMT</pubDate></item><item><title>After Cox v. Sony: The Supreme Court Rebuilds the Wall Around ISP Safe Harbors</title><link>https://iplawyerla.com/blog/cox-v-sony-dmca-safe-harbor/</link><guid isPermaLink="true">https://iplawyerla.com/blog/cox-v-sony-dmca-safe-harbor/</guid><description>In a unanimous March 2026 judgment, the Supreme Court reversed the $1 billion verdict against Cox Communications, holding that knowledge alone cannot make an internet provider a contributory infringer — reshaping how the DMCA&apos;s § 512 safe harbor matters.</description><pubDate>Mon, 18 May 2026 00:00:00 GMT</pubDate></item><item><title>Stripping the Byline: The § 1202(b) Ruling in The Intercept Media v. OpenAI and the SDNY CMI Split</title><link>https://iplawyerla.com/blog/intercept-v-openai-copyright-management-information/</link><guid isPermaLink="true">https://iplawyerla.com/blog/intercept-v-openai-copyright-management-information/</guid><description>Judge Rakoff let The Intercept&apos;s DMCA § 1202(b)(1) copyright-management-information claim against OpenAI survive dismissal while tossing the § 1202(b)(3) claim, splitting from Raw Story v. OpenAI on standing and reshaping CMI litigation in AI-training cases.</description><pubDate>Sat, 16 May 2026 00:00:00 GMT</pubDate></item><item><title>Honest Mistakes of Law Survive: Unicolors v. H&amp;M and the Scienter Floor of § 411(b)</title><link>https://iplawyerla.com/blog/unicolors-v-hm-copyright-registration/</link><guid isPermaLink="true">https://iplawyerla.com/blog/unicolors-v-hm-copyright-registration/</guid><description>In Unicolors v. H&amp;M (2022), the Supreme Court held that a copyright registration is not invalidated by an inaccuracy the applicant did not know was inaccurate — whether the error was one of fact or law.</description><pubDate>Thu, 14 May 2026 00:00:00 GMT</pubDate></item><item><title>When the Author Comes Back: Horror Inc. v. Miller and the Limits of Work-for-Hire</title><link>https://iplawyerla.com/blog/horror-inc-v-miller-copyright-termination/</link><guid isPermaLink="true">https://iplawyerla.com/blog/horror-inc-v-miller-copyright-termination/</guid><description>The Second Circuit&apos;s &apos;Friday the 13th&apos; ruling held that screenwriter Victor Miller was an independent contractor, not an employee, letting his § 203 termination notice stand and reclaiming the screenplay.</description><pubDate>Tue, 12 May 2026 00:00:00 GMT</pubDate></item><item><title>Warner Chappell Music v. Nealy: The Supreme Court Unshackles Copyright Damages From the Three-Year Window</title><link>https://iplawyerla.com/blog/warner-chappell-v-nealy-copyright-damages/</link><guid isPermaLink="true">https://iplawyerla.com/blog/warner-chappell-v-nealy-copyright-damages/</guid><description>In Warner Chappell Music, Inc. v. Nealy (May 9, 2024), a 6-3 Supreme Court held that a copyright owner with a timely claim may recover damages for infringement no matter how long ago it occurred — while pointedly leaving the validity of the discovery rule itself undecided.</description><pubDate>Sun, 10 May 2026 00:00:00 GMT</pubDate></item><item><title>What Survives the Filter: The Ninth Circuit&apos;s &apos;Top Gun: Maverick&apos; Decision and the Limits of Substantial Similarity</title><link>https://iplawyerla.com/blog/yonay-v-paramount-top-gun-substantial-similarity/</link><guid isPermaLink="true">https://iplawyerla.com/blog/yonay-v-paramount-top-gun-substantial-similarity/</guid><description>In Yonay v. Paramount, the Ninth Circuit affirmed summary judgment for Paramount over &apos;Top Gun: Maverick,&apos; holding that a film sharing a real Navy program with a 1983 magazine article copies facts, not protected expression.</description><pubDate>Fri, 08 May 2026 00:00:00 GMT</pubDate></item><item><title>Four Authors, One Vote Short: The Eleventh Circuit, 2 Live Crew, and the Fragility of the Termination Right</title><link>https://iplawyerla.com/blog/lil-joe-records-v-2-live-crew-authorship/</link><guid isPermaLink="true">https://iplawyerla.com/blog/lil-joe-records-v-2-live-crew-authorship/</guid><description>In Lil&apos; Joe Records v. Wong Won (11th Cir. 2026), the court held that a 2 Live Crew member&apos;s copyright termination interest fell into his Chapter 7 bankruptcy estate, leaving the group one author short of the majority needed to reclaim five albums.</description><pubDate>Wed, 06 May 2026 00:00:00 GMT</pubDate></item><item><title>The Predicate-Act Doctrine Meets Mirrored Servers: Motorola Solutions v. Hytera and the Limits of U.S. Copyright Abroad</title><link>https://iplawyerla.com/blog/motorola-v-hytera-international-copyright/</link><guid isPermaLink="true">https://iplawyerla.com/blog/motorola-v-hytera-international-copyright/</guid><description>The Seventh Circuit&apos;s July 2024 decision in Motorola Solutions v. Hytera shows how the presumption against extraterritoriality and the predicate-act doctrine cabin recovery of foreign copyright damages — even amid blatant source-code theft — while the Defend Trade Secrets Act reaches worldwide sales.</description><pubDate>Mon, 04 May 2026 00:00:00 GMT</pubDate></item><item><title>When a Generic Word Buys a Domain: USPTO v. Booking.com and the Limits of Per Se Genericness</title><link>https://iplawyerla.com/blog/uspto-v-booking-com-distinctiveness/</link><guid isPermaLink="true">https://iplawyerla.com/blog/uspto-v-booking-com-distinctiveness/</guid><description>The Supreme Court rejected a categorical rule that &apos;generic.com&apos; terms are unregistrable, holding that consumer perception alone determines whether such a composite is generic—reshaping distinctiveness analysis for the domain-name economy.</description><pubDate>Thu, 30 Apr 2026 00:00:00 GMT</pubDate></item><item><title>Who Decides Priority: Hana Financial v. Hana Bank and the Jury&apos;s Role in Trademark Tacking</title><link>https://iplawyerla.com/blog/hana-financial-v-hana-bank-priority-tacking/</link><guid isPermaLink="true">https://iplawyerla.com/blog/hana-financial-v-hana-bank-priority-tacking/</guid><description>A unanimous Supreme Court held that whether a later mark may &apos;tack&apos; onto an earlier mark&apos;s priority date is a question for the jury—locating the decisive moment in a clearance dispute in the fact-finder&apos;s assessment of consumer perception.</description><pubDate>Tue, 28 Apr 2026 00:00:00 GMT</pubDate></item><item><title>In re Chestek: When a Trademark Refusal Turns on Administrative Law, Not Trademark Law</title><link>https://iplawyerla.com/blog/in-re-chestek-domicile-address-rule/</link><guid isPermaLink="true">https://iplawyerla.com/blog/in-re-chestek-domicile-address-rule/</guid><description>The Federal Circuit affirmed a refusal to register CHESTEK LEGAL because the applicant used a P.O. box rather than a domicile address — and in doing so treated the USPTO&apos;s domicile rule as a procedural rule exempt from notice-and-comment.</description><pubDate>Sun, 26 Apr 2026 00:00:00 GMT</pubDate></item><item><title>When Fraud Doesn&apos;t Cancel: Great Concepts v. Chutter and the Limits of Section 14</title><link>https://iplawyerla.com/blog/great-concepts-v-chutter-ttab/</link><guid isPermaLink="true">https://iplawyerla.com/blog/great-concepts-v-chutter-ttab/</guid><description>The Federal Circuit holds that a fraudulent Section 15 incontestability declaration cannot, by itself, justify cancellation of a trademark registration under Section 14.</description><pubDate>Fri, 24 Apr 2026 00:00:00 GMT</pubDate></item><item><title>Token Use Won&apos;t Save a Registration: Social Technologies v. Apple and the &apos;Memoji&apos; Mark</title><link>https://iplawyerla.com/blog/social-tech-v-apple-use-in-commerce/</link><guid isPermaLink="true">https://iplawyerla.com/blog/social-tech-v-apple-use-in-commerce/</guid><description>The Ninth Circuit holds that a rushed, litigation-driven app launch is not the bona fide use in commerce the Lanham Act demands — and Apple gets the MEMOJI registration cancelled.</description><pubDate>Wed, 22 Apr 2026 00:00:00 GMT</pubDate></item><item><title>When a Mark Is Used &apos;As a Mark&apos;: Punchbowl v. AJ Press and the Shrinking Reach of Rogers</title><link>https://iplawyerla.com/blog/punchbowl-v-aj-press-likelihood-of-confusion/</link><guid isPermaLink="true">https://iplawyerla.com/blog/punchbowl-v-aj-press-likelihood-of-confusion/</guid><description>The Ninth Circuit reversed itself after Jack Daniel&apos;s, holding that Rogers cannot shield a name used as a source identifier and sending the dispute back for an ordinary likelihood-of-confusion analysis.</description><pubDate>Mon, 20 Apr 2026 00:00:00 GMT</pubDate></item><item><title>Hermès v. Rothschild: The MetaBirkins Verdict and Trademark Dilution in the NFT Market</title><link>https://iplawyerla.com/blog/hermes-v-rothschild-metabirkins-dilution/</link><guid isPermaLink="true">https://iplawyerla.com/blog/hermes-v-rothschild-metabirkins-dilution/</guid><description>A Manhattan jury found that Mason Rothschild&apos;s MetaBirkins NFTs infringed and diluted the famous Birkin mark — and that the First Amendment did not save them. The case maps how dilution doctrine and Rogers v. Grimaldi apply to digital goods.</description><pubDate>Sat, 18 Apr 2026 00:00:00 GMT</pubDate></item><item><title>The Boot That Could Not Become a Brand: TBL Licensing v. Vidal and the Limits of Product-Configuration Trade Dress</title><link>https://iplawyerla.com/blog/tbl-licensing-v-vidal-timberland-trade-dress/</link><guid isPermaLink="true">https://iplawyerla.com/blog/tbl-licensing-v-vidal-timberland-trade-dress/</guid><description>The Fourth Circuit refused to register the configuration of Timberland&apos;s iconic tan work boot, holding that Timberland&apos;s evidence proved the fame of the whole boot but not acquired distinctiveness in the discrete features it claimed.</description><pubDate>Thu, 16 Apr 2026 00:00:00 GMT</pubDate></item><item><title>Re-Registration as Cybersquatting: Prudential v. Shenzhen Stone and the Reach of the ACPA</title><link>https://iplawyerla.com/blog/prudential-v-shenzhen-stone-pru-com-cybersquatting/</link><guid isPermaLink="true">https://iplawyerla.com/blog/prudential-v-shenzhen-stone-pru-com-cybersquatting/</guid><description>The Fourth Circuit held that a domain &apos;registration&apos; actionable under the Anticybersquatting Consumer Protection Act includes later re-registrations, then sustained in rem jurisdiction over PRU.COM and a bad-faith finding against its Chinese owner.</description><pubDate>Tue, 14 Apr 2026 00:00:00 GMT</pubDate></item><item><title>Counterfeit Without a Fake: Chanel v. What Goes Around Comes Around and the Genuine-Goods Trap</title><link>https://iplawyerla.com/blog/chanel-v-wgaca-counterfeiting-resale/</link><guid isPermaLink="true">https://iplawyerla.com/blog/chanel-v-wgaca-counterfeiting-resale/</guid><description>A New York jury found a luxury reseller liable for willful counterfeiting and false association over Chanel-branded bags—holding that even items that left a Chanel factory can be &apos;counterfeit&apos; when they fail the brand&apos;s quality controls.</description><pubDate>Sun, 12 Apr 2026 00:00:00 GMT</pubDate></item><item><title>Rejection Is Breach, Not Rescission: Mission Product Holdings v. Tempnology and the Survival of Trademark Licenses in Bankruptcy</title><link>https://iplawyerla.com/blog/mission-product-v-tempnology-trademark-license-bankruptcy/</link><guid isPermaLink="true">https://iplawyerla.com/blog/mission-product-v-tempnology-trademark-license-bankruptcy/</guid><description>The Supreme Court held that a debtor-licensor&apos;s rejection of a trademark license in bankruptcy breaches the contract but does not strip the licensee of its right to keep using the mark.</description><pubDate>Fri, 10 Apr 2026 00:00:00 GMT</pubDate></item><item><title>Abitron v. Hetronic: Drawing the Line at Domestic &apos;Use in Commerce&apos;</title><link>https://iplawyerla.com/blog/abitron-v-hetronic-trademark-extraterritoriality/</link><guid isPermaLink="true">https://iplawyerla.com/blog/abitron-v-hetronic-trademark-extraterritoriality/</guid><description>The Supreme Court holds the Lanham Act&apos;s core infringement provisions reach only conduct where the infringing use in commerce is domestic, vacating a $96 million judgment.</description><pubDate>Wed, 08 Apr 2026 00:00:00 GMT</pubDate></item><item><title>Belmora v. Bayer: A Foreign Mark Owner With No U.S. Use Can Still Sue Under §43(a)</title><link>https://iplawyerla.com/blog/belmora-v-bayer-flanax-foreign-mark-standing/</link><guid isPermaLink="true">https://iplawyerla.com/blog/belmora-v-bayer-flanax-foreign-mark-standing/</guid><description>The Fourth Circuit&apos;s FLANAX decision held that a Mexican trademark owner who never used its mark in U.S. commerce may nonetheless pursue Lanham Act unfair-competition and false-advertising claims — unsettling the conventional assumption that U.S. use is the price of admission.</description><pubDate>Mon, 06 Apr 2026 00:00:00 GMT</pubDate></item><item><title>Crocs v. Effervescent: When Calling Your Product &apos;Patented&apos; Becomes False Advertising</title><link>https://iplawyerla.com/blog/crocs-v-effervescent-false-advertising-patented/</link><guid isPermaLink="true">https://iplawyerla.com/blog/crocs-v-effervescent-false-advertising-patented/</guid><description>The Federal Circuit held that a false claim that a product feature is &apos;patented&apos; can support a Lanham Act false-advertising claim — provided it misleads consumers about the nature, characteristics, or qualities of the goods, not merely their authorship.</description><pubDate>Sat, 04 Apr 2026 00:00:00 GMT</pubDate></item><item><title>Recentive Analytics v. Fox: Generic Machine Learning Meets the Abstract-Idea Bar</title><link>https://iplawyerla.com/blog/recentive-analytics-v-fox-machine-learning-eligibility/</link><guid isPermaLink="true">https://iplawyerla.com/blog/recentive-analytics-v-fox-machine-learning-eligibility/</guid><description>The Federal Circuit&apos;s first precedential machine-learning eligibility ruling holds that applying off-the-shelf models to a new data environment claims an abstract idea under § 101.</description><pubDate>Tue, 31 Mar 2026 00:00:00 GMT</pubDate></item><item><title>Celanese v. ITC: The On-Sale Bar Survives the AIA for Secret Processes</title><link>https://iplawyerla.com/blog/celanese-v-itc-on-sale-bar-secret-process/</link><guid isPermaLink="true">https://iplawyerla.com/blog/celanese-v-itc-on-sale-bar-secret-process/</guid><description>The Federal Circuit held that selling a product made by a secret process starts the on-sale clock against a later patent on that process — and the America Invents Act did nothing to change it.</description><pubDate>Sun, 29 Mar 2026 00:00:00 GMT</pubDate></item><item><title>Apple&apos;s Watch Stays Banned: The Federal Circuit Affirms the Masimo Section 337 Exclusion Order</title><link>https://iplawyerla.com/blog/apple-v-itc-masimo-apple-watch-exclusion-order/</link><guid isPermaLink="true">https://iplawyerla.com/blog/apple-v-itc-masimo-apple-watch-exclusion-order/</guid><description>The Federal Circuit upheld the ITC&apos;s import ban on certain Apple Watch models, validating Masimo&apos;s pulse-oximetry patents and a domestic industry built on prototypes.</description><pubDate>Fri, 27 Mar 2026 00:00:00 GMT</pubDate></item><item><title>Virtek Vision v. Assembly Guidance: A Reason to Combine, Not Just the Parts</title><link>https://iplawyerla.com/blog/virtek-vision-v-assembly-guidance-obviousness-motivation-to-combine/</link><guid isPermaLink="true">https://iplawyerla.com/blog/virtek-vision-v-assembly-guidance-obviousness-motivation-to-combine/</guid><description>The Federal Circuit reversed a PTAB obviousness finding because the petitioner showed the prior art&apos;s pieces existed but never explained why a skilled artisan would assemble them that way.</description><pubDate>Fri, 27 Mar 2026 00:00:00 GMT</pubDate></item><item><title>Grace Instrument v. Chandler: When the Specification, Not the Dictionary, Decides Definiteness</title><link>https://iplawyerla.com/blog/grace-instrument-v-chandler-enlarged-chamber-definiteness/</link><guid isPermaLink="true">https://iplawyerla.com/blog/grace-instrument-v-chandler-enlarged-chamber-definiteness/</guid><description>The Federal Circuit revived an oil-well viscometer patent by holding that a term of degree must be measured against the intrinsic record before a court reaches for a dictionary — while affirming a separate means-plus-function construction.</description><pubDate>Wed, 25 Mar 2026 00:00:00 GMT</pubDate></item><item><title>Sonos v. Google: When a Long-Pending Utility Patent Becomes Unenforceable</title><link>https://iplawyerla.com/blog/sonos-v-google-prosecution-laches-utility-patents/</link><guid isPermaLink="true">https://iplawyerla.com/blog/sonos-v-google-prosecution-laches-utility-patents/</guid><description>Judge Alsup wiped out a $32.5 million verdict by holding that Sonos&apos;s zone-scene patents were equitably unenforceable for prosecution laches—then the Federal Circuit reversed on prejudice. A roadmap to the limits of the continuation game.</description><pubDate>Mon, 23 Mar 2026 00:00:00 GMT</pubDate></item><item><title>Roses Are Patented: David Austin Roses v. GCM Ranch and the Asexual-Reproduction Pleading Burden</title><link>https://iplawyerla.com/blog/david-austin-roses-v-gcm-ranch-plant-patent-asexual-reproduction/</link><guid isPermaLink="true">https://iplawyerla.com/blog/david-austin-roses-v-gcm-ranch-plant-patent-asexual-reproduction/</guid><description>A Texas court dismissed a rose breeder&apos;s plant-patent claim because it never alleged how its rivals asexually reproduced the patented varieties, spotlighting the unusual infringement element baked into 35 U.S.C. §§ 161-164.</description><pubDate>Sat, 21 Mar 2026 00:00:00 GMT</pubDate></item><item><title>In re Cellect: When Patent Term Adjustment Meets Double Patenting</title><link>https://iplawyerla.com/blog/in-re-cellect-double-patenting/</link><guid isPermaLink="true">https://iplawyerla.com/blog/in-re-cellect-double-patenting/</guid><description>The Federal Circuit held that obviousness-type double patenting is measured against a patent&apos;s post-PTA expiration date, reshaping prosecution strategy for patent families.</description><pubDate>Thu, 19 Mar 2026 00:00:00 GMT</pubDate></item><item><title>Who Proves the Diligent Search? Ironburg v. Valve and the Burden of IPR Estoppel</title><link>https://iplawyerla.com/blog/ironburg-v-valve-ipr-estoppel-skilled-searcher/</link><guid isPermaLink="true">https://iplawyerla.com/blog/ironburg-v-valve-ipr-estoppel-skilled-searcher/</guid><description>The Federal Circuit adopts a skilled-searcher standard for Section 315(e)(2) estoppel and places the burden of proving it on the patent owner, not the petitioner.</description><pubDate>Tue, 17 Mar 2026 00:00:00 GMT</pubDate></item><item><title>K-fee v. Nespresso: How an Ambiguous Foreign File Wrapper Failed to Shrink a Claim</title><link>https://iplawyerla.com/blog/k-fee-v-nespresso-barcode-claim-construction/</link><guid isPermaLink="true">https://iplawyerla.com/blog/k-fee-v-nespresso-barcode-claim-construction/</guid><description>The Federal Circuit reversed a claim construction that read &apos;barcode&apos; to exclude bit codes, holding that K-fee&apos;s statements to the European Patent Office were too ambiguous to disclaim the term&apos;s full ordinary meaning.</description><pubDate>Sun, 15 Mar 2026 00:00:00 GMT</pubDate></item><item><title>When Canceling a Claim Forfeits Equivalents: Colibri Heart Valve v. Medtronic</title><link>https://iplawyerla.com/blog/colibri-heart-valve-v-medtronic-prosecution-history-estoppel/</link><guid isPermaLink="true">https://iplawyerla.com/blog/colibri-heart-valve-v-medtronic-prosecution-history-estoppel/</guid><description>The Federal Circuit erased a $106M verdict, holding that canceling a broader claim during prosecution surrenders that subject matter for the doctrine of equivalents.</description><pubDate>Fri, 13 Mar 2026 00:00:00 GMT</pubDate></item><item><title>Natera v. NeoGenomics: Causal Nexus and the Equity of a Two-Player Market</title><link>https://iplawyerla.com/blog/natera-v-neogenomics-injunction-causal-nexus/</link><guid isPermaLink="true">https://iplawyerla.com/blog/natera-v-neogenomics-injunction-causal-nexus/</guid><description>The Federal Circuit affirms a preliminary injunction barring a competing cancer-recurrence assay, sharpening how courts trace irreparable harm to the patented method through the causal-nexus requirement.</description><pubDate>Wed, 11 Mar 2026 00:00:00 GMT</pubDate></item><item><title>Ericsson v. Lenovo: The Federal Circuit Reopens the Door to Anti-Suit Injunctions in Global FRAND Wars</title><link>https://iplawyerla.com/blog/ericsson-v-lenovo-frand-antisuit-injunction/</link><guid isPermaLink="true">https://iplawyerla.com/blog/ericsson-v-lenovo-frand-antisuit-injunction/</guid><description>The Federal Circuit vacated a denial of a foreign anti-suit injunction, tying an SEP holder&apos;s right to injunctive relief to its good-faith FRAND-negotiation duty.