On Monday May 22, 2017, the United States Supreme Court decided TC Heartland LLC v. Kraft Foods Group Brands LLC. Justice Thomas wrote the 8-0 opinion. In TC Heartland LLC, the Court reaffirmed its original interpretation of 28 U.S.C. Section 1400(b), holding “that a domestic corporation ‘resides’ only in its State of Incorporation for the purposes of the patent venue statute.” This holding will likely have a tremendous impact on patent litigation because of the limits it pla

Just in time for my birthday at the end of the month, a federal judge ruled that the lyrics to “Happy Birthday to You” are in the public domain and not copyrighted by Warner/Chappell Music. U.S. District Judge George H. King ruled Tuesday that the copyright originally filed by the Clayton F. Summy Co. in 1935 granted only the rights to specific arrangements of the tune and not its lyrics. According to court documents, the music for “Happy Birthday to You,” which was originall

The podcasting bridge has one less troll thanks to a patent challenge from the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF). In April, the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office partially invalidated U.S. Patent No. 8,112,504 owned by Personal Audio, LLC, of Texas. Over the years, Personal Audio enforced this patent and was able to challenge and threaten podcasters in court, sometimes successfully. But the USPTO reached back in time and basically rescinded their previous approval. This Gro

In Part I of this article regarding the Pennsylvania federal court copyright infringement law suit brought by the heirs of songwriter Randy Craig Wolfe (aka California Randy) in Skidmore, et al. v. Led Zeppelin, et al., No. 2:14-cv-03089 (E.D. Pa., May 31, 2014), I discussed the bare bones of the lawsuit and how copyright law will impact the suit. In this installment I will go in depth about the song and the background of the parties involved. In 1970, Led Zeppelin’s guitaris

Have you ever seen the 1992 film Wayne’s World when Wayne Campbell, played by Mike Myers, visits a music store and picks up a guitar, and launches into the first few notes of Led Zeppelin’s “Stairway to Heaven” only to be cut short by a clerk pointing to a sign reading “No ‘Stairway to Heaven?'” The joke is pretty simple: most novice electric guitarists attempt to learn that song early on. The joke in the film became less funny when Led Zeppelin refused to allow those notes t

Taking a “Selfie” is old hat these days. I am usually the last person to engage in the latest trend, but after trading in my flip phone just last year and upgrading to a phone with a good camera, I have surrendered to the trend and taken photographs of myself out with the girls or at my favorite new restaurant. My guilt over my narcissistic behavior was eased a little when I saw the adorable selfies taken by an Indonesian macaque. I was delighted, but British photographer Dav

It has been a hot summer for intellectual property law geeks. The season opened with a storm accusing the Washington NFL team of using a derogatory term for its team name. The Trademark Trial and Appeal Board ruled that it was and canceled the relevant marks. Lightning and thunder ensued. The summer cooled at the end with an actual debate over ownership of a photo taken by a monkey. Yes, a photo taken by a monkey was debated by serious legal minds. Suddenly, David Letterman’s

On June 18, 2014, the Trademark Trial and Appeals Board (TTAB) of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office canceled six registered REDSKINS marks owned by Pro-Football, Inc.1 for the second time.2 In 1992, seven Native Americans filed a petition to cancel the same six REDSKINS marks. After seven years of litigation, the TTAB ordered the cancelation of the marks. In 2008, the United States District Court for the District of Columbia overturned the TTAB order under the affirmative

The A&E Channel is not the only one targeting the popular family behind Duck Dynasty. The Robertson family has found themselves in yet another controversy, this time it’s centered on a wine label. Duckhorn, a Napa Valley wine company, is pursuing a trademark infringement and unfair competition lawsuit against Trinchero Family Estates and its Duck Commander line of wines. The Wines From information stated in the complaint, Duckhorn is based in Napa Valley and has used the “Duc

On May 25, 2011, the U.S. Supreme Court decided the case of Therasense, Inc., et al. v. Becton, Dickinson and Company, et al., which changed the standards for a finding of inequitable conduct which is an equitable defense to patent infringement. If proven, inequitable conduct bars enforcement of a patent. Prior to Therasense, the standards for a finding of inequitable conduct involved a broader scope of misconduct, including not only intentional acts of misconduct intended to

Last month, we discussed the trademark lawsuit by Christian Louboutin (“Louboutin”) against Yves Saint Laurent (“YSL”). You can read our article here. At that time, the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit was considering an appeal of the decision of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York denying Louboutin’s motion for preliminary injunction. Louboutin claimed that YSL had infringed Louboutin’s trademark glossy red outsoles on

I was once asked, “Why do you have so many pairs of shoes when you can only wear one pair at a time?” I admit, I do own more shoes than I probably need, as do most women; however, I find it very hard to resist the temptation to purchase that beautiful heel that would go so perfect with that dress that I have hanging in my closet. So, I purchase them, only to have them kill my feet, at which time they will commence to lay in their permanent new home, the back of my closet. I h

The United States Supreme Court issued a unanimous decision on March 20, 2012 in the case Mayo Collaborative Services, dba Mayo Medical Laboratores, et al. v. Prometheus Laboratories, Inc., 566 U.S. _____ (2012). The Court held that a claim applying a law of nature, without more, is not patentable: “to transform an unpatentable law of nature into a patent-eligible application of such a law, a patent must do more than simply state the law of nature while adding the words ‘appl

The United States Supreme Court will hear oral arguments on April 18, 2011 in the case Microsoft Corp. v. i4i Limited Partnership. The pleadings frame the question presented as follows: The Patent Act provides that "[a] patent shall be presumed valid" and that "[t]he burden of establishing invalidity of a patent or any claim thereof shall rest on the party asserting such invalidity." 35 U.S.C. § 282. The Federal Circuit held below that Microsoft was required to prove its de

The United States Supreme Court granted certiorari in Global-Tech Appliances Inc. v. SEB S.A. on October 12, 2010, thereby agreeing to consider the case concerning the level of intent required for a claim of active inducement of patent infringement under 35 USC § 271(b). The question presented in the case is: Whether the legal standard for the state of mind element of a claim for actively inducing infringement under 35 USC § 271 (b) is “deliberate indifference of a known risk

The United States Supreme Court recently issued a much-anticipated decision in the case Bilski v. Kappos, 561 US ___ (2010). The Court held that business methods are not categorically excluded from patent protection, and that the machine-or-transformation test is not the sole test for determining patent eligibility of a process. In Bilski, the petitioner sought patent protection for a method of hedging risk in the energy market. The USPTO rejected the application, finding tha

The Federal Circuit, in Egyptian Goddess, Inc. v. Swisa, Inc., 543 F.3