</description><pubDate>Mon, 09 Mar 2026 00:00:00 GMT</pubDate></item><item><title>Thaler v. Vidal: Why a Machine Cannot Be a Named Inventor — Yet</title><link>https://iplawyerla.com/blog/thaler-v-vidal-ai-inventorship/</link><guid isPermaLink="true">https://iplawyerla.com/blog/thaler-v-vidal-ai-inventorship/</guid><description>The Federal Circuit held that the Patent Act&apos;s word &apos;individual&apos; means a human being, so an AI system called DABUS cannot be listed as an inventor — without deciding whether AI-assisted inventions are patentable at all.</description><pubDate>Thu, 05 Mar 2026 00:00:00 GMT</pubDate></item><item><title>When a &apos;Skinny Label&apos; Is Not Skinny Enough: GSK v. Teva and the Limits of the Section viii Carve-Out</title><link>https://iplawyerla.com/blog/teva-v-gsk-skinny-label-induced-infringement/</link><guid isPermaLink="true">https://iplawyerla.com/blog/teva-v-gsk-skinny-label-induced-infringement/</guid><description>The Federal Circuit&apos;s reinstated $235 million verdict in GSK v. Teva tests whether a generic&apos;s carve-out label can shield it from induced infringement of a method-of-treatment patent.</description><pubDate>Tue, 03 Mar 2026 00:00:00 GMT</pubDate></item><item><title>How Far Does a U.S. Patent Reach? WesternGeco v. ION and Foreign Lost Profits</title><link>https://iplawyerla.com/blog/westerngeco-v-ion-foreign-lost-profits/</link><guid isPermaLink="true">https://iplawyerla.com/blog/westerngeco-v-ion-foreign-lost-profits/</guid><description>The Supreme Court held that a patent owner can recover lost foreign profits flowing from a domestic act of infringement under 35 U.S.C. § 271(f)(2).</description><pubDate>Sun, 01 Mar 2026 00:00:00 GMT</pubDate></item><item><title>When &apos;Everything Is a Trade Secret&apos; Is Nothing: Sysco Machinery v. DCS USA</title><link>https://iplawyerla.com/blog/sysco-machinery-v-dcs-usa-trade-secret-particularity/</link><guid isPermaLink="true">https://iplawyerla.com/blog/sysco-machinery-v-dcs-usa-trade-secret-particularity/</guid><description>The Fourth Circuit affirms dismissal of a DTSA complaint that defined its trade secrets three ways, holding that sweeping definitions fail the particularity that the statute&apos;s secrecy and value elements presuppose.</description><pubDate>Thu, 26 Feb 2026 00:00:00 GMT</pubDate></item><item><title>Turret Labs v. CargoSprint: When Locking the Windows Isn&apos;t Enough</title><link>https://iplawyerla.com/blog/turret-labs-v-cargosprint-reasonable-secrecy-measures/</link><guid isPermaLink="true">https://iplawyerla.com/blog/turret-labs-v-cargosprint-reasonable-secrecy-measures/</guid><description>The Second Circuit affirmed dismissal of a software trade-secret claim because the owner delegated access control to a licensee and never required anyone downstream to keep the secret.</description><pubDate>Tue, 24 Feb 2026 00:00:00 GMT</pubDate></item><item><title>Insulet v. EOFlow: A $452 Million Verdict, an Avoided-Cost Theory, and the Limits of Trade-Secret Recovery</title><link>https://iplawyerla.com/blog/insulet-v-eoflow-omnipod-trade-secrets/</link><guid isPermaLink="true">https://iplawyerla.com/blog/insulet-v-eoflow-omnipod-trade-secrets/</guid><description>How a Massachusetts jury found a competing insulin-patch maker liable for misappropriating Omnipod design secrets — and why the court then cut the award by nearly 90 percent.</description><pubDate>Sun, 22 Feb 2026 00:00:00 GMT</pubDate></item><item><title>Attia v. Google: The DTSA Reaches Pre-Enactment Secrets, But Only If They Survive</title><link>https://iplawyerla.com/blog/attia-v-google-dtsa-continued-use-timing/</link><guid isPermaLink="true">https://iplawyerla.com/blog/attia-v-google-dtsa-continued-use-timing/</guid><description>The Ninth Circuit endorses a continued-use theory under the Defend Trade Secrets Act, then holds that Google&apos;s published patent applications extinguished the very secret the plaintiff needed.</description><pubDate>Fri, 20 Feb 2026 00:00:00 GMT</pubDate></item><item><title>Metron Nutraceuticals v. Cook: The Contract Carve-Out That Survives UTSA Displacement</title><link>https://iplawyerla.com/blog/metron-nutraceuticals-v-cook-utsa-contract-preemption/</link><guid isPermaLink="true">https://iplawyerla.com/blog/metron-nutraceuticals-v-cook-utsa-contract-preemption/</guid><description>Predicting Ohio law, the Sixth Circuit held that the Uniform Trade Secrets Act does not displace a plain breach-of-contract claim — a reading that restores the statute&apos;s savings clause and its promise of uniformity.</description><pubDate>Wed, 18 Feb 2026 00:00:00 GMT</pubDate></item><item><title>When a Confidentiality Clause Becomes a Federal Violation: The SEC&apos;s $18 Million J.P. Morgan Whistleblower Order</title><link>https://iplawyerla.com/blog/jpmorgan-securities-sec-whistleblower-confidentiality/</link><guid isPermaLink="true">https://iplawyerla.com/blog/jpmorgan-securities-sec-whistleblower-confidentiality/</guid><description>The SEC&apos;s largest stand-alone Rule 21F-17(a) settlement turned a routine settlement-release clause into an enforcement event, showing that NDAs are now read for what they silence, not just what they protect.</description><pubDate>Mon, 16 Feb 2026 00:00:00 GMT</pubDate></item><item><title>Caudill Seed v. Jarrow Formulas: When a Researcher Carries the Library Out the Door</title><link>https://iplawyerla.com/blog/caudill-seed-v-jarrow-formulas-employee-mobility/</link><guid isPermaLink="true">https://iplawyerla.com/blog/caudill-seed-v-jarrow-formulas-employee-mobility/</guid><description>The Sixth Circuit affirmed a multimillion-dollar trade-secret verdict against a competitor that hired away a director of research and acquired, with him, a decade of curated broccoli-extract know-how.</description><pubDate>Sat, 14 Feb 2026 00:00:00 GMT</pubDate></item><item><title>When the National Non-Compete Ban Fell: Ryan, LLC v. FTC and the Return to Trade-Secret Protection</title><link>https://iplawyerla.com/blog/ryan-v-ftc-noncompete-rule/</link><guid isPermaLink="true">https://iplawyerla.com/blog/ryan-v-ftc-noncompete-rule/</guid><description>A Texas federal court set aside the FTC&apos;s nationwide non-compete ban for lack of rulemaking authority — and the agency ultimately let the vacatur stand, leaving trade-secret law as employers&apos; primary backstop.</description><pubDate>Thu, 12 Feb 2026 00:00:00 GMT</pubDate></item><item><title>PepsiCo v. Redmond: The Case That Built the Inevitable Disclosure Doctrine</title><link>https://iplawyerla.com/blog/pepsico-v-redmond-inevitable-disclosure/</link><guid isPermaLink="true">https://iplawyerla.com/blog/pepsico-v-redmond-inevitable-disclosure/</guid><description>A departing executive who never took a document could still be enjoined — the Seventh Circuit&apos;s 1995 ruling let an employer prove misappropriation by showing disclosure was inevitable, and the country has been divided over it ever since.</description><pubDate>Tue, 10 Feb 2026 00:00:00 GMT</pubDate></item><item><title>Brunswick Rail v. Sultanov: Why Courts Keep Saying No to DTSA Seizure</title><link>https://iplawyerla.com/blog/brunswick-rail-v-sultanov-dtsa-ex-parte-seizure/</link><guid isPermaLink="true">https://iplawyerla.com/blog/brunswick-rail-v-sultanov-dtsa-ex-parte-seizure/</guid><description>An early decision construing the Defend Trade Secrets Act&apos;s ex parte civil seizure remedy denies the order as unnecessary, modeling the preservation-and-TRO path most courts now follow.</description><pubDate>Sun, 08 Feb 2026 00:00:00 GMT</pubDate></item><item><title>United States v. Xiaorong You: A 168-Month Sentence and the Anatomy of Economic Espionage</title><link>https://iplawyerla.com/blog/us-v-xiaorong-you-coca-cola-economic-espionage/</link><guid isPermaLink="true">https://iplawyerla.com/blog/us-v-xiaorong-you-coca-cola-economic-espionage/</guid><description>A Coca-Cola chemist&apos;s theft of $120 million in BPA-free coating formulas produced one of the rare convictions under the Economic Espionage Act&apos;s foreign-government provision — and a Sixth Circuit opinion clarifying what the government must prove.</description><pubDate>Fri, 06 Feb 2026 00:00:00 GMT</pubDate></item><item><title>Secrecy or Monopoly: What Kewanee Oil v. Bicron Still Teaches About the Patent–Trade-Secret Choice</title><link>https://iplawyerla.com/blog/kewanee-oil-bicron-trade-secret-patent-strategy/</link><guid isPermaLink="true">https://iplawyerla.com/blog/kewanee-oil-bicron-trade-secret-patent-strategy/</guid><description>A half-century after the Supreme Court blessed trade secrets, Kewanee Oil v. Bicron remains the clearest map of when to file and when to keep quiet.</description><pubDate>Wed, 04 Feb 2026 00:00:00 GMT</pubDate></item><item><title>vPersonalize v. Magnetize: How a U.S. Court Reached a U.K. Defendant Under the DTSA</title><link>https://iplawyerla.com/blog/vpersonalize-v-magnetize-dtsa-extraterritorial-reach/</link><guid isPermaLink="true">https://iplawyerla.com/blog/vpersonalize-v-magnetize-dtsa-extraterritorial-reach/</guid><description>A Washington federal court holds that the Defend Trade Secrets Act reaches a foreign defendant whenever an act in furtherance occurs in the United States — even an act the defendant did not commit.</description><pubDate>Mon, 02 Feb 2026 00:00:00 GMT</pubDate></item><item><title>Hart v. Electronic Arts: The Transformative-Use Test and an Athlete&apos;s Likeness in a Video Game</title><link>https://iplawyerla.com/blog/hart-v-electronic-arts-nil-transformative-use/</link><guid isPermaLink="true">https://iplawyerla.com/blog/hart-v-electronic-arts-nil-transformative-use/</guid><description>The Third Circuit held that EA&apos;s photorealistic use of a college quarterback&apos;s avatar in NCAA Football was not transformative enough to defeat his right of publicity — adopting the transformative-use test as the circuit&apos;s framework for likeness-in-media disputes.</description><pubDate>Wed, 28 Jan 2026 00:00:00 GMT</pubDate></item><item><title>Midler v. Ford Motor Co.: When a Sound-Alike Steals an Identity</title><link>https://iplawyerla.com/blog/midler-v-ford-motor-voice-misappropriation/</link><guid isPermaLink="true">https://iplawyerla.com/blog/midler-v-ford-motor-voice-misappropriation/</guid><description>The Ninth Circuit held that deliberately imitating a widely known singer&apos;s distinctive voice to sell a product is a California tort — even though a voice itself is not copyrightable.</description><pubDate>Sun, 25 Jan 2026 00:00:00 GMT</pubDate></item><item><title>Are You Experienced, After Death? The Ninth Circuit, Jimi Hendrix, and the Post-Mortem Right of Publicity</title><link>https://iplawyerla.com/blog/experience-hendrix-post-mortem-right-of-publicity/</link><guid isPermaLink="true">https://iplawyerla.com/blog/experience-hendrix-post-mortem-right-of-publicity/</guid><description>Experience Hendrix v. HendrixLicensing.com upheld Washington&apos;s post-mortem publicity statute as applied to a New York-domiciled rock legend, exposing how a fractured state-law patchwork now governs the dead.</description><pubDate>Thu, 22 Jan 2026 00:00:00 GMT</pubDate></item><item><title>No One Owns History: De Havilland v. FX and the First Amendment Defense to Right-of-Publicity Claims</title><link>https://iplawyerla.com/blog/de-havilland-v-fx-networks-first-amendment-docudrama/</link><guid isPermaLink="true">https://iplawyerla.com/blog/de-havilland-v-fx-networks-first-amendment-docudrama/</guid><description>How California&apos;s appellate court used the First Amendment to dismiss Olivia de Havilland&apos;s publicity and false-light suit over the &apos;Feud&apos; docudrama.</description><pubDate>Mon, 19 Jan 2026 00:00:00 GMT</pubDate></item><item><title>When a Robot Becomes You: White v. Samsung and the Reach of Identity</title><link>https://iplawyerla.com/blog/white-v-samsung-right-of-publicity-identity-appropriation/</link><guid isPermaLink="true">https://iplawyerla.com/blog/white-v-samsung-right-of-publicity-identity-appropriation/</guid><description>The Ninth Circuit held that a game-show robot could appropriate Vanna White&apos;s identity, untethering the right of publicity from name and likeness.</description><pubDate>Fri, 16 Jan 2026 00:00:00 GMT</pubDate></item><item><title>House v. NCAA: The Settlement That Made College Athletes Paid Licensors</title><link>https://iplawyerla.com/blog/house-v-ncaa-college-athlete-nil-settlement/</link><guid isPermaLink="true">https://iplawyerla.com/blog/house-v-ncaa-college-athlete-nil-settlement/</guid><description>Judge Wilken&apos;s final approval of the $2.8 billion House settlement converts decades of amateurism doctrine into a licensed, revenue-shared market for athlete name, image, and likeness.</description><pubDate>Tue, 13 Jan 2026 00:00:00 GMT</pubDate></item><item><title>A Release Is Not a License to All: Electra v. 59 Murray Enterprises and the Models Whose Images Sold the Nightclub</title><link>https://iplawyerla.com/blog/electra-v-59-murray-enterprises-model-image-right-of-publicity/</link><guid isPermaLink="true">https://iplawyerla.com/blog/electra-v-59-murray-enterprises-model-image-right-of-publicity/</guid><description>The Second Circuit revived right-of-publicity claims by professional models whose photographs were lifted to advertise strip clubs online, holding that a release signed for one purpose is not consent against the world.</description><pubDate>Sat, 10 Jan 2026 00:00:00 GMT</pubDate></item><item><title>Identity Is Not a Work of Authorship: Toney v. L&apos;Oréal and the Limits of Copyright Preemption</title><link>https://iplawyerla.com/blog/toney-v-loreal-illinois-publicity-copyright-preemption/</link><guid isPermaLink="true">https://iplawyerla.com/blog/toney-v-loreal-illinois-publicity-copyright-preemption/</guid><description>The Seventh Circuit&apos;s Toney decision holds that the Copyright Act does not preempt an Illinois Right of Publicity Act claim, anchoring the rule that a persona is neither fixed nor authored.</description><pubDate>Wed, 07 Jan 2026 00:00:00 GMT</pubDate></item><item><title>Milton Greene v. Marilyn Monroe LLC: How a Star&apos;s Domicile Decided Who Owns Her Image</title><link>https://iplawyerla.com/blog/milton-greene-archives-v-marilyn-monroe-domicile-publicity/</link><guid isPermaLink="true">https://iplawyerla.com/blog/milton-greene-archives-v-marilyn-monroe-domicile-publicity/</guid><description>The Ninth Circuit held that Marilyn Monroe&apos;s estate, having sworn for forty years that she died a New Yorker to dodge California estate tax, was judicially estopped from claiming California domicile to capture a posthumous right of publicity worth millions.</description><pubDate>Sun, 04 Jan 2026 00:00:00 GMT</pubDate></item><item><title>Booth v. Colgate-Palmolive: New York&apos;s Refusal to Protect a Voice Alone</title><link>https://iplawyerla.com/blog/booth-v-colgate-palmolive-voice-imitation-new-york/</link><guid isPermaLink="true">https://iplawyerla.com/blog/booth-v-colgate-palmolive-voice-imitation-new-york/</guid><description>A Southern District of New York court held that imitating an actress&apos;s famous voice — without using her name or likeness — was not unfair competition, defamation, or a Lanham Act violation.</description><pubDate>Tue, 18 Nov 2025 00:00:00 GMT</pubDate></item><item><title>Kadant v. Seeley: Reverse Engineering as a Complete Answer</title><link>https://iplawyerla.com/blog/kadant-v-seeley-machine-reverse-engineering-defense/</link><guid isPermaLink="true">https://iplawyerla.com/blog/kadant-v-seeley-machine-reverse-engineering-defense/</guid><description>A Northern District of New York court denied a trade-secret injunction where a former employee&apos;s new employer plausibly reverse-engineered publicly available parts—and the plaintiff could not prove its specifications were secret or improperly taken.</description><pubDate>Wed, 12 Nov 2025 00:00:00 GMT</pubDate></item><item><title>The Charbucks Saga: How Starbucks Lost Its Dilution-by-Blurring Claim</title><link>https://iplawyerla.com/blog/starbucks-v-wolfes-borough-charbucks-blurring/</link><guid isPermaLink="true">https://iplawyerla.com/blog/starbucks-v-wolfes-borough-charbucks-blurring/</guid><description>After more than a decade of litigation, the Second Circuit held that even a famous mark cannot prove dilution by blurring without meaningful similarity and real evidence of association — affirming judgment for a tiny New Hampshire roaster.</description><pubDate>Wed, 12 Nov 2025 00:00:00 GMT</pubDate></item><item><title>Sears v. Stiffel: The Pole Lamp That Made Copying a Federal Right</title><link>https://iplawyerla.com/blog/sears-v-stiffel-copying-unpatented-articles/</link><guid isPermaLink="true">https://iplawyerla.com/blog/sears-v-stiffel-copying-unpatented-articles/</guid><description>When Stiffel&apos;s lamp patents were held invalid, the Supreme Court ruled that no state unfair-competition law could stop Sears from copying the unpatented design — establishing that exclusivity flows only from the federal patent bargain.</description><pubDate>Thu, 06 Nov 2025 00:00:00 GMT</pubDate></item><item><title>The Intellectual Property Door in Section 230: Hepp v. Facebook</title><link>https://iplawyerla.com/blog/hepp-v-facebook-section-230-right-of-publicity/</link><guid isPermaLink="true">https://iplawyerla.com/blog/hepp-v-facebook-section-230-right-of-publicity/</guid><description>The Third Circuit held that Section 230 does not immunize platforms from state right-of-publicity claims, splitting from the Ninth Circuit on the law&apos;s intellectual-property carve-out.</description><pubDate>Tue, 04 Nov 2025 00:00:00 GMT</pubDate></item><item><title>Sonix v. Publications International: How a Term of Degree Survives</title><link>https://iplawyerla.com/blog/sonix-technology-v-publications-international-visually-negligible-definiteness/</link><guid isPermaLink="true">https://iplawyerla.com/blog/sonix-technology-v-publications-international-visually-negligible-definiteness/</guid><description>The Federal Circuit held &apos;visually negligible&apos; definite because it was anchored to what the normal human eye can perceive, supplying the objective baseline that purely subjective terms lack.</description><pubDate>Tue, 04 Nov 2025 00:00:00 GMT</pubDate></item><item><title>MLK Center v. American Heritage Products: A Descendible Publicity Right Without a Lifetime License</title><link>https://iplawyerla.com/blog/mlk-center-v-american-heritage-products-descendible-publicity-georgia/</link><guid isPermaLink="true">https://iplawyerla.com/blog/mlk-center-v-american-heritage-products-descendible-publicity-georgia/</guid><description>Georgia&apos;s Supreme Court held that Dr. King&apos;s right of publicity survived his death and was inheritable even though he never licensed his identity for profit — uncoupling descendibility from lifetime commercial exploitation and reshaping what a non-commercial figure&apos;s estate can protect.</description><pubDate>Tue, 21 Oct 2025 00:00:00 GMT</pubDate></item><item><title>All In or Not at All: Pandora v. ASCAP and the Limits of Partial Withdrawal</title><link>https://iplawyerla.com/blog/pandora-v-ascap-partial-withdrawal-rate-court/</link><guid isPermaLink="true">https://iplawyerla.com/blog/pandora-v-ascap-partial-withdrawal-rate-court/</guid><description>The Second Circuit held that ASCAP&apos;s consent decree forbids music publishers from selectively pulling their performance rights out of the collective for digital services like Pandora.</description><pubDate>Tue, 21 Oct 2025 00:00:00 GMT</pubDate></item><item><title>The Dancing Baby&apos;s Rule: Lenz v. Universal and the § 512(f) Duty to Consider Fair Use</title><link>https://iplawyerla.com/blog/lenz-v-universal-512f-fair-use-takedown/</link><guid isPermaLink="true">https://iplawyerla.com/blog/lenz-v-universal-512f-fair-use-takedown/</guid><description>The Ninth Circuit held that a copyright owner must consider fair use in good faith before sending a DMCA takedown notice — and that failing to do so can expose the sender to liability for misrepresentation under § 512(f).</description><pubDate>Wed, 15 Oct 2025 00:00:00 GMT</pubDate></item><item><title>StorageCraft v. Kirby: A Reasonable Royalty Even When the Thief Never Profited</title><link>https://iplawyerla.com/blog/storagecraft-v-kirby-reasonable-royalty-trade-secret-damages/</link><guid isPermaLink="true">https://iplawyerla.com/blog/storagecraft-v-kirby-reasonable-royalty-trade-secret-damages/</guid><description>The Tenth Circuit, in an opinion by then-Judge Gorsuch, upheld a $2.92 million reasonable-royalty award for stolen source code — confirming that a misappropriator can owe royalty damages for mere disclosure, with no proof of commercial use.</description><pubDate>Wed, 15 Oct 2025 00:00:00 GMT</pubDate></item><item><title>United States v. Liew: The First Jury Conviction for Economic Espionage</title><link>https://iplawyerla.com/blog/us-v-liew-economic-espionage-first-jury-conviction/</link><guid isPermaLink="true">https://iplawyerla.com/blog/us-v-liew-economic-espionage-first-jury-conviction/</guid><description>A California consultant who sold DuPont&apos;s chloride-route titanium-dioxide process to Chinese state firms became the first defendant convicted by a jury under the economic-espionage section of the EEA, and the Ninth Circuit affirmed.</description><pubDate>Wed, 15 Oct 2025 00:00:00 GMT</pubDate></item><item><title>California&apos;s Digital-Replica Statutes: AB 2602 and AB 1836 Split the Living from the Dead</title><link>https://iplawyerla.com/blog/california-ab-1836-ab-2602-digital-replica-laws/</link><guid isPermaLink="true">https://iplawyerla.com/blog/california-ab-1836-ab-2602-digital-replica-laws/</guid><description>California&apos;s two 2024 digital-replica laws take different routes — one voids consent-by-contract for living performers, the other extends the post-mortem right of publicity to AI replicas of the deceased — and together they reset the rules for Hollywood.</description><pubDate>Tue, 14 Oct 2025 00:00:00 GMT</pubDate></item><item><title>ConFold v. Polaris: When a Design Is Neither a Trade Secret Nor Covered by the NDA</title><link>https://iplawyerla.com/blog/confold-pacific-v-polaris-industries-nda-scope/</link><guid isPermaLink="true">https://iplawyerla.com/blog/confold-pacific-v-polaris-industries-nda-scope/</guid><description>Judge Posner explained why a container design disclosed in a bid — conceded not to be a trade secret and outside the parties&apos; logistics-only nondisclosure agreement — was free for the recipient to use.</description><pubDate>Tue, 14 Oct 2025 00:00:00 GMT</pubDate></item><item><title>Herb Reed v. Florida Entertainment: eBay Comes for the Trademark Injunction</title><link>https://iplawyerla.com/blog/herb-reed-enterprises-v-florida-entertainment-irreparable-harm/</link><guid isPermaLink="true">https://iplawyerla.com/blog/herb-reed-enterprises-v-florida-entertainment-irreparable-harm/</guid><description>The Ninth Circuit became the first court of appeals to declare squarely that trademark plaintiffs no longer enjoy a presumption of irreparable harm — they must prove it, like everyone else seeking an injunction.</description><pubDate>Tue, 14 Oct 2025 00:00:00 GMT</pubDate></item><item><title>IBM v. Visentin: When New York Recognized Inevitable Disclosure and Still Said No</title><link>https://iplawyerla.com/blog/ibm-v-visentin-inevitable-disclosure/</link><guid isPermaLink="true">https://iplawyerla.com/blog/ibm-v-visentin-inevitable-disclosure/</guid><description>A federal court let an IBM executive walk straight to Hewlett-Packard, holding that a doctrine New York entertains in theory fails without particularized secrets, near-identical roles, and proof of bad faith.</description><pubDate>Tue, 14 Oct 2025 00:00:00 GMT</pubDate></item><item><title>Lamparello v. Falwell: A Misspelled Domain, a Gripe Site, and the Limits of Cybersquatting Law</title><link>https://iplawyerla.com/blog/lamparello-v-falwell-gripe-site-bad-faith/</link><guid isPermaLink="true">https://iplawyerla.com/blog/lamparello-v-falwell-gripe-site-bad-faith/</guid><description>The Fourth Circuit held that fallwell.com was neither infringing nor cybersquatting, because likelihood of confusion turns on the whole site and the ACPA targets profit-seeking, not criticism.</description><pubDate>Tue, 14 Oct 2025 00:00:00 GMT</pubDate></item><item><title>Licensing the Image, Not the Athlete: Maloney v. T3Media and Copyright Preemption of the Right of Publicity</title><link>https://iplawyerla.com/blog/maloney-v-t3media-copyright-preemption-right-of-publicity/</link><guid isPermaLink="true">https://iplawyerla.com/blog/maloney-v-t3media-copyright-preemption-right-of-publicity/</guid><description>The Ninth Circuit held that former NCAA players&apos; publicity claims over an online photo-licensing service were preempted by copyright, because the suit attacked control of the photographs themselves rather than use of the players&apos; identities on merchandise or in ads.</description><pubDate>Tue, 14 Oct 2025 00:00:00 GMT</pubDate></item><item><title>When Search Results Aren&apos;t Confusing: Multi Time Machine v. Amazon and the Limits of Initial-Interest Confusion</title><link>https://iplawyerla.com/blog/multi-time-machine-v-amazon-search-results-confusion/</link><guid isPermaLink="true">https://iplawyerla.com/blog/multi-time-machine-v-amazon-search-results-confusion/</guid><description>On rehearing, a divided Ninth Circuit held that a clearly labeled list of substitute products is not trademark infringement—narrowing initial-interest confusion for the era of online search.</description><pubDate>Tue, 14 Oct 2025 00:00:00 GMT</pubDate></item><item><title>The Pose Belongs to No One: Rentmeester v. Nike and the Thin Copyright in a Photograph</title><link>https://iplawyerla.com/blog/rentmeester-v-nike-jordan-photograph-idea-expression/</link><guid isPermaLink="true">https://iplawyerla.com/blog/rentmeester-v-nike-jordan-photograph-idea-expression/</guid><description>The Ninth Circuit held that Nike&apos;s iconic Michael Jordan &apos;Jumpman&apos; photograph did not infringe Jacobus Rentmeester&apos;s earlier image, because copyright protects a photograph&apos;s expression of a pose — not the pose itself.</description><pubDate>Tue, 14 Oct 2025 00:00:00 GMT</pubDate></item><item><title>Robert Bosch v. Pylon: Burying the Presumption of Irreparable Harm — Then Granting the Injunction Anyway</title><link>https://iplawyerla.com/blog/robert-bosch-v-pylon-irreparable-harm-presumption/</link><guid isPermaLink="true">https://iplawyerla.com/blog/robert-bosch-v-pylon-irreparable-harm-presumption/</guid><description>The Federal Circuit finally confirmed that eBay abolished the presumption of irreparable harm, yet reversed a district court that had used categorical reasoning to deny a competitor&apos;s permanent injunction.</description><pubDate>Tue, 14 Oct 2025 00:00:00 GMT</pubDate></item><item><title>Syntel v. TriZetto: The Limits of &apos;Avoided Costs&apos; as DTSA Damages</title><link>https://iplawyerla.com/blog/syntel-v-trizetto-dtsa-avoided-costs-damages/</link><guid isPermaLink="true">https://iplawyerla.com/blog/syntel-v-trizetto-dtsa-avoided-costs-damages/</guid><description>The Second Circuit erased a roughly $285 million unjust-enrichment award, holding that avoided development costs cannot be stacked on top of lost profits without proof of harm beyond actual loss.</description><pubDate>Tue, 14 Oct 2025 00:00:00 GMT</pubDate></item><item><title>TCL v. Ericsson: The Seventh Amendment Collides With Judge-Set FRAND Rates</title><link>https://iplawyerla.com/blog/tcl-v-ericsson-frand-jury-trial-seventh-amendment/</link><guid isPermaLink="true">https://iplawyerla.com/blog/tcl-v-ericsson-frand-jury-trial-seventh-amendment/</guid><description>The Federal Circuit vacated a global FRAND license set in a bench trial, holding that a &apos;release payment&apos; for past infringement triggered the constitutional right to a jury.</description><pubDate>Tue, 14 Oct 2025 00:00:00 GMT</pubDate></item><item><title>Wal-Mart v. Samara Brothers: Product Design Is Never Inherently Distinctive</title><link>https://iplawyerla.com/blog/wal-mart-v-samara-product-design-secondary-meaning/</link><guid isPermaLink="true">https://iplawyerla.com/blog/wal-mart-v-samara-product-design-secondary-meaning/</guid><description>The Supreme Court&apos;s unanimous 2000 decision held that a product&apos;s design can qualify as protectable trade dress only on proof of secondary meaning, and told courts to classify ambiguous cases as design — drawing the line that *Two Pesos* had left open.</description><pubDate>Tue, 14 Oct 2025 00:00:00 GMT</pubDate></item><item><title>Axis Steel Detailing v. Prilex: When &apos;Extraordinary Circumstances&apos; Are Actually Met</title><link>https://iplawyerla.com/blog/axis-steel-detailing-v-prilex-dtsa-extraordinary-circumstances/</link><guid isPermaLink="true">https://iplawyerla.com/blog/axis-steel-detailing-v-prilex-dtsa-extraordinary-circumstances/</guid><description>A Utah court granted a DTSA ex parte seizure where the defendants had supplied false information, hidden and moved files, and possessed the technical skill to defeat an ordinary injunction—a rare case clearing the statute&apos;s high bar.</description><pubDate>Thu, 09 Oct 2025 00:00:00 GMT</pubDate></item><item><title>BDO Seidman v. Hirshberg: New York&apos;s Blueprint for Partially Enforcing an Overbroad Covenant</title><link>https://iplawyerla.com/blog/bdo-seidman-v-hirshberg-partial-enforcement-blue-pencil/</link><guid isPermaLink="true">https://iplawyerla.com/blog/bdo-seidman-v-hirshberg-partial-enforcement-blue-pencil/</guid><description>New York&apos;s high court refused to void an overbroad non-compete outright, instead narrowing it to the clients the employee personally served and articulating the state&apos;s modern reasonableness test.</description><pubDate>Thu, 09 Oct 2025 00:00:00 GMT</pubDate></item><item><title>Not a Place You&apos;ll Go: Dr. Seuss v. ComicMix and the Limits of the Mashup</title><link>https://iplawyerla.com/blog/dr-seuss-v-comicmix-mashup-fair-use/</link><guid isPermaLink="true">https://iplawyerla.com/blog/dr-seuss-v-comicmix-mashup-fair-use/</guid><description>The Ninth Circuit held that a Star Trek-Seuss mashup was infringement, not parody, drawing a hard line between transformation and clever copying.</description><pubDate>Thu, 09 Oct 2025 00:00:00 GMT</pubDate></item><item><title>A Blocked Application Is a Real Interest: Empresa Cubana v. General Cigar and Standing Through the Embargo</title><link>https://iplawyerla.com/blog/empresa-cubana-v-general-cigar-cohiba-cancellation-standing/</link><guid isPermaLink="true">https://iplawyerla.com/blog/empresa-cubana-v-general-cigar-cohiba-cancellation-standing/</guid><description>The Federal Circuit held that the Cuban embargo did not strip a Cuban tobacco entity of its statutory cause of action to cancel General Cigar&apos;s COHIBA registrations.</description><pubDate>Thu, 09 Oct 2025 00:00:00 GMT</pubDate></item><item><title>Inventus Power v. Shenzhen Ace: The DTSA Follows Trade Secrets to China</title><link>https://iplawyerla.com/blog/inventus-power-v-shenzhen-ace-battery-dtsa-section-1837/</link><guid isPermaLink="true">https://iplawyerla.com/blog/inventus-power-v-shenzhen-ace-battery-dtsa-section-1837/</guid><description>A federal court kept a trade-secret suit against a Chinese competitor in Illinois, holding China an inadequate forum and wielding the DTSA&apos;s extraterritorial reach and a worldwide TRO.</description><pubDate>Thu, 09 Oct 2025 00:00:00 GMT</pubDate></item><item><title>MicroStrategy v. Business Objects: A Field Manual for Reasonable Secrecy Measures</title><link>https://iplawyerla.com/blog/microstrategy-v-business-objects-reasonable-measures-secrecy/</link><guid isPermaLink="true">https://iplawyerla.com/blog/microstrategy-v-business-objects-reasonable-measures-secrecy/</guid><description>An Eastern District of Virginia bench trial inventoried what reasonable measures look like in practice, then found misappropriation in only two of eighteen alleged disclosures.</description><pubDate>Thu, 09 Oct 2025 00:00:00 GMT</pubDate></item><item><title>Sabre GLBL v. Shan: Building a Competitor on the Clock, and Paying for the Head Start</title><link>https://iplawyerla.com/blog/sabre-glbl-v-shan-head-start-damages/</link><guid isPermaLink="true">https://iplawyerla.com/blog/sabre-glbl-v-shan-head-start-damages/</guid><description>The Third Circuit confirmed an arbitration award against a two-decade Sabre employee who launched a rival Chinese company while still on the payroll, including more than a million dollars in head-start damages.</description><pubDate>Thu, 09 Oct 2025 00:00:00 GMT</pubDate></item><item><title>One Application, Thousands of Photographs: Alaska Stock v. Houghton Mifflin and Group Registration</title><link>https://iplawyerla.com/blog/alaska-stock-v-houghton-mifflin-group-registration/</link><guid isPermaLink="true">https://iplawyerla.com/blog/alaska-stock-v-houghton-mifflin-group-registration/</guid><description>In Alaska Stock v. Houghton Mifflin (9th Cir. 2014), the court upheld a stock agency&apos;s database registrations that did not name every photographer or title, deferring to three decades of Copyright Office practice on registering collections.</description><pubDate>Wed, 24 Sep 2025 00:00:00 GMT</pubDate></item><item><title>Brown v. TGS Management: When a Confidentiality Clause Becomes an Illegal Noncompete</title><link>https://iplawyerla.com/blog/brown-v-tgs-management-overbroad-confidentiality-de-facto-noncompete/</link><guid isPermaLink="true">https://iplawyerla.com/blog/brown-v-tgs-management-overbroad-confidentiality-de-facto-noncompete/</guid><description>A California appellate court voided an employer&apos;s sweeping confidentiality provisions as a de facto noncompete that barred a trader from his profession for life.</description><pubDate>Wed, 24 Sep 2025 00:00:00 GMT</pubDate></item><item><title>Lew Alcindor in an Oldsmobile Ad: Abdul-Jabbar and the Persistence of a Former Name</title><link>https://iplawyerla.com/blog/abdul-jabbar-v-general-motors-former-name-publicity/</link><guid isPermaLink="true">https://iplawyerla.com/blog/abdul-jabbar-v-general-motors-former-name-publicity/</guid><description>The Ninth Circuit held that a celebrity&apos;s discarded birth name remains part of his identity, reviving claims over an Oldsmobile commercial.</description><pubDate>Tue, 23 Sep 2025 00:00:00 GMT</pubDate></item><item><title>Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank: The Two-Step Test That Reshaped Software Patents</title><link>https://iplawyerla.com/blog/alice-corp-v-cls-bank-abstract-idea-two-step/</link><guid isPermaLink="true">https://iplawyerla.com/blog/alice-corp-v-cls-bank-abstract-idea-two-step/</guid><description>A unanimous Supreme Court held that implementing an abstract idea on a generic computer adds nothing patentable, extending the Mayo framework to software and business methods.</description><pubDate>Tue, 23 Sep 2025 00:00:00 GMT</pubDate></item><item><title>Planting Is Making: Bowman v. Monsanto and Patent Exhaustion for Self-Replicating Seeds</title><link>https://iplawyerla.com/blog/bowman-v-monsanto-patent-exhaustion-self-replicating-seeds/</link><guid isPermaLink="true">https://iplawyerla.com/blog/bowman-v-monsanto-patent-exhaustion-self-replicating-seeds/</guid><description>A unanimous Supreme Court held that patent exhaustion does not let a farmer grow successive generations of a patented seed, because planting and harvesting creates new copies rather than merely using a purchased one.</description><pubDate>Tue, 23 Sep 2025 00:00:00 GMT</pubDate></item><item><title>Comcast v. ITC: Domestic Conduct, Imported Boxes, and Section 337&apos;s Long Reach</title><link>https://iplawyerla.com/blog/comcast-v-itc-articles-that-infringe-after-importation/</link><guid isPermaLink="true">https://iplawyerla.com/blog/comcast-v-itc-articles-that-infringe-after-importation/</guid><description>The Federal Circuit upheld an exclusion order against Comcast&apos;s set-top boxes, holding the ITC may act even where the inducing conduct is entirely domestic and Comcast itself imported nothing.</description><pubDate>Tue, 23 Sep 2025 00:00:00 GMT</pubDate></item><item><title>Believing a Patent Is Invalid Is No Defense: Commil USA v. Cisco Systems</title><link>https://iplawyerla.com/blog/commil-v-cisco-induced-infringement-invalidity-belief/</link><guid isPermaLink="true">https://iplawyerla.com/blog/commil-v-cisco-induced-infringement-invalidity-belief/</guid><description>The Supreme Court held that a good-faith belief in a patent&apos;s invalidity does not negate the intent required for induced infringement, while reaffirming that inducement demands knowledge of infringement.</description><pubDate>Tue, 23 Sep 2025 00:00:00 GMT</pubDate></item><item><title>Filtering the Code: How Computer Associates v. Altai Brought the Idea-Expression Line to Software</title><link>https://iplawyerla.com/blog/computer-associates-v-altai-abstraction-filtration-comparison/</link><guid isPermaLink="true">https://iplawyerla.com/blog/computer-associates-v-altai-abstraction-filtration-comparison/</guid><description>Computer Associates v. Altai adapted the idea-expression dichotomy to computer programs through its abstraction-filtration-comparison test, filtering out elements dictated by efficiency, external constraints, and the public domain.</description><pubDate>Tue, 23 Sep 2025 00:00:00 GMT</pubDate></item><item><title>Feltner v. Columbia Pictures: The Jury&apos;s Role in Setting Statutory Damages</title><link>https://iplawyerla.com/blog/feltner-v-columbia-pictures-jury-trial-statutory-damages/</link><guid isPermaLink="true">https://iplawyerla.com/blog/feltner-v-columbia-pictures-jury-trial-statutory-damages/</guid><description>The Supreme Court held that the Seventh Amendment guarantees a jury trial on statutory copyright damages — including the amount itself — reshaping how infringement awards are decided.</description><pubDate>Tue, 23 Sep 2025 00:00:00 GMT</pubDate></item><item><title>A Performance Is Not a Work: Garcia v. Google and the Author Behind the Camera</title><link>https://iplawyerla.com/blog/garcia-v-google-performance-authorship/</link><guid isPermaLink="true">https://iplawyerla.com/blog/garcia-v-google-performance-authorship/</guid><description>The en banc Ninth Circuit rejected an actress&apos;s claim to copyright in her brief filmed performance, holding that an individual acting contribution does not create a separately ownable work.</description><pubDate>Tue, 23 Sep 2025 00:00:00 GMT</pubDate></item><item><title>The Law Belongs to Everyone: Georgia v. Public.Resource.Org and the Government Edicts Doctrine</title><link>https://iplawyerla.com/blog/georgia-v-public-resource-org-government-edicts/</link><guid isPermaLink="true">https://iplawyerla.com/blog/georgia-v-public-resource-org-government-edicts/</guid><description>In Georgia v. Public.Resource.Org (2020), a divided Supreme Court held that the annotations in Georgia&apos;s official annotated code are uncopyrightable government edicts because they are authored by legislators acting as legislators.</description><pubDate>Tue, 23 Sep 2025 00:00:00 GMT</pubDate></item><item><title>Conduct, Not Speech: The D.C. Circuit Upholds DMCA § 1201 in Green v. DOJ</title><link>https://iplawyerla.com/blog/green-v-doj-dmca-1201-first-amendment/</link><guid isPermaLink="true">https://iplawyerla.com/blog/green-v-doj-dmca-1201-first-amendment/</guid><description>A cryptographer and a hardware hacker argued that the DMCA&apos;s anti-circumvention rules censor lawful research and tinkering; the D.C. Circuit held that § 1201 regulates conduct and survives the First Amendment.</description><pubDate>Tue, 23 Sep 2025 00:00:00 GMT</pubDate></item><item><title>ITC v. Punchgini: The Second Circuit Refuses to Find a Famous-Marks Doctrine in Federal Law</title><link>https://iplawyerla.com/blog/itc-v-punchgini-famous-marks-doctrine-federal-law/</link><guid isPermaLink="true">https://iplawyerla.com/blog/itc-v-punchgini-famous-marks-doctrine-federal-law/</guid><description>The Second Circuit holds that Congress has not incorporated the famous-marks doctrine into the Lanham Act, then certifies the state-law question to New York&apos;s high court.</description><pubDate>Tue, 23 Sep 2025 00:00:00 GMT</pubDate></item><item><title>Instance, Expense, and the Heirs&apos; Lost Recapture: Marvel Characters v. Kirby</title><link>https://iplawyerla.com/blog/marvel-v-kirby-work-for-hire-termination-bar/</link><guid isPermaLink="true">https://iplawyerla.com/blog/marvel-v-kirby-work-for-hire-termination-bar/</guid><description>The Second Circuit held that Jack Kirby&apos;s foundational 1958-1963 comics were works made for hire under the 1909 Act&apos;s &apos;instance and expense&apos; test, defeating his children&apos;s § 304(c) termination notices.</description><pubDate>Tue, 23 Sep 2025 00:00:00 GMT</pubDate></item><item><title>Mattel v. MCA Records: &apos;Barbie Girl,&apos; Parody, and the Limits of a Famous Mark</title><link>https://iplawyerla.com/blog/mattel-v-mca-records-barbie-girl/</link><guid isPermaLink="true">https://iplawyerla.com/blog/mattel-v-mca-records-barbie-girl/</guid><description>The Ninth Circuit adopted the Rogers test, protected a pop song that lampooned an American icon, and closed with one of the most quoted lines in trademark law: the parties are advised to chill.</description><pubDate>Tue, 23 Sep 2025 00:00:00 GMT</pubDate></item><item><title>Stories Taken from Life: Sarver v. Chartier and the First Amendment Shield for Films</title><link>https://iplawyerla.com/blog/sarver-v-chartier-hurt-locker-expressive-works/</link><guid isPermaLink="true">https://iplawyerla.com/blog/sarver-v-chartier-hurt-locker-expressive-works/</guid><description>A soldier who said The Hurt Locker was built on his life lost to the First Amendment, which protects storytellers who transform real people into art on matters of public concern.</description><pubDate>Tue, 23 Sep 2025 00:00:00 GMT</pubDate></item><item><title>Disassembly as Fair Use: Why Sega v. Accolade Still Governs Reverse Engineering</title><link>https://iplawyerla.com/blog/sega-v-accolade-reverse-engineering-fair-use/</link><guid isPermaLink="true">https://iplawyerla.com/blog/sega-v-accolade-reverse-engineering-fair-use/</guid><description>The Ninth Circuit held that copying object code to study a program&apos;s unprotected functional elements can be fair use, securing reverse engineering as a tool for interoperability and competition.</description><pubDate>Tue, 23 Sep 2025 00:00:00 GMT</pubDate></item><item><title>A Mark Is Nothing Without Its Goodwill: Sugar Busters v. Brennan and the Assignment-in-Gross Trap</title><link>https://iplawyerla.com/blog/sugar-busters-v-brennan-assignment-in-gross-goodwill/</link><guid isPermaLink="true">https://iplawyerla.com/blog/sugar-busters-v-brennan-assignment-in-gross-goodwill/</guid><description>The Fifth Circuit held that the SUGARBUSTERS service mark, bought from a diabetic-supply store and used for a diet book, was assigned in gross and invalid because the goodwill did not transfer with it.</description><pubDate>Tue, 23 Sep 2025 00:00:00 GMT</pubDate></item><item><title>T.A.B. Systems v. PacTel Teletrac: Pre-Sales Publicity Counts Only If the Public Was Actually Reached</title><link>https://iplawyerla.com/blog/tab-systems-v-pactel-teletrac-analogous-use-priority/</link><guid isPermaLink="true">https://iplawyerla.com/blog/tab-systems-v-pactel-teletrac-analogous-use-priority/</guid><description>The Federal Circuit&apos;s analogous-use decision held that promotional activity can establish trademark priority before sales — but only on proof that it reached a substantial portion of the relevant consuming public, not merely that the user intended an association.</description><pubDate>Tue, 23 Sep 2025 00:00:00 GMT</pubDate></item><item><title>Trader Joe&apos;s v. Hallatt: &apos;Pirate Joe&apos;s,&apos; Cross-Border Resale, and a Merits Question in Disguise</title><link>https://iplawyerla.com/blog/trader-joes-v-hallatt-pirate-joes-domestic-nexus/</link><guid isPermaLink="true">https://iplawyerla.com/blog/trader-joes-v-hallatt-pirate-joes-domestic-nexus/</guid><description>The Ninth Circuit revived Trader Joe&apos;s claims against a Canadian reseller, holding that the Lanham Act&apos;s foreign reach is a question on the merits — not federal jurisdiction — and that buying and harming a brand inside the U.S. can supply the needed domestic nexus.</description><pubDate>Tue, 23 Sep 2025 00:00:00 GMT</pubDate></item><item><title>Waits v. Frito-Lay: A Distinctive Voice and the Birth of False Endorsement</title><link>https://iplawyerla.com/blog/waits-v-frito-lay-false-endorsement-voice-misappropriation/</link><guid isPermaLink="true">https://iplawyerla.com/blog/waits-v-frito-lay-false-endorsement-voice-misappropriation/</guid><description>The Ninth Circuit recognized that imitating a celebrity&apos;s distinctive voice to imply sponsorship can be a false-endorsement violation of Section 43(a) of the Lanham Act.</description><pubDate>Tue, 23 Sep 2025 00:00:00 GMT</pubDate></item><item><title>Capitol Records v. ReDigi: Why You Cannot Resell a Song the Way You Resell a Record</title><link>https://iplawyerla.com/blog/capitol-records-v-redigi-digital-first-sale/</link><guid isPermaLink="true">https://iplawyerla.com/blog/capitol-records-v-redigi-digital-first-sale/</guid><description>The Second Circuit held that ReDigi&apos;s &apos;used&apos; digital music marketplace necessarily made unauthorized reproductions, so the first-sale defense — which reaches only distribution — could not save it.</description><pubDate>Tue, 16 Sep 2025 00:00:00 GMT</pubDate></item><item><title>DuPont v. Synvina: Overlapping Ranges and the Burden That Shifts</title><link>https://iplawyerla.com/blog/dupont-v-synvina-overlapping-ranges-burden-shifting/</link><guid isPermaLink="true">https://iplawyerla.com/blog/dupont-v-synvina-overlapping-ranges-burden-shifting/</guid><description>The Federal Circuit reversed a PTAB win for the patentee, holding that a claimed range overlapping the prior art creates a presumption of obviousness that applies in inter partes review just as in court.</description><pubDate>Tue, 16 Sep 2025 00:00:00 GMT</pubDate></item><item><title>In re Fisher: Gene Fragments and the Limits of &apos;Useful&apos;</title><link>https://iplawyerla.com/blog/in-re-fisher-ests-specific-substantial-utility/</link><guid isPermaLink="true">https://iplawyerla.com/blog/in-re-fisher-ests-specific-substantial-utility/</guid><description>The Federal Circuit refused patents on five expressed sequence tags whose only disclosed uses were generic research applications, sharpening the &apos;specific and substantial&apos; utility standard for the genomics era.</description><pubDate>Tue, 16 Sep 2025 00:00:00 GMT</pubDate></item><item><title>In re Klopfenstein: When a Conference Poster Becomes a &apos;Printed Publication&apos;</title><link>https://iplawyerla.com/blog/in-re-klopfenstein-printed-publication-poster-display/</link><guid isPermaLink="true">https://iplawyerla.com/blog/in-re-klopfenstein-printed-publication-poster-display/</guid><description>The Federal Circuit held that a slide poster displayed at a scientific meeting can be prior art under §102(b) even though it was never distributed or indexed in any library.</description><pubDate>Tue, 16 Sep 2025 00:00:00 GMT</pubDate></item><item><title>Johnson v. NCAA: Can a College Athlete Be an Employee?</title><link>https://iplawyerla.com/blog/johnson-v-ncaa-athlete-employee-flsa/</link><guid isPermaLink="true">https://iplawyerla.com/blog/johnson-v-ncaa-athlete-employee-flsa/</guid><description>The Third Circuit refused to treat amateurism as a bar to wage claims, adopting an economic-realities test that could make some college athletes employees entitled to pay under the Fair Labor Standards Act.</description><pubDate>Tue, 16 Sep 2025 00:00:00 GMT</pubDate></item><item><title>At the Border of Genuine: K Mart v. Cartier and the Gray-Market Compromise</title><link>https://iplawyerla.com/blog/kmart-v-cartier-gray-market-tariff-act-526/</link><guid isPermaLink="true">https://iplawyerla.com/blog/kmart-v-cartier-gray-market-tariff-act-526/</guid><description>The Supreme Court upheld Customs&apos; common-control exception for gray-market imports while striking the authorized-use exception, defining when genuine foreign goods can be stopped at the U.S. border under the Tariff Act.</description><pubDate>Tue, 16 Sep 2025 00:00:00 GMT</pubDate></item><item><title>Samsung v. Apple: When Is &apos;Total Profit&apos; the Profit on the Whole Phone?</title><link>https://iplawyerla.com/blog/samsung-v-apple-section-289-article-of-manufacture/</link><guid isPermaLink="true">https://iplawyerla.com/blog/samsung-v-apple-section-289-article-of-manufacture/</guid><description>A unanimous Supreme Court held that the &apos;article of manufacture&apos; for design-patent damages under § 289 can be a single component, not necessarily the entire end product sold to consumers.</description><pubDate>Tue, 16 Sep 2025 00:00:00 GMT</pubDate></item><item><title>Spanski v. Telewizja Polska: A Foreign Broadcaster&apos;s Stream Lands Inside U.S. Copyright</title><link>https://iplawyerla.com/blog/spanski-v-telewizja-polska-extraterritorial-streaming/</link><guid isPermaLink="true">https://iplawyerla.com/blog/spanski-v-telewizja-polska-extraterritorial-streaming/</guid><description>The D.C. Circuit held that a foreign broadcaster who directs infringing video-on-demand performances to viewers in the United States commits a domestic violation of the Copyright Act.</description><pubDate>Tue, 16 Sep 2025 00:00:00 GMT</pubDate></item><item><title>When Claim Construction Is a Fact: Teva Pharmaceuticals v. Sandoz and the Clear-Error Standard</title><link>https://iplawyerla.com/blog/teva-v-sandoz-claim-construction-standard-of-review/</link><guid isPermaLink="true">https://iplawyerla.com/blog/teva-v-sandoz-claim-construction-standard-of-review/</guid><description>The Supreme Court held that subsidiary factual findings underlying a claim construction must be reviewed for clear error, narrowing decades of de novo appellate review.</description><pubDate>Tue, 16 Sep 2025 00:00:00 GMT</pubDate></item><item><title>United States v. Arthrex: The Director&apos;s Last Word Over the PTAB</title><link>https://iplawyerla.com/blog/united-states-v-arthrex-appointments-clause/</link><guid isPermaLink="true">https://iplawyerla.com/blog/united-states-v-arthrex-appointments-clause/</guid><description>The Supreme Court held that administrative patent judges wielded unconstitutional power and fixed the defect by giving the USPTO Director authority to review their decisions.</description><pubDate>Tue, 16 Sep 2025 00:00:00 GMT</pubDate></item><item><title>Merck v. Integra: How Wide Is the Research Safe Harbor?</title><link>https://iplawyerla.com/blog/merck-v-integra-271e1-safe-harbor/</link><guid isPermaLink="true">https://iplawyerla.com/blog/merck-v-integra-271e1-safe-harbor/</guid><description>A unanimous Supreme Court read the Section 271(e)(1) safe harbor broadly, shielding preclinical experiments on patented compounds whenever there is a reasonable basis to believe they could inform an eventual FDA submission.</description><pubDate>Mon, 15 Sep 2025 00:00:00 GMT</pubDate></item><item><title>When the Secret Isn&apos;t the Wrong: Angelica Textile Services v. Park and the Limits of CUTSA Displacement</title><link>https://iplawyerla.com/blog/angelica-textile-services-v-park-cutsa-displacement-limits/</link><guid isPermaLink="true">https://iplawyerla.com/blog/angelica-textile-services-v-park-cutsa-displacement-limits/</guid><description>The Fourth District reversed summary judgment to hold that California&apos;s trade-secret statute does not displace breach-of-contract, fiduciary-duty, conversion, and unfair-competition claims that rest on conduct independent of any misappropriation.</description><pubDate>Tue, 09 Sep 2025 00:00:00 GMT</pubDate></item><item><title>Two Hats, One Commerce Clause: Christian Faith Fellowship Church v. adidas</title><link>https://iplawyerla.com/blog/christian-faith-fellowship-church-v-adidas-de-minimis-commerce/</link><guid isPermaLink="true">https://iplawyerla.com/blog/christian-faith-fellowship-church-v-adidas-de-minimis-commerce/</guid><description>A single in-state sale of two caps to an out-of-state buyer was enough use in commerce to defeat cancellation, as the Federal Circuit rejected a de minimis test for Lanham Act use.</description><pubDate>Tue, 09 Sep 2025 00:00:00 GMT</pubDate></item><item><title>Deepsouth v. Laitram: The Loophole That Built §271(f)</title><link>https://iplawyerla.com/blog/deepsouth-packing-v-laitram-export-unassembled-parts/</link><guid isPermaLink="true">https://iplawyerla.com/blog/deepsouth-packing-v-laitram-export-unassembled-parts/</guid><description>The Supreme Court holds that exporting the unassembled parts of a patented machine for assembly abroad is not &apos;making&apos; the invention—prompting Congress to rewrite the statute a decade later.</description><pubDate>Tue, 09 Sep 2025 00:00:00 GMT</pubDate></item><item><title>Juno v. Kite: Written Description and the Genus the Patent Could Not Possess</title><link>https://iplawyerla.com/blog/juno-v-kite-written-description-scfv-genus/</link><guid isPermaLink="true">https://iplawyerla.com/blog/juno-v-kite-written-description-scfv-genus/</guid><description>Reversing a $1.2 billion verdict, the Federal Circuit held that a CAR-T patent claiming any antibody binding element failed written description because it disclosed no representative species or common structure for the vast scFv genus.</description><pubDate>Tue, 09 Sep 2025 00:00:00 GMT</pubDate></item><item><title>Elementary, After All: Klinger v. Conan Doyle Estate and the Public-Domain Character</title><link>https://iplawyerla.com/blog/klinger-v-conan-doyle-estate-sherlock-holmes-public-domain/</link><guid isPermaLink="true">https://iplawyerla.com/blog/klinger-v-conan-doyle-estate-sherlock-holmes-public-domain/</guid><description>Judge Posner held that Sherlock Holmes and Dr. Watson, as drawn in the pre-1923 stories, are free for anyone to use, rejecting the estate&apos;s &apos;complex character&apos; copyright theory.</description><pubDate>Tue, 09 Sep 2025 00:00:00 GMT</pubDate></item><item><title>Pannu v. Iolab: The Three-Part Test for Who Counts as a Joint Inventor</title><link>https://iplawyerla.com/blog/pannu-v-iolab-joint-inventor-test-correction-section-256/</link><guid isPermaLink="true">https://iplawyerla.com/blog/pannu-v-iolab-joint-inventor-test-correction-section-256/</guid><description>The Federal Circuit set out the durable standard for joint inventorship and confirmed that misjoinder or nonjoinder is curable under Section 256 unless the patentee acted with deceptive intent.</description><pubDate>Tue, 09 Sep 2025 00:00:00 GMT</pubDate></item><item><title>Climbing Down: Skidmore v. Led Zeppelin and the End of the Inverse Ratio Rule</title><link>https://iplawyerla.com/blog/skidmore-v-led-zeppelin-stairway-substantial-similarity/</link><guid isPermaLink="true">https://iplawyerla.com/blog/skidmore-v-led-zeppelin-stairway-substantial-similarity/</guid><description>The en banc Ninth Circuit&apos;s decision upholding the &apos;Stairway to Heaven&apos; verdict, confining old compositions to their deposit copies, and abolishing the inverse ratio rule.</description><pubDate>Tue, 09 Sep 2025 00:00:00 GMT</pubDate></item><item><title>VirnetX v. Cisco: Apportionment Does Not Stop at the Smallest Salable Unit</title><link>https://iplawyerla.com/blog/virnetx-v-cisco-apportionment-nash-bargaining/</link><guid isPermaLink="true">https://iplawyerla.com/blog/virnetx-v-cisco-apportionment-nash-bargaining/</guid><description>The Federal Circuit vacated a $368 million award, holding that even the smallest salable unit must be apportioned to the patented features and rejecting the Nash Bargaining Solution as a disguised rule of thumb.</description><pubDate>Tue, 09 Sep 2025 00:00:00 GMT</pubDate></item><item><title>The Submarine Surfaces: Symbol Technologies v. Lemelson and the Revival of Prosecution Laches</title><link>https://iplawyerla.com/blog/symbol-technologies-v-lemelson-prosecution-laches/</link><guid isPermaLink="true">https://iplawyerla.com/blog/symbol-technologies-v-lemelson-prosecution-laches/</guid><description>The Federal Circuit affirmed that decades of unreasonable, unexplained delay in prosecuting continuation applications can render the resulting patents unenforceable.</description><pubDate>Thu, 04 Sep 2025 00:00:00 GMT</pubDate></item><item><title>Davis v. Electronic Arts: Retired NFL Players, the Incidental-Use Defense, and the Limits of First Amendment Cover</title><link>https://iplawyerla.com/blog/davis-v-electronic-arts-retired-nfl-players-anti-slapp/</link><guid isPermaLink="true">https://iplawyerla.com/blog/davis-v-electronic-arts-retired-nfl-players-anti-slapp/</guid><description>The Ninth Circuit held that EA&apos;s unlicensed use of thousands of former NFL players on Madden&apos;s historic teams was central, not incidental, and that Keller foreclosed EA&apos;s transformative-use, public-interest, and Rogers defenses.</description><pubDate>Tue, 26 Aug 2025 00:00:00 GMT</pubDate></item><item><title>Red, But Only in Contrast: Louboutin v. YSL and the Limits of a Single-Color Mark</title><link>https://iplawyerla.com/blog/christian-louboutin-v-ysl-red-sole-aesthetic-functionality/</link><guid isPermaLink="true">https://iplawyerla.com/blog/christian-louboutin-v-ysl-red-sole-aesthetic-functionality/</guid><description>The Second Circuit saved Christian Louboutin&apos;s red-sole trademark from an aesthetic-functionality death sentence but narrowed it to soles that contrast with the rest of the shoe, leaving YSL&apos;s all-red shoe free to walk.</description><pubDate>Tue, 19 Aug 2025 00:00:00 GMT</pubDate></item><item><title>A Borrowed Life Is Not a Borrowed Face: Gravano v. Take-Two</title><link>https://iplawyerla.com/blog/gravano-v-take-two-mob-wives-avatar-right-of-publicity/</link><guid isPermaLink="true">https://iplawyerla.com/blog/gravano-v-take-two-mob-wives-avatar-right-of-publicity/</guid><description>New York&apos;s highest court held that even a video-game character built from a reality star&apos;s biography is not actionable when the avatar is not recognizable as her.</description><pubDate>Tue, 19 Aug 2025 00:00:00 GMT</pubDate></item><item><title>Valentino&apos;s Ghost and the First Amendment: Guglielmi&apos;s Concurrence That Outlived the Holding</title><link>https://iplawyerla.com/blog/guglielmi-v-spelling-goldberg-valentino-first-amendment-publicity/</link><guid isPermaLink="true">https://iplawyerla.com/blog/guglielmi-v-spelling-goldberg-valentino-first-amendment-publicity/</guid><description>The California Supreme Court&apos;s 1979 companion to Lugosi denied a descendible right of publicity, but Chief Justice Bird&apos;s concurrence on fictionalized portrayals of the dead became enduringly influential.</description><pubDate>Thu, 14 Aug 2025 00:00:00 GMT</pubDate></item><item><title>The Sliding Scale of Secondary Meaning: In re Steelbuilding.com and the Burden of Section 2(f)</title><link>https://iplawyerla.com/blog/in-re-steelbuilding-com-acquired-distinctiveness-burden/</link><guid isPermaLink="true">https://iplawyerla.com/blog/in-re-steelbuilding-com-acquired-distinctiveness-burden/</guid><description>The Federal Circuit reverses a genericness refusal but affirms that a highly descriptive domain-name mark failed to prove the heightened acquired distinctiveness it needed under Section 2(f).</description><pubDate>Tue, 12 Aug 2025 00:00:00 GMT</pubDate></item><item><title>AMN Healthcare v. Aya Healthcare: California&apos;s Ban Reaches the Employee Non-Solicit</title><link>https://iplawyerla.com/blog/amn-healthcare-v-aya-healthcare-employee-non-solicitation/</link><guid isPermaLink="true">https://iplawyerla.com/blog/amn-healthcare-v-aya-healthcare-employee-non-solicitation/</guid><description>A California appellate panel voided an employee non-solicitation covenant under section 16600 and openly questioned the survival of Loral v. Moyes after Edwards.</description><pubDate>Tue, 22 Jul 2025 00:00:00 GMT</pubDate></item><item><title>Apple v. Motorola: No Per Se Bar to SEP Injunctions, but a Steep Climb Under eBay</title><link>https://iplawyerla.com/blog/apple-v-motorola-sep-injunction-ebay-frand/</link><guid isPermaLink="true">https://iplawyerla.com/blog/apple-v-motorola-sep-injunction-ebay-frand/</guid><description>The Federal Circuit rejected any automatic prohibition on injunctions for FRAND-committed patents while affirming that Motorola could not meet the eBay standard for one.</description><pubDate>Tue, 22 Jul 2025 00:00:00 GMT</pubDate></item><item><title>AvidAir v. Rolls-Royce: Legends, NDAs, and the Modest Bar for Reasonable Secrecy</title><link>https://iplawyerla.com/blog/avidair-helicopter-supply-v-rolls-royce-proprietary-marking-secrecy/</link><guid isPermaLink="true">https://iplawyerla.com/blog/avidair-helicopter-supply-v-rolls-royce-proprietary-marking-secrecy/</guid><description>The Eighth Circuit held that proprietary markings and confidentiality agreements were enough to keep aircraft-overhaul documents secret, even though much of their content was publicly available.</description><pubDate>Tue, 22 Jul 2025 00:00:00 GMT</pubDate></item><item><title>Big O Tire v. Goodyear: The Birth of Corrective Advertising Damages</title><link>https://iplawyerla.com/blog/big-o-tire-v-goodyear-corrective-advertising/</link><guid isPermaLink="true">https://iplawyerla.com/blog/big-o-tire-v-goodyear-corrective-advertising/</guid><description>When a tire giant rolled out a &apos;Bigfoot&apos; campaign over a small dealer&apos;s prior mark, the Tenth Circuit fashioned a remedy borrowed from the FTC — corrective advertising damages — and capped it at a fraction of the offending ad spend.</description><pubDate>Tue, 22 Jul 2025 00:00:00 GMT</pubDate></item><item><title>Bimbo Bakeries v. Botticella: How the Third Circuit Enjoined an Executive Without Demanding Inevitability</title><link>https://iplawyerla.com/blog/bimbo-bakeries-v-botticella-inevitable-disclosure/</link><guid isPermaLink="true">https://iplawyerla.com/blog/bimbo-bakeries-v-botticella-inevitable-disclosure/</guid><description>The fight over the recipe for Thomas&apos; English Muffins produced a Third Circuit ruling that an employer need not prove disclosure is inevitable — only that the threat of misappropriation is sufficiently substantial.</description><pubDate>Tue, 22 Jul 2025 00:00:00 GMT</pubDate></item><item><title>Bonito Boats v. Thunder Craft: When a State Cannot Re-Create the Patent Monopoly</title><link>https://iplawyerla.com/blog/bonito-boats-v-thunder-craft-design-preemption/</link><guid isPermaLink="true">https://iplawyerla.com/blog/bonito-boats-v-thunder-craft-design-preemption/</guid><description>A unanimous Supreme Court struck down Florida&apos;s anti-plug-molding statute, holding that a state may not grant patent-like protection to an unpatented design already disclosed to the public — and explaining why trade-secret law survives the same test.</description><pubDate>Tue, 22 Jul 2025 00:00:00 GMT</pubDate></item><item><title>Cellular Accessories v. Trinitas: Are a Salesman&apos;s LinkedIn Connections His, or the Company&apos;s?</title><link>https://iplawyerla.com/blog/cellular-accessories-v-trinitas-linkedin-customer-lists/</link><guid isPermaLink="true">https://iplawyerla.com/blog/cellular-accessories-v-trinitas-linkedin-customer-lists/</guid><description>A California federal court refused to hold as a matter of law that a departing sales manager&apos;s LinkedIn contacts and exported customer database were not trade secrets, sending the question to a jury.</description><pubDate>Tue, 22 Jul 2025 00:00:00 GMT</pubDate></item><item><title>Two Elements and a Single Factor: Cunningham v. Laser Golf and the Architecture of Cancellation</title><link>https://iplawyerla.com/blog/cunningham-v-laser-golf-cancellation-standing-confusion/</link><guid isPermaLink="true">https://iplawyerla.com/blog/cunningham-v-laser-golf-cancellation-standing-confusion/</guid><description>The Federal Circuit&apos;s golf-mark decision supplies the canonical two-part test for cancellation standing and shows how one DuPont factor can decide a likelihood-of-confusion case.</description><pubDate>Tue, 22 Jul 2025 00:00:00 GMT</pubDate></item><item><title>i4i v. Microsoft: How a Tailored Injunction Survived eBay and Forced Word to Change</title><link>https://iplawyerla.com/blog/i4i-v-microsoft-permanent-injunction-tailoring/</link><guid isPermaLink="true">https://iplawyerla.com/blog/i4i-v-microsoft-permanent-injunction-tailoring/</guid><description>The Federal Circuit affirmed a permanent injunction against a feature of Microsoft Word, showing how a small patentee can satisfy all four eBay factors against a dominant competitor when the injunction is carefully scoped.</description><pubDate>Tue, 22 Jul 2025 00:00:00 GMT</pubDate></item><item><title>IDX v. Epic: A Trade Secret You Cannot Describe Is a Trade Secret You Cannot Protect</title><link>https://iplawyerla.com/blog/idx-systems-v-epic-systems-trade-secret-identification/</link><guid isPermaLink="true">https://iplawyerla.com/blog/idx-systems-v-epic-systems-trade-secret-identification/</guid><description>Judge Easterbrook held that a software company&apos;s forty-three-page, undifferentiated description of its medical-billing system failed to identify any trade secret with the specificity the law demands.</description><pubDate>Tue, 22 Jul 2025 00:00:00 GMT</pubDate></item><item><title>Interval Licensing v. AOL: When a Term of Degree Has No Anchor</title><link>https://iplawyerla.com/blog/interval-licensing-v-aol-terms-of-degree-indefiniteness/</link><guid isPermaLink="true">https://iplawyerla.com/blog/interval-licensing-v-aol-terms-of-degree-indefiniteness/</guid><description>The Federal Circuit&apos;s first major post-Nautilus decision held the phrase &apos;in an unobtrusive manner that does not distract the user&apos; indefinite, illustrating how purely subjective language fails the reasonable-certainty test.</description><pubDate>Tue, 22 Jul 2025 00:00:00 GMT</pubDate></item><item><title>A Face Is Not a Photograph: KNB Enterprises v. Matthews and Why § 3344 Survives Copyright Preemption</title><link>https://iplawyerla.com/blog/knb-enterprises-v-matthews-section-3344-copyright-preemption/</link><guid isPermaLink="true">https://iplawyerla.com/blog/knb-enterprises-v-matthews-section-3344-copyright-preemption/</guid><description>A California appellate court held that models&apos; statutory right-of-publicity claims under Civil Code § 3344 are not preempted by federal copyright, because a human likeness is not copyrightable even when captured in a copyrighted image.</description><pubDate>Tue, 22 Jul 2025 00:00:00 GMT</pubDate></item><item><title>Magnesita Refractories v. Mishra: Seizing a Laptop Without the DTSA Seizure Statute</title><link>https://iplawyerla.com/blog/magnesita-refractories-v-mishra-rule-65-seizure/</link><guid isPermaLink="true">https://iplawyerla.com/blog/magnesita-refractories-v-mishra-rule-65-seizure/</guid><description>An Indiana court held that a Rule 65 temporary restraining order can authorize the seizure of a defendant&apos;s laptop to preserve trade-secret evidence, sidestepping the DTSA&apos;s stringent ex parte seizure provision entirely.</description><pubDate>Tue, 22 Jul 2025 00:00:00 GMT</pubDate></item><item><title>PETA v. Doughney: When a Domain Name Is the Punchline, the Parody Defense Fails</title><link>https://iplawyerla.com/blog/peta-v-doughney-cybersquatting-parody-defense/</link><guid isPermaLink="true">https://iplawyerla.com/blog/peta-v-doughney-cybersquatting-parody-defense/</guid><description>The Fourth Circuit held that &apos;People Eating Tasty Animals&apos; could not shield peta.org behind the First Amendment, because a domain identical to a mark conveys ownership before any visitor sees the joke.</description><pubDate>Tue, 22 Jul 2025 00:00:00 GMT</pubDate></item><item><title>Ink on Screen: Solid Oak Sketches v. 2K Games and the Copyright Status of Tattoos in Video Games</title><link>https://iplawyerla.com/blog/solid-oak-v-2k-games-tattoos-video-games-copyright/</link><guid isPermaLink="true">https://iplawyerla.com/blog/solid-oak-v-2k-games-tattoos-video-games-copyright/</guid><description>A Southern District of New York court held that realistically depicting NBA players&apos; tattoos in NBA 2K was non-infringing on three independent grounds — de minimis use, implied license, and fair use.</description><pubDate>Tue, 22 Jul 2025 00:00:00 GMT</pubDate></item><item><title>Two Pesos v. Taco Cabana: When Trade Dress Is Inherently Distinctive, No Secondary Meaning Required</title><link>https://iplawyerla.com/blog/two-pesos-v-taco-cabana-inherent-trade-dress-distinctiveness/</link><guid isPermaLink="true">https://iplawyerla.com/blog/two-pesos-v-taco-cabana-inherent-trade-dress-distinctiveness/</guid><description>The Supreme Court&apos;s 1992 decision held that inherently distinctive trade dress is protectable under Section 43(a) without proof of secondary meaning — extending to a restaurant&apos;s look the same first-day protection long given to coined word marks.</description><pubDate>Tue, 22 Jul 2025 00:00:00 GMT</pubDate></item><item><title>Storage With Access: UMG v. Shelter Capital and the Reach of the § 512(c) Safe Harbor</title><link>https://iplawyerla.com/blog/umg-v-shelter-capital-veoh-storage-safe-harbor/</link><guid isPermaLink="true">https://iplawyerla.com/blog/umg-v-shelter-capital-veoh-storage-safe-harbor/</guid><description>The Ninth Circuit held that Veoh&apos;s automated transcoding and playback functions fell within &apos;storage at the direction of a user,&apos; and that general knowledge of infringement on a video platform does not defeat the DMCA safe harbor.</description><pubDate>Tue, 22 Jul 2025 00:00:00 GMT</pubDate></item><item><title>Sinatra v. Goodyear: When a Music License Defeats a Voice Claim</title><link>https://iplawyerla.com/blog/sinatra-v-goodyear-tire-voice-imitation-copyright-preemption/</link><guid isPermaLink="true">https://iplawyerla.com/blog/sinatra-v-goodyear-tire-voice-imitation-copyright-preemption/</guid><description>The Ninth Circuit held that Nancy Sinatra could not stop a tire company from using sound-alike singers on a song it had lawfully licensed — because federal copyright policy preempted her state passing-off claim.</description><pubDate>Mon, 21 Jul 2025 00:00:00 GMT</pubDate></item><item><title>Infringement Without a Remedy: Eight Mile Style v. Spotify and the Estoppel Trap</title><link>https://iplawyerla.com/blog/eight-mile-style-v-spotify-mechanical-license-estoppel/</link><guid isPermaLink="true">https://iplawyerla.com/blog/eight-mile-style-v-spotify-mechanical-license-estoppel/</guid><description>A Tennessee court found Spotify infringed Eminem&apos;s compositions by streaming them without mechanical licenses, then barred the claim entirely under equitable estoppel for the publisher&apos;s strategic delay.</description><pubDate>Tue, 15 Jul 2025 00:00:00 GMT</pubDate></item><item><title>Chewy Vuiton and the Limits of Dilution: Louis Vuitton v. Haute Diggity Dog</title><link>https://iplawyerla.com/blog/louis-vuitton-v-haute-diggity-dog-parody-dilution/</link><guid isPermaLink="true">https://iplawyerla.com/blog/louis-vuitton-v-haute-diggity-dog-parody-dilution/</guid><description>The Fourth Circuit held that a successful parody can defeat both blurring and tarnishment claims under the revised dilution statute — because a good parody depends on, and reinforces, the very distinctiveness it pokes fun at.</description><pubDate>Tue, 15 Jul 2025 00:00:00 GMT</pubDate></item><item><title>Sino Legend v. ITC: A 10-Year Import Ban and the Limits of Comity</title><link>https://iplawyerla.com/blog/sino-legend-v-itc-foreign-trade-secret-exclusion-order/</link><guid isPermaLink="true">https://iplawyerla.com/blog/sino-legend-v-itc-foreign-trade-secret-exclusion-order/</guid><description>The ITC barred a Chinese chemical maker&apos;s imports for trade-secret theft committed in China, and the Federal Circuit and Supreme Court let the exclusion order stand despite a contrary result in Chinese courts.</description><pubDate>Tue, 15 Jul 2025 00:00:00 GMT</pubDate></item><item><title>Smith v. Dravo: When Sale Talks Create a Duty of Confidence</title><link>https://iplawyerla.com/blog/smith-v-dravo-confidential-relationship-implied/</link><guid isPermaLink="true">https://iplawyerla.com/blog/smith-v-dravo-confidential-relationship-implied/</guid><description>The Seventh Circuit held that a would-be buyer who received a target&apos;s secret designs during acquisition negotiations and then built a competing product had breached a confidential relationship the law implied from the dealings themselves.</description><pubDate>Thu, 10 Jul 2025 00:00:00 GMT</pubDate></item><item><title>United States v. Hanjuan Jin: The Proof Gap Between Theft and Espionage</title><link>https://iplawyerla.com/blog/us-v-hanjuan-jin-economic-espionage-foreign-benefit-intent/</link><guid isPermaLink="true">https://iplawyerla.com/blog/us-v-hanjuan-jin-economic-espionage-foreign-benefit-intent/</guid><description>A former Motorola engineer caught at O&apos;Hare with stolen telecom secrets was convicted of trade-secret theft but acquitted of economic espionage, illustrating how hard it is to prove intent to benefit a foreign government.</description><pubDate>Wed, 09 Jul 2025 00:00:00 GMT</pubDate></item><item><title>Mallet v. Lacayo: Why a Trade-Secret Injunction Collapsed for Lack of Specificity</title><link>https://iplawyerla.com/blog/mallet-v-lacayo-dtsa-trade-secret-identification/</link><guid isPermaLink="true">https://iplawyerla.com/blog/mallet-v-lacayo-dtsa-trade-secret-identification/</guid><description>The Third Circuit vacated a baking-supply injunction because the district court never said precisely what the protected trade secrets were — a cautionary tale about identifying the secret before enjoining anyone.</description><pubDate>Tue, 08 Jul 2025 00:00:00 GMT</pubDate></item><item><title>TAOS v. Renesas: Disgorgement, Apportionment, and the Head-Start Clock</title><link>https://iplawyerla.com/blog/taos-v-renesas-disgorgement-apportionment-head-start/</link><guid isPermaLink="true">https://iplawyerla.com/blog/taos-v-renesas-disgorgement-apportionment-head-start/</guid><description>The Federal Circuit dismantled a $48.8 million trade-secret disgorgement award on three fronts at once — who decides it, how to apportion among secrets, and how long the unjust-enrichment clock runs once reverse engineering becomes possible.</description><pubDate>Tue, 08 Jul 2025 00:00:00 GMT</pubDate></item><item><title>The ELVIS Act: Tennessee Makes &apos;Voice&apos; a Protected Property Right Against AI Cloning</title><link>https://iplawyerla.com/blog/tennessee-elvis-act-voice-cloning-ai-publicity/</link><guid isPermaLink="true">https://iplawyerla.com/blog/tennessee-elvis-act-voice-cloning-ai-publicity/</guid><description>Tennessee&apos;s 2024 ELVIS Act became the first U.S. law to write an individual&apos;s voice into the right of publicity and to reach the AI tools that clone it — a statute, not a court ruling, and a template other states are now copying.</description><pubDate>Tue, 08 Jul 2025 00:00:00 GMT</pubDate></item><item><title>Hosting Counterfeit: Louis Vuitton v. Akanoc and the Liability of the Server Beneath the Storefront</title><link>https://iplawyerla.com/blog/louis-vuitton-v-akanoc-web-host-contributory-liability/</link><guid isPermaLink="true">https://iplawyerla.com/blog/louis-vuitton-v-akanoc-web-host-contributory-liability/</guid><description>The Ninth Circuit held that a web host that ignores notices and keeps serving counterfeit-selling sites can be liable for contributory trademark infringement—but capped statutory damages at one award per mark, jointly and severally.</description><pubDate>Tue, 24 Jun 2025 00:00:00 GMT</pubDate></item><item><title>Object Code, Source Code, and the Outer Edge of Supersession: Silvaco v. Intel</title><link>https://iplawyerla.com/blog/silvaco-data-systems-v-intel-cutsa-preemption/</link><guid isPermaLink="true">https://iplawyerla.com/blog/silvaco-data-systems-v-intel-cutsa-preemption/</guid><description>The Sixth District extended California&apos;s trade-secret displacement doctrine to claims over non-trade-secret data while holding that an end user who runs compiled software does not thereby &apos;use&apos; the source-code secrets behind it.</description><pubDate>Tue, 24 Jun 2025 00:00:00 GMT</pubDate></item><item><title>NCAA v. Alston: A Unanimous Court Removes Amateurism&apos;s Shield</title><link>https://iplawyerla.com/blog/ncaa-v-alston-education-benefits-antitrust/</link><guid isPermaLink="true">https://iplawyerla.com/blog/ncaa-v-alston-education-benefits-antitrust/</guid><description>The Supreme Court unanimously held that NCAA limits on education-related benefits violate the Sherman Act, and Justice Kavanaugh&apos;s concurrence signaled that the broader amateurism model was living on borrowed time.</description><pubDate>Mon, 23 Jun 2025 00:00:00 GMT</pubDate></item><item><title>BladeRoom v. Emerson: The Two-Year NDA That Ate a $60 Million Verdict</title><link>https://iplawyerla.com/blog/bladeroom-v-emerson-nda-sunset-clause-duration/</link><guid isPermaLink="true">https://iplawyerla.com/blog/bladeroom-v-emerson-nda-sunset-clause-duration/</guid><description>The Ninth Circuit held that a sunset clause unambiguously ended an NDA&apos;s confidentiality obligations after two years, vacating a verdict built on later conduct.</description><pubDate>Wed, 18 Jun 2025 00:00:00 GMT</pubDate></item><item><title>Expiration, Not Issuance: Gilead v. Natco Rewrites Obviousness-Type Double Patenting</title><link>https://iplawyerla.com/blog/gilead-v-natco-obviousness-type-double-patenting/</link><guid isPermaLink="true">https://iplawyerla.com/blog/gilead-v-natco-obviousness-type-double-patenting/</guid><description>The Federal Circuit held that a later-issued, earlier-expiring patent can serve as a double-patenting reference, anchoring the doctrine to expiration dates in the post-URAA world.</description><pubDate>Wed, 18 Jun 2025 00:00:00 GMT</pubDate></item><item><title>Life Technologies v. Promega: One Component Is Not a &apos;Substantial Portion&apos; Abroad</title><link>https://iplawyerla.com/blog/life-technologies-v-promega-single-component-271f/</link><guid isPermaLink="true">https://iplawyerla.com/blog/life-technologies-v-promega-single-component-271f/</guid><description>The Supreme Court holds that supplying a single commodity component from the United States cannot trigger §271(f)(1) liability, reading &apos;substantial portion&apos; as a quantitative measure.</description><pubDate>Wed, 18 Jun 2025 00:00:00 GMT</pubDate></item><item><title>How Much Seed Can a Farmer Save? Asgrow Seed v. Winterboer and the Limits of the PVPA Crop Exemption</title><link>https://iplawyerla.com/blog/asgrow-seed-v-winterboer-pvpa-saved-seed-exemption/</link><guid isPermaLink="true">https://iplawyerla.com/blog/asgrow-seed-v-winterboer-pvpa-saved-seed-exemption/</guid><description>The Supreme Court read the Plant Variety Protection Act&apos;s farmer exemption narrowly, holding that a grower may sell saved seed only in the amount needed to replant his own acreage.</description><pubDate>Tue, 17 Jun 2025 00:00:00 GMT</pubDate></item><item><title>When the Eye Decides: Cariou v. Prince and Fair Use for Appropriation Art</title><link>https://iplawyerla.com/blog/cariou-v-prince-appropriation-art-transformative-use/</link><guid isPermaLink="true">https://iplawyerla.com/blog/cariou-v-prince-appropriation-art-transformative-use/</guid><description>The Second Circuit held that appropriation art can be transformative fair use even without commenting on the original—then left five works in doubt.</description><pubDate>Tue, 17 Jun 2025 00:00:00 GMT</pubDate></item><item><title>Estate of Presley v. Russen: Where an Estate&apos;s Publicity License Stops and a Tribute Show Begins</title><link>https://iplawyerla.com/blog/estate-of-presley-v-russen-big-el-show-impersonator-publicity/</link><guid isPermaLink="true">https://iplawyerla.com/blog/estate-of-presley-v-russen-big-el-show-impersonator-publicity/</guid><description>A New Jersey court held that Elvis Presley&apos;s right of publicity descended to his estate and barred impersonator merchandise and confusing marketing — but declined to shut down the live &apos;Big El Show&apos; itself, drawing an early line between licensable identity and protected performance.</description><pubDate>Tue, 17 Jun 2025 00:00:00 GMT</pubDate></item><item><title>Grupo Gigante v. Dallo: The Ninth Circuit Carves a Famous-Marks Exception</title><link>https://iplawyerla.com/blog/grupo-gigante-v-dallo-famous-marks-exception/</link><guid isPermaLink="true">https://iplawyerla.com/blog/grupo-gigante-v-dallo-famous-marks-exception/</guid><description>The Ninth Circuit recognizes a famous-marks exception to trademark territoriality, allowing a foreign mark to be protected in the United States when a substantial share of the relevant American market knows it.</description><pubDate>Tue, 17 Jun 2025 00:00:00 GMT</pubDate></item><item><title>Itar-Tass v. Russian Kurier: Splitting Ownership and Infringement Across Borders</title><link>https://iplawyerla.com/blog/itar-tass-v-russian-kurier-choice-of-law-copyright/</link><guid isPermaLink="true">https://iplawyerla.com/blog/itar-tass-v-russian-kurier-choice-of-law-copyright/</guid><description>The Second Circuit held that the law of the country of origin governs copyright ownership while U.S. law governs infringement occurring on American soil.</description><pubDate>Tue, 17 Jun 2025 00:00:00 GMT</pubDate></item><item><title>Lexmark v. Static Control: The Two-Part Test for Who May Sue for False Advertising</title><link>https://iplawyerla.com/blog/lexmark-v-static-control-lanham-act-false-advertising-standing/</link><guid isPermaLink="true">https://iplawyerla.com/blog/lexmark-v-static-control-lanham-act-false-advertising-standing/</guid><description>The Supreme Court replaced three competing circuit tests with a single rule — a false-advertising plaintiff must fall within the Lanham Act&apos;s zone of interests and show proximate cause.</description><pubDate>Tue, 17 Jun 2025 00:00:00 GMT</pubDate></item><item><title>No Inducement Without a Direct Infringer: Limelight Networks v. Akamai</title><link>https://iplawyerla.com/blog/limelight-v-akamai-divided-infringement-inducement/</link><guid isPermaLink="true">https://iplawyerla.com/blog/limelight-v-akamai-divided-infringement-inducement/</guid><description>A unanimous Supreme Court held that inducing infringement under Section 271(b) requires a predicate act of direct infringement, refusing to extend liability across divided method steps.</description><pubDate>Tue, 17 Jun 2025 00:00:00 GMT</pubDate></item><item><title>A Menu Is a Method: How Lotus v. Borland Put Command Hierarchies Beyond Copyright</title><link>https://iplawyerla.com/blog/lotus-v-borland-menu-command-method-of-operation/</link><guid isPermaLink="true">https://iplawyerla.com/blog/lotus-v-borland-menu-command-method-of-operation/</guid><description>The First Circuit held that the Lotus 1-2-3 menu command hierarchy is an uncopyrightable &apos;method of operation&apos; under Section 102(b), a ruling left standing by an evenly divided Supreme Court.</description><pubDate>Tue, 17 Jun 2025 00:00:00 GMT</pubDate></item><item><title>McBee v. Delica Co.: A Jazz Bassist, a Japanese Label, and the Substantial-Effects Line</title><link>https://iplawyerla.com/blog/mcbee-v-delica-substantial-effects-foreign-defendant/</link><guid isPermaLink="true">https://iplawyerla.com/blog/mcbee-v-delica-substantial-effects-foreign-defendant/</guid><description>The First Circuit&apos;s 2005 decision built a separate, tougher test for foreign defendants — demanding a substantial effect on U.S. commerce — and refused to let a Japanese-language website carry an American trademark claim across the Pacific.</description><pubDate>Tue, 17 Jun 2025 00:00:00 GMT</pubDate></item><item><title>Bots, Warden, and the Two Halves of § 1201: MDY Industries v. Blizzard</title><link>https://iplawyerla.com/blog/mdy-v-blizzard-dmca-1201-access-controls/</link><guid isPermaLink="true">https://iplawyerla.com/blog/mdy-v-blizzard-dmca-1201-access-controls/</guid><description>The Ninth Circuit split the DMCA&apos;s anti-circumvention provisions in two, holding that § 1201(a) protects access independently of infringement — and that a World of Warcraft cheat maker violated it.</description><pubDate>Tue, 17 Jun 2025 00:00:00 GMT</pubDate></item><item><title>Designs on a Uniform: Star Athletica and the New Test for Separability</title><link>https://iplawyerla.com/blog/star-athletica-v-varsity-brands-separability/</link><guid isPermaLink="true">https://iplawyerla.com/blog/star-athletica-v-varsity-brands-separability/</guid><description>In Star Athletica v. Varsity Brands (2017), the Supreme Court replaced a tangle of separability tests with a single statutory inquiry, holding that surface decorations on cheerleading uniforms can be copyrighted as pictorial works.</description><pubDate>Tue, 17 Jun 2025 00:00:00 GMT</pubDate></item><item><title>Robots at the Cheers Bar: Wendt, Animatronics, and the Persona of a Role</title><link>https://iplawyerla.com/blog/wendt-v-host-international-cheers-robots-publicity/</link><guid isPermaLink="true">https://iplawyerla.com/blog/wendt-v-host-international-cheers-robots-publicity/</guid><description>The Ninth Circuit let two Cheers actors take their right-of-publicity claim to trial over airport-bar robots evoking their characters.</description><pubDate>Tue, 17 Jun 2025 00:00:00 GMT</pubDate></item><item><title>Zazu Designs v. L&apos;Oréal: Why a Few Bottles and a Registration Plan Do Not Win the Mark</title><link>https://iplawyerla.com/blog/zazu-designs-v-loreal-priority-trademark-use/</link><guid isPermaLink="true">https://iplawyerla.com/blog/zazu-designs-v-loreal-priority-trademark-use/</guid><description>The Seventh Circuit&apos;s ZAZU decision held that token sales and an intent to register cannot establish trademark priority — only genuine market use that links the mark to a source in consumers&apos; minds will do.</description><pubDate>Tue, 17 Jun 2025 00:00:00 GMT</pubDate></item><item><title>Control, Not Quality: Eva&apos;s Bridal v. Halanick and the Naked License Inside the Family Business</title><link>https://iplawyerla.com/blog/evas-bridal-v-halanick-naked-licensing-family-franchise/</link><guid isPermaLink="true">https://iplawyerla.com/blog/evas-bridal-v-halanick-naked-licensing-family-franchise/</guid><description>The Seventh Circuit held that a bridal-shop owner who licensed her name to a relative without retaining any authority over how the store was run abandoned the mark through naked licensing.</description><pubDate>Thu, 12 Jun 2025 00:00:00 GMT</pubDate></item><item><title>A Precondition, Not a Jurisdictional Bar: Reed Elsevier v. Muchnick Untangles § 411(a)</title><link>https://iplawyerla.com/blog/reed-elsevier-v-muchnick-registration-jurisdiction/</link><guid isPermaLink="true">https://iplawyerla.com/blog/reed-elsevier-v-muchnick-registration-jurisdiction/</guid><description>In Reed Elsevier v. Muchnick (2010), a unanimous Supreme Court held that copyright registration under § 411(a) is a claim-processing precondition, not a limit on federal subject-matter jurisdiction — saving a class settlement that swept in unregistered works.</description><pubDate>Wed, 11 Jun 2025 00:00:00 GMT</pubDate></item><item><title>Control, Intent, and the Limits of Collaboration: Aalmuhammed v. Lee</title><link>https://iplawyerla.com/blog/aalmuhammed-v-lee-joint-authorship/</link><guid isPermaLink="true">https://iplawyerla.com/blog/aalmuhammed-v-lee-joint-authorship/</guid><description>The Ninth Circuit denied joint-authorship status to a key creative consultant on &apos;Malcolm X,&apos; holding that significant contribution is not enough without control and a shared intent to be co-authors.</description><pubDate>Tue, 10 Jun 2025 00:00:00 GMT</pubDate></item><item><title>ClearCorrect v. ITC: Why a Data Stream Is Not an &apos;Article&apos;</title><link>https://iplawyerla.com/blog/clearcorrect-v-itc-digital-articles-electronic-transmissions/</link><guid isPermaLink="true">https://iplawyerla.com/blog/clearcorrect-v-itc-digital-articles-electronic-transmissions/</guid><description>The Federal Circuit held that the ITC cannot bar infringing digital data transmitted electronically across the border, because Section 337 reaches only material things.</description><pubDate>Tue, 10 Jun 2025 00:00:00 GMT</pubDate></item><item><title>A Series of Abstractions: Learned Hand and the Line No One Can Fix in Nichols v. Universal</title><link>https://iplawyerla.com/blog/nichols-v-universal-pictures-abstractions-test/</link><guid isPermaLink="true">https://iplawyerla.com/blog/nichols-v-universal-pictures-abstractions-test/</guid><description>In Nichols v. Universal Pictures, Judge Learned Hand articulated the abstractions test for separating unprotectable ideas and stock characters from protectable expression, the most enduring tool in nonliteral copyright analysis.</description><pubDate>Tue, 10 Jun 2025 00:00:00 GMT</pubDate></item><item><title>The Test That Outlived the Verdict: Polaroid v. Polarad and the Birth of the Confusion Factors</title><link>https://iplawyerla.com/blog/polaroid-v-polarad-electronics-confusion-factors-laches/</link><guid isPermaLink="true">https://iplawyerla.com/blog/polaroid-v-polarad-electronics-confusion-factors-laches/</guid><description>Polaroid lost its 1961 infringement suit to laches—but Judge Friendly&apos;s catalogue of variables for gauging confusion became the most cited multifactor test in American trademark law.</description><pubDate>Tue, 10 Jun 2025 00:00:00 GMT</pubDate></item><item><title>Recording Artists at the Termination Gate: Waite v. UMG Recordings</title><link>https://iplawyerla.com/blog/waite-v-umg-recordings-sound-recording-termination/</link><guid isPermaLink="true">https://iplawyerla.com/blog/waite-v-umg-recordings-sound-recording-termination/</guid><description>A Southern District of New York court let recording artists pursue § 203 termination of their master recordings but refused to certify a class, holding the work-for-hire defense too individualized to resolve collectively.</description><pubDate>Tue, 10 Jun 2025 00:00:00 GMT</pubDate></item><item><title>Ethicon v. U.S. Surgical: One Omitted Co-Inventor Can Sink an Infringement Suit</title><link>https://iplawyerla.com/blog/ethicon-v-us-surgical-omitted-joint-inventor-co-ownership/</link><guid isPermaLink="true">https://iplawyerla.com/blog/ethicon-v-us-surgical-omitted-joint-inventor-co-ownership/</guid><description>A co-inventor of even a single claim becomes a co-owner of the whole patent — and the Federal Circuit let that overlooked inventor license the accused infringer and dismantle the case.</description><pubDate>Tue, 27 May 2025 00:00:00 GMT</pubDate></item><item><title>A Dish Is Not a Brand: In re Cordua Restaurants and Genericness for a Restaurant Specialty</title><link>https://iplawyerla.com/blog/in-re-cordua-restaurants-genericness-restaurant-services/</link><guid isPermaLink="true">https://iplawyerla.com/blog/in-re-cordua-restaurants-genericness-restaurant-services/</guid><description>The Federal Circuit affirms that CHURRASCOS is generic for restaurant services and that owning a prior registration does not insulate a later application from a genericness refusal.</description><pubDate>Tue, 27 May 2025 00:00:00 GMT</pubDate></item><item><title>Concord Music v. Anthropic: Why the Music Publishers Lost Their Bid to Halt AI Training</title><link>https://iplawyerla.com/blog/concord-music-v-anthropic-lyrics-injunction/</link><guid isPermaLink="true">https://iplawyerla.com/blog/concord-music-v-anthropic-lyrics-injunction/</guid><description>A federal judge denied the music publishers a preliminary injunction against Anthropic over Claude&apos;s reproduction of song lyrics, finding their proposed order overbroad and their claimed harm unproven — even as a guardrails stipulation quietly reshaped the dispute.</description><pubDate>Wed, 21 May 2025 00:00:00 GMT</pubDate></item><item><title>ABC v. Aereo: When &apos;Looks Like Cable&apos; Beat the Engineering</title><link>https://iplawyerla.com/blog/abc-v-aereo-public-performance-cable-analogy/</link><guid isPermaLink="true">https://iplawyerla.com/blog/abc-v-aereo-public-performance-cable-analogy/</guid><description>The Supreme Court held that Aereo&apos;s array of dime-sized antennas publicly performed broadcast television, treating the service as functionally identical to a cable system despite its individualized architecture.</description><pubDate>Tue, 20 May 2025 00:00:00 GMT</pubDate></item><item><title>Caraco v. Novo Nordisk: A Counterclaim to Police the Orange Book</title><link>https://iplawyerla.com/blog/caraco-v-novo-nordisk-orange-book-use-code/</link><guid isPermaLink="true">https://iplawyerla.com/blog/caraco-v-novo-nordisk-orange-book-use-code/</guid><description>A unanimous Supreme Court held that a generic drugmaker may use the Hatch-Waxman counterclaim to force a brand to correct an overbroad Orange Book use code that was blocking a lawful skinny-label generic.</description><pubDate>Tue, 20 May 2025 00:00:00 GMT</pubDate></item><item><title>Lightly Sketched: Why The Moodsters Lost to Inside Out in Daniels v. Disney</title><link>https://iplawyerla.com/blog/daniels-v-walt-disney-moodsters-character-copyright/</link><guid isPermaLink="true">https://iplawyerla.com/blog/daniels-v-walt-disney-moodsters-character-copyright/</guid><description>The Ninth Circuit applied its Batmobile test to deny copyright in &apos;The Moodsters&apos; and rejected the creator&apos;s idea-submission claim against Disney&apos;s Inside Out.</description><pubDate>Tue, 20 May 2025 00:00:00 GMT</pubDate></item><item><title>Egyptian Goddess v. Swisa: How the Federal Circuit Killed the Point-of-Novelty Test</title><link>https://iplawyerla.com/blog/egyptian-goddess-v-swisa-point-of-novelty/</link><guid isPermaLink="true">https://iplawyerla.com/blog/egyptian-goddess-v-swisa-point-of-novelty/</guid><description>Sitting en banc, the Federal Circuit scrapped the separate point-of-novelty test for design-patent infringement and made the prior-art-informed ordinary observer the sole standard.</description><pubDate>Tue, 20 May 2025 00:00:00 GMT</pubDate></item><item><title>Helsinn v. Teva: A Secret Sale Still Counts Under the America Invents Act</title><link>https://iplawyerla.com/blog/helsinn-v-teva-secret-sales-aia-on-sale-bar/</link><guid isPermaLink="true">https://iplawyerla.com/blog/helsinn-v-teva-secret-sales-aia-on-sale-bar/</guid><description>The Supreme Court held that a confidential commercial sale to a third party can place an invention &apos;on sale&apos; under the AIA, just as it did under the prior statute.</description><pubDate>Tue, 20 May 2025 00:00:00 GMT</pubDate></item><item><title>In re Cyclobenzaprine: Secondary Considerations Are Not an Afterthought</title><link>https://iplawyerla.com/blog/in-re-cyclobenzaprine-secondary-considerations-burden/</link><guid isPermaLink="true">https://iplawyerla.com/blog/in-re-cyclobenzaprine-secondary-considerations-burden/</guid><description>The Federal Circuit vacated an obviousness judgment because the trial court declared the claims obvious first and only then asked whether objective indicia could rescue them.</description><pubDate>Tue, 20 May 2025 00:00:00 GMT</pubDate></item><item><title>Juicy Whip v. Orange Bang: The Quiet Death of Moral Utility</title><link>https://iplawyerla.com/blog/juicy-whip-v-orange-bang-moral-utility-deception/</link><guid isPermaLink="true">https://iplawyerla.com/blog/juicy-whip-v-orange-bang-moral-utility-deception/</guid><description>The Federal Circuit held that an invention designed to fool consumers does not fail the utility requirement, retiring the long-dormant doctrine that deceptive or immoral inventions are unpatentable.</description><pubDate>Tue, 20 May 2025 00:00:00 GMT</pubDate></item><item><title>Fame Falls to the Public: Memphis Development v. Factors and Elvis&apos;s Post-Mortem Persona</title><link>https://iplawyerla.com/blog/memphis-development-foundation-v-factors-elvis-publicity-descendibility/</link><guid isPermaLink="true">https://iplawyerla.com/blog/memphis-development-foundation-v-factors-elvis-publicity-descendibility/</guid><description>Why the Sixth Circuit held in 1980 that Elvis Presley&apos;s right of publicity died with him and passed into the public domain—an Erie prediction Tennessee would later reject.</description><pubDate>Tue, 20 May 2025 00:00:00 GMT</pubDate></item><item><title>The Specification Comes First: Phillips v. AWH Corp. and the Hierarchy of Claim-Construction Evidence</title><link>https://iplawyerla.com/blog/phillips-v-awh-corp-intrinsic-evidence-specification/</link><guid isPermaLink="true">https://iplawyerla.com/blog/phillips-v-awh-corp-intrinsic-evidence-specification/</guid><description>Sitting en banc, the Federal Circuit demoted the dictionary and elevated the patent&apos;s own specification as the single best guide to claim meaning.</description><pubDate>Tue, 20 May 2025 00:00:00 GMT</pubDate></item><item><title>SAS Institute v. Iancu: The End of Partial Institution at the PTAB</title><link>https://iplawyerla.com/blog/sas-institute-v-iancu-partial-institution/</link><guid isPermaLink="true">https://iplawyerla.com/blog/sas-institute-v-iancu-partial-institution/</guid><description>The Supreme Court held that when the Patent Office institutes an inter partes review, it must decide the patentability of every claim the petitioner challenged — all or nothing.</description><pubDate>Tue, 20 May 2025 00:00:00 GMT</pubDate></item><item><title>The Spring That Could Not Be Owned: TrafFix Devices v. Marketing Displays and the Functionality Bar</title><link>https://iplawyerla.com/blog/traffix-devices-v-marketing-displays-functionality/</link><guid isPermaLink="true">https://iplawyerla.com/blog/traffix-devices-v-marketing-displays-functionality/</guid><description>The Supreme Court held that a feature claimed in an expired utility patent is presumptively functional and barred from trade dress protection, and that the availability of alternative designs does not rescue a functional feature.</description><pubDate>Tue, 20 May 2025 00:00:00 GMT</pubDate></item><item><title>Brown v. Electronic Arts: Why the Rogers Test Sank Jim Brown&apos;s Likeness Claim the Same Day Keller Won</title><link>https://iplawyerla.com/blog/brown-v-electronic-arts-lanham-act-rogers-test/</link><guid isPermaLink="true">https://iplawyerla.com/blog/brown-v-electronic-arts-lanham-act-rogers-test/</guid><description>The Ninth Circuit held that a Hall of Famer&apos;s Lanham Act false-endorsement claim over his avatar in Madden NFL was governed by the Rogers artistic-relevance test — and lost — even as a right-of-publicity claim on similar facts survived.</description><pubDate>Wed, 14 May 2025 00:00:00 GMT</pubDate></item><item><title>Mayo v. Prometheus: How a Diagnostic Method Became a Law of Nature</title><link>https://iplawyerla.com/blog/mayo-v-prometheus-laws-of-nature-eligibility/</link><guid isPermaLink="true">https://iplawyerla.com/blog/mayo-v-prometheus-laws-of-nature-eligibility/</guid><description>A unanimous Supreme Court held that correlations between drug-metabolite levels and dosing were unpatentable laws of nature, and built the two-step test that would reshape Section 101.</description><pubDate>Wed, 14 May 2025 00:00:00 GMT</pubDate></item><item><title>Preparation Is Not Performance: Aycock Engineering v. Airflite</title><link>https://iplawyerla.com/blog/aycock-engineering-v-airflite-services-rendered/</link><guid isPermaLink="true">https://iplawyerla.com/blog/aycock-engineering-v-airflite-services-rendered/</guid><description>Decades of planning an air-taxi reservation service could not satisfy the Lanham Act&apos;s use requirement, because the AIRFLITE service was never actually rendered to the public.</description><pubDate>Tue, 13 May 2025 00:00:00 GMT</pubDate></item><item><title>Infringing a Feeling? Williams v. Gaye and the &quot;Blurred Lines&quot; Verdict</title><link>https://iplawyerla.com/blog/williams-v-gaye-blurred-lines-groove-substantial-similarity/</link><guid isPermaLink="true">https://iplawyerla.com/blog/williams-v-gaye-blurred-lines-groove-substantial-similarity/</guid><description>The Ninth Circuit&apos;s decision affirming that &apos;Blurred Lines&apos; infringed Marvin Gaye&apos;s &apos;Got to Give It Up&apos; and the enduring fear that copyright can now protect a song&apos;s groove and vibe.</description><pubDate>Tue, 13 May 2025 00:00:00 GMT</pubDate></item><item><title>Wyeth v. Abbott: One Species, Tens of Thousands of Claims, and Undue Experimentation</title><link>https://iplawyerla.com/blog/wyeth-v-abbott-rapamycin-genus-undue-experimentation/</link><guid isPermaLink="true">https://iplawyerla.com/blog/wyeth-v-abbott-rapamycin-genus-undue-experimentation/</guid><description>A specification that disclosed a single rapamycin compound could not support claims reaching tens of thousands of structurally diverse molecules, the Federal Circuit held, because finding the active ones required excessive screening.</description><pubDate>Tue, 13 May 2025 00:00:00 GMT</pubDate></item><item><title>Raw Material or the Whole Point: Comedy III and the Birth of the Transformative-Use Test</title><link>https://iplawyerla.com/blog/comedy-iii-v-saderup-transformative-use-test/</link><guid isPermaLink="true">https://iplawyerla.com/blog/comedy-iii-v-saderup-transformative-use-test/</guid><description>California&apos;s Supreme Court borrowed copyright&apos;s transformation idea to decide when celebrity art is protected speech—and held that literal Three Stooges drawings are not.</description><pubDate>Thu, 08 May 2025 00:00:00 GMT</pubDate></item><item><title>Petrella v. MGM: Why Laches Cannot Shorten the Copyright Damages Window</title><link>https://iplawyerla.com/blog/petrella-v-mgm-laches-copyright-damages/</link><guid isPermaLink="true">https://iplawyerla.com/blog/petrella-v-mgm-laches-copyright-damages/</guid><description>The Supreme Court held that the equitable defense of laches cannot bar a copyright damages claim filed within the Act&apos;s three-year limitations period — a decision that reoriented how delay is policed in infringement remedies.</description><pubDate>Tue, 06 May 2025 00:00:00 GMT</pubDate></item><item><title>Rogers v. Grimaldi: The Two-Part Test That Made Room for Art in Trademark Law</title><link>https://iplawyerla.com/blog/rogers-v-grimaldi-expressive-use-test/</link><guid isPermaLink="true">https://iplawyerla.com/blog/rogers-v-grimaldi-expressive-use-test/</guid><description>Ginger Rogers lost her suit over a Fellini film, but the Second Circuit&apos;s opinion gave expressive works a durable First Amendment shield against Lanham Act claims that survived for more than three decades.</description><pubDate>Tue, 06 May 2025 00:00:00 GMT</pubDate></item><item><title>Uniloc v. Microsoft: The Death of the 25 Percent Rule of Thumb</title><link>https://iplawyerla.com/blog/uniloc-v-microsoft-25-percent-rule/</link><guid isPermaLink="true">https://iplawyerla.com/blog/uniloc-v-microsoft-25-percent-rule/</guid><description>The Federal Circuit declared the once-ubiquitous 25 percent royalty shortcut a fundamentally flawed tool, inadmissible under Daubert because it never connects to the facts of the case.</description><pubDate>Tue, 22 Apr 2025 00:00:00 GMT</pubDate></item><item><title>The New York Times v. OpenAI: Why a Manhattan Judge Let the Output-Infringement Claims Stand</title><link>https://iplawyerla.com/blog/new-york-times-v-openai-output-infringement/</link><guid isPermaLink="true">https://iplawyerla.com/blog/new-york-times-v-openai-output-infringement/</guid><description>Judge Sidney Stein largely denied OpenAI and Microsoft&apos;s motions to dismiss, keeping alive the theory that ChatGPT&apos;s outputs and the conduct of its users can infringe — a sharp contrast with how California courts have treated similar allegations.</description><pubDate>Wed, 09 Apr 2025 00:00:00 GMT</pubDate></item><item><title>Aronson v. Quick Point Pencil: Collecting Royalties on a Patent That Never Issued</title><link>https://iplawyerla.com/blog/aronson-v-quick-point-pencil-royalties-without-a-patent/</link><guid isPermaLink="true">https://iplawyerla.com/blog/aronson-v-quick-point-pencil-royalties-without-a-patent/</guid><description>The Supreme Court held that federal patent law does not bar a state-law contract requiring perpetual royalties on a keyholder design whose patent application was rejected — a foundational endorsement of the license-instead-of-patent strategy.</description><pubDate>Tue, 18 Mar 2025 00:00:00 GMT</pubDate></item><item><title>When the Board Speaks First: B&amp;B Hardware and the Preclusive Reach of TTAB Decisions</title><link>https://iplawyerla.com/blog/bb-hardware-v-hargis-ttab-issue-preclusion/</link><guid isPermaLink="true">https://iplawyerla.com/blog/bb-hardware-v-hargis-ttab-issue-preclusion/</guid><description>The Supreme Court holds that a Trademark Trial and Appeal Board likelihood-of-confusion ruling can bind a federal court in later infringement litigation.</description><pubDate>Tue, 18 Mar 2025 00:00:00 GMT</pubDate></item><item><title>Buffets v. Klinke: Why a Recipe for Macaroni and Cheese Is Not a Trade Secret</title><link>https://iplawyerla.com/blog/buffets-v-klinke-recipes-employee-manuals/</link><guid isPermaLink="true">https://iplawyerla.com/blog/buffets-v-klinke-recipes-employee-manuals/</guid><description>The Ninth Circuit held that a buffet chain&apos;s everyday recipes and loosely guarded training manuals failed both elements of the secrecy analysis, marking the outer boundary of what &apos;qualifies&apos; under the Uniform Trade Secrets Act.</description><pubDate>Tue, 18 Mar 2025 00:00:00 GMT</pubDate></item><item><title>Du Pont v. Christopher: Spying From the Sky as &apos;Improper Means&apos;</title><link>https://iplawyerla.com/blog/dupont-v-christopher-aerial-photography-improper-means/</link><guid isPermaLink="true">https://iplawyerla.com/blog/dupont-v-christopher-aerial-photography-improper-means/</guid><description>A 1970 Fifth Circuit decision held that aerial photography of a plant under construction was an improper means of acquiring a trade secret, even though the photographers broke no law and breached no confidence.</description><pubDate>Tue, 18 Mar 2025 00:00:00 GMT</pubDate></item><item><title>Golan v. Holder: When Congress Pulled Foreign Works Back Out of the Public Domain</title><link>https://iplawyerla.com/blog/golan-v-holder-copyright-restoration-public-domain/</link><guid isPermaLink="true">https://iplawyerla.com/blog/golan-v-holder-copyright-restoration-public-domain/</guid><description>The Supreme Court upheld Section 514 of the Uruguay Round Agreements Act, holding that Congress may restore copyright to foreign works that had already entered the U.S. public domain.</description><pubDate>Tue, 18 Mar 2025 00:00:00 GMT</pubDate></item><item><title>When the Magazine Wins: Hoffman v. Capital Cities/ABC and the First Amendment Limit on the Right of Publicity</title><link>https://iplawyerla.com/blog/hoffman-v-capital-cities-abc-publicity-first-amendment/</link><guid isPermaLink="true">https://iplawyerla.com/blog/hoffman-v-capital-cities-abc-publicity-first-amendment/</guid><description>The Ninth Circuit reversed a $3 million judgment for Dustin Hoffman, holding that a digitally altered photograph in an editorial fashion feature was protected speech, not a commercial appropriation of his likeness.</description><pubDate>Tue, 18 Mar 2025 00:00:00 GMT</pubDate></item><item><title>The &apos;Same Nucleus of Facts&apos;: K.C. Multimedia v. Bank of America and the Birth of CUTSA Supersession</title><link>https://iplawyerla.com/blog/kc-multimedia-v-bank-of-america-cutsa-supersession/</link><guid isPermaLink="true">https://iplawyerla.com/blog/kc-multimedia-v-bank-of-america-cutsa-supersession/</guid><description>California&apos;s first published decision squarely addressing trade-secret supersession held that the Uniform Trade Secrets Act displaces common-law tort claims resting on the same factual nucleus as the misappropriation theory.</description><pubDate>Tue, 18 Mar 2025 00:00:00 GMT</pubDate></item><item><title>Rockwell v. DEV Industries: Posner Makes Secrecy a Cost-Benefit Problem</title><link>https://iplawyerla.com/blog/rockwell-graphic-systems-v-dev-industries-reasonable-secrecy-measures/</link><guid isPermaLink="true">https://iplawyerla.com/blog/rockwell-graphic-systems-v-dev-industries-reasonable-secrecy-measures/</guid><description>The Seventh Circuit reversed summary judgment to hold that whether a trade-secret owner took &apos;reasonable&apos; precautions is almost always a jury question turning on the balance of costs and benefits.</description><pubDate>Tue, 18 Mar 2025 00:00:00 GMT</pubDate></item><item><title>Romag Fasteners v. Fossil: Willfulness Is a Factor, Not a Gate, for Disgorgement</title><link>https://iplawyerla.com/blog/romag-fasteners-v-fossil-willfulness-profits/</link><guid isPermaLink="true">https://iplawyerla.com/blog/romag-fasteners-v-fossil-willfulness-profits/</guid><description>A unanimous Supreme Court held that a trademark plaintiff need not prove willful infringement as a precondition to recovering the infringer&apos;s profits under Section 35(a) — reshaping the calculus of every infringement demand letter.</description><pubDate>Tue, 18 Mar 2025 00:00:00 GMT</pubDate></item><item><title>TianRui v. ITC: How Section 337 Reached a Theft That Happened in China</title><link>https://iplawyerla.com/blog/tianrui-group-v-itc-extraterritorial-trade-secret-theft/</link><guid isPermaLink="true">https://iplawyerla.com/blog/tianrui-group-v-itc-extraterritorial-trade-secret-theft/</guid><description>The Federal Circuit held that the International Trade Commission may bar imports based on trade-secret misappropriation occurring entirely in China, opening the ITC as a forum for cross-border theft.</description><pubDate>Tue, 18 Mar 2025 00:00:00 GMT</pubDate></item><item><title>DuPont v. Kolon: A $919.9 Million Kevlar Verdict and the Fragile Foundations of Trade-Secret Damages</title><link>https://iplawyerla.com/blog/dupont-v-kolon-kevlar-trade-secret-damages/</link><guid isPermaLink="true">https://iplawyerla.com/blog/dupont-v-kolon-kevlar-trade-secret-damages/</guid><description>The largest trade-secret award of its era recovered DuPont&apos;s actual loss for the theft of Kevlar know-how — then collapsed because the jury never heard the evidence that might have shown the secrets were not secret at all.</description><pubDate>Wed, 12 Mar 2025 00:00:00 GMT</pubDate></item><item><title>Lahr v. Adell Chemical Co.: The Sound-Alike Case That Predated Midler by a Generation</title><link>https://iplawyerla.com/blog/lahr-v-adell-chemical-voice-imitation-unfair-competition/</link><guid isPermaLink="true">https://iplawyerla.com/blog/lahr-v-adell-chemical-voice-imitation-unfair-competition/</guid><description>Long before the right of publicity protected a voice, the First Circuit held that imitating a famous comedian&apos;s distinctive vocal style to sell a product could state a claim for unfair competition.</description><pubDate>Wed, 12 Mar 2025 00:00:00 GMT</pubDate></item><item><title>Mission Capital Advisors v. Romaka: The First DTSA Seizure, and Why It Took a TRO to Fail First</title><link>https://iplawyerla.com/blog/mission-capital-advisors-v-romaka-first-dtsa-seizure/</link><guid isPermaLink="true">https://iplawyerla.com/blog/mission-capital-advisors-v-romaka-first-dtsa-seizure/</guid><description>The earliest civil seizure order under the Defend Trade Secrets Act issued only after a temporary restraining order failed, modeling seizure as the remedy of last resort rather than first resort.</description><pubDate>Wed, 12 Mar 2025 00:00:00 GMT</pubDate></item><item><title>Nautilus v. Biosig: The Birth of &apos;Reasonable Certainty&apos; in Patent Definiteness</title><link>https://iplawyerla.com/blog/nautilus-v-biosig-instruments-reasonable-certainty-definiteness/</link><guid isPermaLink="true">https://iplawyerla.com/blog/nautilus-v-biosig-instruments-reasonable-certainty-definiteness/</guid><description>The Supreme Court discarded the Federal Circuit&apos;s forgiving &apos;insolubly ambiguous&apos; test and replaced it with a public-notice standard that asks whether a patent claim informs skilled artisans of its scope with reasonable certainty.</description><pubDate>Wed, 12 Mar 2025 00:00:00 GMT</pubDate></item><item><title>United States v. Aleynikov: When Stolen Source Code Fell Outside the EEA</title><link>https://iplawyerla.com/blog/us-v-aleynikov-eea-source-code-product-scope/</link><guid isPermaLink="true">https://iplawyerla.com/blog/us-v-aleynikov-eea-source-code-product-scope/</guid><description>The Second Circuit reversed a Goldman Sachs programmer&apos;s criminal conviction because the company&apos;s high-frequency trading code was not a product &apos;produced for or placed in&apos; commerce, exposing a gap Congress closed within months.</description><pubDate>Wed, 12 Mar 2025 00:00:00 GMT</pubDate></item><item><title>Abercrombie &amp; Fitch v. Hunting World: Judge Friendly&apos;s Spectrum and the Architecture of Distinctiveness</title><link>https://iplawyerla.com/blog/abercrombie-fitch-v-hunting-world-spectrum-of-distinctiveness/</link><guid isPermaLink="true">https://iplawyerla.com/blog/abercrombie-fitch-v-hunting-world-spectrum-of-distinctiveness/</guid><description>The 1976 Second Circuit decision that sorted every word mark into fanciful, arbitrary, suggestive, descriptive, or generic — and cost Abercrombie its &apos;Safari&apos; trademark — still governs how courts measure distinctiveness today.</description><pubDate>Tue, 11 Mar 2025 00:00:00 GMT</pubDate></item><item><title>AMD v. Feldstein: A Million Copied Files and the Limits of an Innocent Explanation</title><link>https://iplawyerla.com/blog/amd-v-feldstein-forensic-file-exfiltration/</link><guid isPermaLink="true">https://iplawyerla.com/blog/amd-v-feldstein-forensic-file-exfiltration/</guid><description>A District of Massachusetts judge enjoined three engineers who walked to Nvidia after copying tens of thousands of AMD files, holding that improper acquisition — not proven use — supports a trade-secret injunction.</description><pubDate>Tue, 11 Mar 2025 00:00:00 GMT</pubDate></item><item><title>Whitewashed Overnight: Castillo v. G&amp;M Realty and VARA&apos;s Protection for Art of &apos;Recognized Stature&apos;</title><link>https://iplawyerla.com/blog/castillo-v-gm-realty-5pointz-vara-recognized-stature/</link><guid isPermaLink="true">https://iplawyerla.com/blog/castillo-v-gm-realty-5pointz-vara-recognized-stature/</guid><description>In the 5Pointz appeal, the Second Circuit affirmed a $6.75 million award and held that even temporary aerosol art can attain &apos;recognized stature&apos; protected against willful destruction under the Visual Artists Rights Act.</description><pubDate>Tue, 11 Mar 2025 00:00:00 GMT</pubDate></item><item><title>EarthWeb v. Schlack: The Decision That Tried to Cage Inevitable Disclosure</title><link>https://iplawyerla.com/blog/earthweb-v-schlack-inevitable-disclosure/</link><guid isPermaLink="true">https://iplawyerla.com/blog/earthweb-v-schlack-inevitable-disclosure/</guid><description>A New York federal court refused to enjoin a departing internet executive and warned that inevitable disclosure should be invoked only in the rarest of cases — building the doctrine&apos;s most influential set of brakes.</description><pubDate>Tue, 11 Mar 2025 00:00:00 GMT</pubDate></item><item><title>eBay v. MercExchange: The Decision That Ended the Automatic Patent Injunction</title><link>https://iplawyerla.com/blog/ebay-v-mercexchange-four-factor-injunction-test/</link><guid isPermaLink="true">https://iplawyerla.com/blog/ebay-v-mercexchange-four-factor-injunction-test/</guid><description>The Supreme Court refused to treat injunctive relief as an automatic consequence of patent infringement, restoring the traditional four-factor equity test and reshaping patent litigation for a generation.</description><pubDate>Tue, 11 Mar 2025 00:00:00 GMT</pubDate></item><item><title>Edwards v. Arthur Andersen: California Closes the Door on the &apos;Narrow-Restraint&apos; Exception</title><link>https://iplawyerla.com/blog/edwards-v-arthur-andersen-narrow-restraint-exception/</link><guid isPermaLink="true">https://iplawyerla.com/blog/edwards-v-arthur-andersen-narrow-restraint-exception/</guid><description>The California Supreme Court held that Business and Professions Code section 16600 voids employee non-competes even when narrowly drawn, rejecting the Ninth Circuit&apos;s narrow-restraint gloss.</description><pubDate>Tue, 11 Mar 2025 00:00:00 GMT</pubDate></item><item><title>Oakwood Laboratories v. Thanoo: What It Takes to Plead &apos;Use&apos; Under the DTSA</title><link>https://iplawyerla.com/blog/oakwood-laboratories-v-thanoo-dtsa-use-pleading/</link><guid isPermaLink="true">https://iplawyerla.com/blog/oakwood-laboratories-v-thanoo-dtsa-use-pleading/</guid><description>After four dismissals, the Third Circuit revived a microsphere drug-development trade-secret suit and gave the broadest appellate definition yet of what it means to &apos;use&apos; a trade secret.</description><pubDate>Tue, 11 Mar 2025 00:00:00 GMT</pubDate></item><item><title>Sporty&apos;s Farm v. Sportsman&apos;s Market: The First Appellate Word on the Anticybersquatting Act</title><link>https://iplawyerla.com/blog/sportys-farm-v-sportsmans-market-acpa-first-appellate/</link><guid isPermaLink="true">https://iplawyerla.com/blog/sportys-farm-v-sportsmans-market-acpa-first-appellate/</guid><description>Decided weeks after the ACPA became law, the Second Circuit&apos;s sportys.com ruling supplied the template for how courts would read bad-faith intent, distinctiveness, and a brand-new statute applied to conduct that predated it.</description><pubDate>Tue, 11 Mar 2025 00:00:00 GMT</pubDate></item><item><title>Young v. NeoCortext: When a Face-Swap App Meets California&apos;s Right of Publicity</title><link>https://iplawyerla.com/blog/young-v-neocortext-reface-deepfake-right-of-publicity/</link><guid isPermaLink="true">https://iplawyerla.com/blog/young-v-neocortext-reface-deepfake-right-of-publicity/</guid><description>The Ninth Circuit let a Big Brother contestant&apos;s putative class action over the Reface deepfake app proceed, rejecting both a copyright-preemption defense and a transformative-use shield at the pleading stage.</description><pubDate>Tue, 11 Mar 2025 00:00:00 GMT</pubDate></item><item><title>The 44% Raise the D.C. Circuit Sent Back: Johnson v. Copyright Royalty Board</title><link>https://iplawyerla.com/blog/johnson-v-copyright-royalty-board-phonorecords-iii-streaming-rates/</link><guid isPermaLink="true">https://iplawyerla.com/blog/johnson-v-copyright-royalty-board-phonorecords-iii-streaming-rates/</guid><description>How the D.C. Circuit vacated the Copyright Royalty Board&apos;s Phonorecords III streaming mechanical rate hike for inadequate notice and unexplained reasoning, and what the remand meant for songwriters.</description><pubDate>Tue, 04 Mar 2025 00:00:00 GMT</pubDate></item><item><title>Moseley v. V Secret Catalogue: When Dilution Demanded Proof of Actual Harm</title><link>https://iplawyerla.com/blog/moseley-v-v-secret-catalogue-actual-dilution/</link><guid isPermaLink="true">https://iplawyerla.com/blog/moseley-v-v-secret-catalogue-actual-dilution/</guid><description>The Supreme Court held that the original Federal Trademark Dilution Act required proof of actual dilution — not a mere likelihood of it — a reading so demanding that Congress rewrote the statute three years later.</description><pubDate>Tue, 04 Mar 2025 00:00:00 GMT</pubDate></item><item><title>How Red Must the Flag Be? Viacom v. YouTube and the Specificity of § 512(c) Knowledge</title><link>https://iplawyerla.com/blog/viacom-v-youtube-red-flag-knowledge/</link><guid isPermaLink="true">https://iplawyerla.com/blog/viacom-v-youtube-red-flag-knowledge/</guid><description>The Second Circuit held that both actual and &apos;red flag&apos; knowledge under the DMCA must point to specific, identifiable infringements — but revived Viacom&apos;s case by reading willful blindness and &apos;right and ability to control&apos; back into the statute.</description><pubDate>Tue, 04 Mar 2025 00:00:00 GMT</pubDate></item><item><title>Andersen v. Stability AI: The Theory That Diffusion Models Can &apos;Contain&apos; the Works They Trained On</title><link>https://iplawyerla.com/blog/andersen-v-stability-ai-image-generator-training/</link><guid isPermaLink="true">https://iplawyerla.com/blog/andersen-v-stability-ai-image-generator-training/</guid><description>A federal court let visual artists&apos; direct and induced copyright claims against AI image generators proceed on the theory that protected works may persist inside the model itself — a holding that reframes how courts think about training data.</description><pubDate>Wed, 19 Feb 2025 00:00:00 GMT</pubDate></item><item><title>No Certificate, No Courthouse: Fourth Estate v. Wall-Street.com and the Registration Precondition to Suit</title><link>https://iplawyerla.com/blog/fourth-estate-v-wall-street-com-registration-precondition/</link><guid isPermaLink="true">https://iplawyerla.com/blog/fourth-estate-v-wall-street-com-registration-precondition/</guid><description>In Fourth Estate v. Wall-Street.com (2019), a unanimous Supreme Court held that a copyright owner cannot sue for infringement until the Register of Copyrights has acted on the application — not merely received it.</description><pubDate>Wed, 19 Feb 2025 00:00:00 GMT</pubDate></item><item><title>Keller v. Electronic Arts: The Ninth Circuit Adopts the Transformative-Use Test for College Athletes&apos; Likenesses</title><link>https://iplawyerla.com/blog/keller-v-electronic-arts-ncaa-transformative-use/</link><guid isPermaLink="true">https://iplawyerla.com/blog/keller-v-electronic-arts-ncaa-transformative-use/</guid><description>On materially identical facts to Hart, the Ninth Circuit held that EA&apos;s photorealistic depiction of college football players in NCAA Football flunked California&apos;s transformative-use test and enjoyed no First Amendment shield.</description><pubDate>Wed, 19 Feb 2025 00:00:00 GMT</pubDate></item><item><title>The Eight-Factor Engine: How AMF v. Sleekcraft Built the West Coast Confusion Test</title><link>https://iplawyerla.com/blog/amf-v-sleekcraft-boats-likelihood-of-confusion-factors/</link><guid isPermaLink="true">https://iplawyerla.com/blog/amf-v-sleekcraft-boats-likelihood-of-confusion-factors/</guid><description>A 1979 dispute over Slickcraft and Sleekcraft boats gave the Ninth Circuit its enduring eight-factor framework for likelihood of confusion—and a template courts still run today.</description><pubDate>Tue, 18 Feb 2025 00:00:00 GMT</pubDate></item><item><title>The Method Belongs to the World: How Baker v. Selden Drew Copyright&apos;s First Boundary</title><link>https://iplawyerla.com/blog/baker-v-selden-idea-expression-method/</link><guid isPermaLink="true">https://iplawyerla.com/blog/baker-v-selden-idea-expression-method/</guid><description>Baker v. Selden held that copyright in a book explaining a bookkeeping system protects the explanation, not the system itself, founding the idea-expression dichotomy later codified at 17 U.S.C. § 102(b).</description><pubDate>Tue, 18 Feb 2025 00:00:00 GMT</pubDate></item><item><title>A Single Naked License Sinks a Mark: Barcamerica v. Tyfield Importers and the Duty to Police Quality</title><link>https://iplawyerla.com/blog/barcamerica-v-tyfield-importers-naked-licensing-quality-control/</link><guid isPermaLink="true">https://iplawyerla.com/blog/barcamerica-v-tyfield-importers-naked-licensing-quality-control/</guid><description>The Ninth Circuit held that a trademark owner who licensed its DA VINCI wine mark without meaningful quality control abandoned the mark, even though the licensee made well-regarded wine.</description><pubDate>Tue, 18 Feb 2025 00:00:00 GMT</pubDate></item><item><title>&quot;Get a License or Do Not Sample&quot;: Bridgeport&apos;s Bright Line for Sound Recordings</title><link>https://iplawyerla.com/blog/bridgeport-music-v-dimension-films-sound-recording-sampling/</link><guid isPermaLink="true">https://iplawyerla.com/blog/bridgeport-music-v-dimension-films-sound-recording-sampling/</guid><description>How the Sixth Circuit&apos;s Bridgeport Music v. Dimension Films created a near-absolute rule against unlicensed sampling of sound recordings—and why the Ninth Circuit later refused to follow it.</description><pubDate>Tue, 18 Feb 2025 00:00:00 GMT</pubDate></item><item><title>Who Owns the Statue? CCNV v. Reid and the Birth of the Agency Test</title><link>https://iplawyerla.com/blog/ccnv-v-reid-work-made-for-hire/</link><guid isPermaLink="true">https://iplawyerla.com/blog/ccnv-v-reid-work-made-for-hire/</guid><description>The Supreme Court&apos;s unanimous 1989 ruling rejected control-based shortcuts and held that common-law agency principles decide whether a creator is an employee or an independent contractor for work-made-for-hire purposes.</description><pubDate>Tue, 18 Feb 2025 00:00:00 GMT</pubDate></item><item><title>A Website Is Not a Service: Couture v. Playdom and the Rendering Requirement</title><link>https://iplawyerla.com/blog/couture-v-playdom-use-in-commerce-services/</link><guid isPermaLink="true">https://iplawyerla.com/blog/couture-v-playdom-use-in-commerce-services/</guid><description>The Federal Circuit holds that advertising a service you have not yet performed cannot support a use-based service-mark registration, voiding the PLAYDOM mark ab initio.</description><pubDate>Tue, 18 Feb 2025 00:00:00 GMT</pubDate></item><item><title>LaserDynamics v. Quanta: How the Entire Market Value Rule Became a Narrow Exception</title><link>https://iplawyerla.com/blog/laserdynamics-v-quanta-entire-market-value-rule/</link><guid isPermaLink="true">https://iplawyerla.com/blog/laserdynamics-v-quanta-entire-market-value-rule/</guid><description>The Federal Circuit held that a patentee cannot base a royalty on the price of a whole laptop when the invention covers only an optical-drive feature, recasting the entire market value rule as a demand-driven exception.</description><pubDate>Tue, 18 Feb 2025 00:00:00 GMT</pubDate></item><item><title>Microsoft v. Motorola: The Ninth Circuit Builds the First Judicial Blueprint for a RAND Royalty</title><link>https://iplawyerla.com/blog/microsoft-v-motorola-rand-royalty-determination/</link><guid isPermaLink="true">https://iplawyerla.com/blog/microsoft-v-motorola-rand-royalty-determination/</guid><description>The Ninth Circuit affirmed the first judge-set RAND rate for standard-essential patents and a jury&apos;s $14.5 million breach-of-contract verdict against the patent holder.</description><pubDate>Tue, 18 Feb 2025 00:00:00 GMT</pubDate></item><item><title>O&apos;Bannon v. NCAA: The Likeness Case That Cracked Amateurism</title><link>https://iplawyerla.com/blog/obannon-v-ncaa-amateurism-antitrust-rule-of-reason/</link><guid isPermaLink="true">https://iplawyerla.com/blog/obannon-v-ncaa-amateurism-antitrust-rule-of-reason/</guid><description>The Ninth Circuit held that NCAA rules barring athletes from sharing in the commercial use of their own names, images, and likenesses violated antitrust law, but capped the remedy at the cost of attendance.</description><pubDate>Tue, 18 Feb 2025 00:00:00 GMT</pubDate></item><item><title>One Voice Is Enough: Scorpio Music v. Willis and the Joint Author&apos;s Solo Termination</title><link>https://iplawyerla.com/blog/scorpio-music-v-willis-joint-author-termination/</link><guid isPermaLink="true">https://iplawyerla.com/blog/scorpio-music-v-willis-joint-author-termination/</guid><description>A Southern District of California ruling held that a co-author of &apos;Y.M.C.A.&apos; who separately granted away his share could terminate that grant alone, without his co-writers&apos; consent.</description><pubDate>Tue, 18 Feb 2025 00:00:00 GMT</pubDate></item><item><title>Stanford v. Roche: Bayh-Dole Did Not Move Title Away From the Inventor</title><link>https://iplawyerla.com/blog/stanford-v-roche-bayh-dole-inventor-assignment/</link><guid isPermaLink="true">https://iplawyerla.com/blog/stanford-v-roche-bayh-dole-inventor-assignment/</guid><description>The Supreme Court held that the Bayh-Dole Act does not automatically vest patent rights in a federally funded university — title still begins with the inventor, and a stray &apos;do hereby assign&apos; can send it elsewhere.</description><pubDate>Tue, 18 Feb 2025 00:00:00 GMT</pubDate></item><item><title>Suprema v. ITC: How Induced Infringement Became an Import Violation</title><link>https://iplawyerla.com/blog/suprema-v-itc-induced-infringement-articles-that-infringe/</link><guid isPermaLink="true">https://iplawyerla.com/blog/suprema-v-itc-induced-infringement-articles-that-infringe/</guid><description>Sitting en banc, the Federal Circuit held that the ITC may bar imports used to induce infringement of a method claim performed only after the goods cross the border.</description><pubDate>Tue, 18 Feb 2025 00:00:00 GMT</pubDate></item><item><title>The Knowledge Line: Tiffany v. eBay and the Limits of Marketplace Liability</title><link>https://iplawyerla.com/blog/tiffany-v-ebay-contributory-marketplace-knowledge/</link><guid isPermaLink="true">https://iplawyerla.com/blog/tiffany-v-ebay-contributory-marketplace-knowledge/</guid><description>The Second Circuit held that an online marketplace is contributorily liable for counterfeit sales only when it knows of specific infringing listings—not because counterfeiting is rampant on its platform generally.</description><pubDate>Tue, 18 Feb 2025 00:00:00 GMT</pubDate></item><item><title>Convolve v. Compaq: When the NDA&apos;s Own Marking Rules Defeat the Secret</title><link>https://iplawyerla.com/blog/convolve-v-compaq-nda-marking-designation-protocol/</link><guid isPermaLink="true">https://iplawyerla.com/blog/convolve-v-compaq-nda-marking-designation-protocol/</guid><description>The Federal Circuit held that a disclosing party who ignored its NDA&apos;s written-designation protocol lost trade-secret protection at the moment of disclosure.</description><pubDate>Wed, 12 Feb 2025 00:00:00 GMT</pubDate></item><item><title>When the Avatar Is You: Lohan v. Take-Two and the Recognizability Line</title><link>https://iplawyerla.com/blog/lohan-v-take-two-avatar-portrait-recognizability/</link><guid isPermaLink="true">https://iplawyerla.com/blog/lohan-v-take-two-avatar-portrait-recognizability/</guid><description>New York&apos;s highest court held that a video-game avatar can be a &apos;portrait&apos; under the right of publicity, but only if the public can actually recognize the plaintiff in it.</description><pubDate>Wed, 12 Feb 2025 00:00:00 GMT</pubDate></item><item><title>Microsoft v. AT&amp;T: When Software Crosses the Border but the Patent Statute Does Not</title><link>https://iplawyerla.com/blog/microsoft-v-att-software-components-271f/</link><guid isPermaLink="true">https://iplawyerla.com/blog/microsoft-v-att-software-components-271f/</guid><description>The Supreme Court holds that supplying a master disk of software from the United States, then copying it abroad, does not &apos;supply&apos; the patented invention&apos;s components under §271(f).</description><pubDate>Wed, 12 Feb 2025 00:00:00 GMT</pubDate></item><item><title>The Whole Act: Zacchini and the Supreme Court&apos;s Only Right-of-Publicity Ruling</title><link>https://iplawyerla.com/blog/zacchini-v-scripps-howard-right-of-publicity-entire-act/</link><guid isPermaLink="true">https://iplawyerla.com/blog/zacchini-v-scripps-howard-right-of-publicity-entire-act/</guid><description>When a TV station aired a human cannonball&apos;s entire fifteen-second performance, the Supreme Court held the First Amendment does not immunize broadcasting a performer&apos;s complete act.</description><pubDate>Wed, 12 Feb 2025 00:00:00 GMT</pubDate></item><item><title>Bilski v. Kappos: When the Machine-or-Transformation Test Became a Clue, Not a Rule</title><link>https://iplawyerla.com/blog/bilski-v-kappos-machine-or-transformation-test/</link><guid isPermaLink="true">https://iplawyerla.com/blog/bilski-v-kappos-machine-or-transformation-test/</guid><description>The Supreme Court rejected hedging as an unpatentable abstract idea while refusing to make the machine-or-transformation test the exclusive gatekeeper for process patents.</description><pubDate>Tue, 11 Feb 2025 00:00:00 GMT</pubDate></item><item><title>Brenner v. Manson: Why a Patent Is Not a Hunting License</title><link>https://iplawyerla.com/blog/brenner-v-manson-substantial-utility-chemical-process/</link><guid isPermaLink="true">https://iplawyerla.com/blog/brenner-v-manson-substantial-utility-chemical-process/</guid><description>The Supreme Court held that a novel process for making a chemical with no known use fails the utility requirement, planting the doctrinal seed of &apos;substantial&apos; utility that still governs the chemical and biotech arts.</description><pubDate>Tue, 11 Feb 2025 00:00:00 GMT</pubDate></item><item><title>Parody Earns Its Keep: Campbell v. Acuff-Rose and the Birth of Transformative Fair Use</title><link>https://iplawyerla.com/blog/campbell-v-acuff-rose-parody-fair-use/</link><guid isPermaLink="true">https://iplawyerla.com/blog/campbell-v-acuff-rose-parody-fair-use/</guid><description>How the Supreme Court rescued 2 Live Crew&apos;s send-up of &apos;Oh, Pretty Woman&apos; and rewrote the four-factor fair-use test around transformation.</description><pubDate>Tue, 11 Feb 2025 00:00:00 GMT</pubDate></item><item><title>&quot;Here&apos;s Johnny&quot; on a Portable Toilet: Carson and the Catchphrase as Identity</title><link>https://iplawyerla.com/blog/carson-v-heres-johnny-portable-toilets-catchphrase-publicity/</link><guid isPermaLink="true">https://iplawyerla.com/blog/carson-v-heres-johnny-portable-toilets-catchphrase-publicity/</guid><description>The Sixth Circuit held that a celebrity&apos;s signature catchphrase can be appropriated even when his name and likeness are never used.</description><pubDate>Tue, 11 Feb 2025 00:00:00 GMT</pubDate></item><item><title>The Garage-Door Case That Tethered the DMCA to Infringement: Chamberlain v. Skylink</title><link>https://iplawyerla.com/blog/chamberlain-v-skylink-dmca-infringement-nexus/</link><guid isPermaLink="true">https://iplawyerla.com/blog/chamberlain-v-skylink-dmca-infringement-nexus/</guid><description>The Federal Circuit refused to let a copyright owner use § 1201 as a tool to lock out an aftermarket competitor, holding that anti-circumvention liability requires a nexus to actual copyright infringement.</description><pubDate>Tue, 11 Feb 2025 00:00:00 GMT</pubDate></item><item><title>Dastar v. Twentieth Century Fox: Who Counts as the &apos;Origin&apos; of Goods Under Section 43(a)</title><link>https://iplawyerla.com/blog/dastar-v-twentieth-century-fox-reverse-passing-off-origin/</link><guid isPermaLink="true">https://iplawyerla.com/blog/dastar-v-twentieth-century-fox-reverse-passing-off-origin/</guid><description>The Supreme Court held that &apos;origin of goods&apos; in the Lanham Act means the producer of the tangible product sold, not the author of the ideas it embodies — sharply narrowing reverse passing off.</description><pubDate>Tue, 11 Feb 2025 00:00:00 GMT</pubDate></item><item><title>Dawn Donut v. Hart&apos;s Food: The Registrant Who Won the Mark but Lost the Injunction</title><link>https://iplawyerla.com/blog/dawn-donut-v-harts-food-stores-concurrent-use-geographic-remoteness/</link><guid isPermaLink="true">https://iplawyerla.com/blog/dawn-donut-v-harts-food-stores-concurrent-use-geographic-remoteness/</guid><description>The Second Circuit&apos;s foundational concurrent-use decision held that a federal registrant cannot enjoin a good-faith remote junior user until it is likely to expand into that user&apos;s trading area — a rule that still shapes every trademark clearance opinion.</description><pubDate>Tue, 11 Feb 2025 00:00:00 GMT</pubDate></item><item><title>To the Batmobile: How DC Comics v. Towle Made a Car a Copyrightable Character</title><link>https://iplawyerla.com/blog/dc-comics-v-towle-batmobile-character-copyright/</link><guid isPermaLink="true">https://iplawyerla.com/blog/dc-comics-v-towle-batmobile-character-copyright/</guid><description>The Ninth Circuit held that the Batmobile is a copyrightable character, building a three-part test that now governs character protection for film and television.</description><pubDate>Tue, 11 Feb 2025 00:00:00 GMT</pubDate></item><item><title>Factors Etc. v. Pro Arts: When an Exclusive Elvis License Outlived the Right It Licensed</title><link>https://iplawyerla.com/blog/factors-etc-v-pro-arts-elvis-presley-descendible-publicity-license/</link><guid isPermaLink="true">https://iplawyerla.com/blog/factors-etc-v-pro-arts-elvis-presley-descendible-publicity-license/</guid><description>The Second Circuit first upheld, then withdrew, an exclusive licensee&apos;s power to enforce Elvis Presley&apos;s posthumous identity — a whiplash that exposed how fragile a celebrity-estate license is when the underlying right depends on an unsettled state law.</description><pubDate>Tue, 11 Feb 2025 00:00:00 GMT</pubDate></item><item><title>Originality Over Effort: Feist v. Rural and the Constitutional Floor for Copyright</title><link>https://iplawyerla.com/blog/feist-v-rural-telephone-originality-compilations/</link><guid isPermaLink="true">https://iplawyerla.com/blog/feist-v-rural-telephone-originality-compilations/</guid><description>In Feist Publications v. Rural Telephone Service (1991), the Supreme Court held that a garden-variety white-pages directory lacked the &apos;modicum of creativity&apos; the Constitution requires, burying the &apos;sweat of the brow&apos; doctrine for good.</description><pubDate>Tue, 11 Feb 2025 00:00:00 GMT</pubDate></item><item><title>The Flexible Bar Survives: Festo v. Shoketsu Kinzoku and the Limits of Estoppel</title><link>https://iplawyerla.com/blog/festo-v-shoketsu-prosecution-history-estoppel-flexible-bar/</link><guid isPermaLink="true">https://iplawyerla.com/blog/festo-v-shoketsu-prosecution-history-estoppel-flexible-bar/</guid><description>The Supreme Court rejected an absolute bar on equivalents after a narrowing amendment, replacing it with a rebuttable presumption that still governs the doctrine of equivalents today.</description><pubDate>Tue, 11 Feb 2025 00:00:00 GMT</pubDate></item><item><title>Gorham v. White: The 1871 Decision That Still Decides Design-Patent Infringement</title><link>https://iplawyerla.com/blog/gorham-co-v-white-ordinary-observer-design-patent/</link><guid isPermaLink="true">https://iplawyerla.com/blog/gorham-co-v-white-ordinary-observer-design-patent/</guid><description>In the first design-patent case it ever heard, the Supreme Court rejected an expert-eye comparison and adopted the ordinary-observer test that still governs infringement more than 150 years later.</description><pubDate>Tue, 11 Feb 2025 00:00:00 GMT</pubDate></item><item><title>Idenix v. Gilead: How a $2.54 Billion Verdict Collapsed on Enablement</title><link>https://iplawyerla.com/blog/idenix-v-gilead-enablement-nucleoside-genus/</link><guid isPermaLink="true">https://iplawyerla.com/blog/idenix-v-gilead-enablement-nucleoside-genus/</guid><description>The Federal Circuit erased the largest patent verdict in U.S. history, holding that a functional nucleoside genus spanning billions of candidate molecules was neither enabled nor adequately described.</description><pubDate>Tue, 11 Feb 2025 00:00:00 GMT</pubDate></item><item><title>The Death of the &apos;Should Have Known&apos; Standard: In re Bose and Fraud on the PTO</title><link>https://iplawyerla.com/blog/in-re-bose-fraud-on-the-pto-intent-to-deceive/</link><guid isPermaLink="true">https://iplawyerla.com/blog/in-re-bose-fraud-on-the-pto-intent-to-deceive/</guid><description>The Federal Circuit reset the bar for fraud on the Trademark Office, holding that a registration falls only on clear and convincing proof of a subjective intent to deceive.</description><pubDate>Tue, 11 Feb 2025 00:00:00 GMT</pubDate></item><item><title>Corn in the Mainstream Patent System: J.E.M. Ag Supply v. Pioneer Hi-Bred and the Utility Patent for Plants</title><link>https://iplawyerla.com/blog/jem-ag-supply-v-pioneer-hi-bred-utility-patents-plants/</link><guid isPermaLink="true">https://iplawyerla.com/blog/jem-ag-supply-v-pioneer-hi-bred-utility-patents-plants/</guid><description>The Supreme Court held that ordinary utility patents are available for plants, and that neither the Plant Patent Act nor the Plant Variety Protection Act is the exclusive route to protecting a new variety.</description><pubDate>Tue, 11 Feb 2025 00:00:00 GMT</pubDate></item><item><title>Kirtsaeng v. Wiley: How &apos;Objective Reasonableness&apos; Anchors Copyright Fee-Shifting</title><link>https://iplawyerla.com/blog/kirtsaeng-v-wiley-attorneys-fees-objective-reasonableness/</link><guid isPermaLink="true">https://iplawyerla.com/blog/kirtsaeng-v-wiley-attorneys-fees-objective-reasonableness/</guid><description>On the second trip to the Supreme Court, Kirtsaeng resolved how district courts should weigh a losing party&apos;s litigating position when awarding attorneys&apos; fees under § 505 of the Copyright Act.</description><pubDate>Tue, 11 Feb 2025 00:00:00 GMT</pubDate></item><item><title>Kirtsaeng v. Wiley: First Sale Goes Global and the Gray Market Comes Home</title><link>https://iplawyerla.com/blog/kirtsaeng-v-wiley-first-sale-gray-market/</link><guid isPermaLink="true">https://iplawyerla.com/blog/kirtsaeng-v-wiley-first-sale-gray-market/</guid><description>The Supreme Court read &apos;lawfully made under this title&apos; geographically neutral, holding that § 109&apos;s first-sale doctrine exhausts the distribution right in copies manufactured abroad.</description><pubDate>Tue, 11 Feb 2025 00:00:00 GMT</pubDate></item><item><title>KSR v. Teleflex: The Day the Rigid Obviousness Test Died</title><link>https://iplawyerla.com/blog/ksr-v-teleflex-flexible-obviousness-standard/</link><guid isPermaLink="true">https://iplawyerla.com/blog/ksr-v-teleflex-flexible-obviousness-standard/</guid><description>The Supreme Court replaced the Federal Circuit&apos;s mechanical teaching-suggestion-motivation test with a flexible, common-sense obviousness inquiry that still governs every Section 103 dispute today.</description><pubDate>Tue, 11 Feb 2025 00:00:00 GMT</pubDate></item><item><title>Dracula Dies With the Actor: Lugosi v. Universal and the Birth of the Descendibility Debate</title><link>https://iplawyerla.com/blog/lugosi-v-universal-pictures-descendible-right-of-publicity/</link><guid isPermaLink="true">https://iplawyerla.com/blog/lugosi-v-universal-pictures-descendible-right-of-publicity/</guid><description>How the California Supreme Court held in 1979 that the right of publicity is personal, dies with its owner, and is not descendible to heirs—prompting the statute that overturned it.</description><pubDate>Tue, 11 Feb 2025 00:00:00 GMT</pubDate></item><item><title>Who Reads the Claim: Markman v. Westview Instruments and the Birth of the Markman Hearing</title><link>https://iplawyerla.com/blog/markman-v-westview-instruments-judge-jury-claim-construction/</link><guid isPermaLink="true">https://iplawyerla.com/blog/markman-v-westview-instruments-judge-jury-claim-construction/</guid><description>The Supreme Court held that construing a patent claim is a question for the judge, not the jury—reshaping how every patent case is tried.</description><pubDate>Tue, 11 Feb 2025 00:00:00 GMT</pubDate></item><item><title>Matal v. Tam: Why the Lanham Act Cannot Punish a Band Called The Slants</title><link>https://iplawyerla.com/blog/matal-v-tam-disparagement-clause/</link><guid isPermaLink="true">https://iplawyerla.com/blog/matal-v-tam-disparagement-clause/</guid><description>A unanimous Supreme Court held that trademarks are private speech and that the disparagement clause was viewpoint discrimination the First Amendment forbids — even when the speaker is reclaiming a slur.</description><pubDate>Tue, 11 Feb 2025 00:00:00 GMT</pubDate></item><item><title>Oil States v. Greene&apos;s Energy: Why the Supreme Court Let the PTAB Cancel Patents</title><link>https://iplawyerla.com/blog/oil-states-v-greenes-energy-ipr-constitutionality/</link><guid isPermaLink="true">https://iplawyerla.com/blog/oil-states-v-greenes-energy-ipr-constitutionality/</guid><description>The Supreme Court held that inter partes review does not violate Article III or the Seventh Amendment because a patent is a public right the agency may reconsider.</description><pubDate>Tue, 11 Feb 2025 00:00:00 GMT</pubDate></item><item><title>Interoperability Is Not Infringement: The Ninth Circuit Rewires Derivative-Works Law in Oracle v. Rimini Street</title><link>https://iplawyerla.com/blog/oracle-v-rimini-street-derivative-works/</link><guid isPermaLink="true">https://iplawyerla.com/blog/oracle-v-rimini-street-derivative-works/</guid><description>The Ninth Circuit&apos;s December 2024 decision holds that software built to interoperate with a copyrighted program is not a derivative work without &apos;something more&apos; — actual copying of protected expression.</description><pubDate>Tue, 11 Feb 2025 00:00:00 GMT</pubDate></item><item><title>Person&apos;s Co. v. Christman: Foreign Use, U.S. Priority, and the Limits of Bad Faith</title><link>https://iplawyerla.com/blog/persons-co-v-christman-foreign-use-territoriality/</link><guid isPermaLink="true">https://iplawyerla.com/blog/persons-co-v-christman-foreign-use-territoriality/</guid><description>The Federal Circuit holds that use of a mark abroad creates no priority in the United States, and that knowledge of a foreign mark does not by itself defeat good-faith domestic adoption.</description><pubDate>Tue, 11 Feb 2025 00:00:00 GMT</pubDate></item><item><title>Pfaff v. Wells Electronics: When an Idea Becomes &apos;Ready for Patenting&apos;</title><link>https://iplawyerla.com/blog/pfaff-v-wells-electronics-on-sale-bar-ready-for-patenting/</link><guid isPermaLink="true">https://iplawyerla.com/blog/pfaff-v-wells-electronics-on-sale-bar-ready-for-patenting/</guid><description>The Supreme Court replaced the Federal Circuit&apos;s vague &apos;substantially complete&apos; standard with a two-part on-sale-bar test that can start the clock before a prototype ever exists.</description><pubDate>Tue, 11 Feb 2025 00:00:00 GMT</pubDate></item><item><title>A Shade of Green-Gold: Qualitex v. Jacobson and the Trademarking of Color Alone</title><link>https://iplawyerla.com/blog/qualitex-v-jacobson-color-trademark/</link><guid isPermaLink="true">https://iplawyerla.com/blog/qualitex-v-jacobson-color-trademark/</guid><description>A unanimous Supreme Court held that a single color can serve as a trademark once it acquires secondary meaning, while making functionality the gatekeeper that keeps color from becoming a competitive chokehold.</description><pubDate>Tue, 11 Feb 2025 00:00:00 GMT</pubDate></item><item><title>Sandoz v. Amgen: The Patent Dance Is a Choice, Not a Command</title><link>https://iplawyerla.com/blog/sandoz-v-amgen-bpcia-patent-dance/</link><guid isPermaLink="true">https://iplawyerla.com/blog/sandoz-v-amgen-bpcia-patent-dance/</guid><description>The Supreme Court&apos;s first reading of the biosimilars statute held that the BPCIA&apos;s elaborate pre-litigation information exchange cannot be forced by federal injunction, and that a biosimilar applicant may give its marketing notice before the FDA licenses the product.</description><pubDate>Tue, 11 Feb 2025 00:00:00 GMT</pubDate></item><item><title>Steele v. Bulova Watch Co.: The Lanham Act Follows the Citizen Across the Border</title><link>https://iplawyerla.com/blog/steele-v-bulova-watch-lanham-act-foreign-commerce/</link><guid isPermaLink="true">https://iplawyerla.com/blog/steele-v-bulova-watch-lanham-act-foreign-commerce/</guid><description>The 1952 decision that first let an American trademark owner reach a U.S. citizen&apos;s infringing conduct abroad — and seeded seven decades of doctrinal fights over the foreign reach of the Lanham Act.</description><pubDate>Tue, 11 Feb 2025 00:00:00 GMT</pubDate></item><item><title>Raising the Bar: Therasense v. Becton, Dickinson and the New Inequitable-Conduct Standard</title><link>https://iplawyerla.com/blog/therasense-v-becton-dickinson-inequitable-conduct/</link><guid isPermaLink="true">https://iplawyerla.com/blog/therasense-v-becton-dickinson-inequitable-conduct/</guid><description>The en banc Federal Circuit rebuilt the inequitable-conduct doctrine around but-for materiality and specific intent to deceive, narrowing the &apos;plague&apos; of unenforceability defenses.</description><pubDate>Tue, 11 Feb 2025 00:00:00 GMT</pubDate></item></channel></rss>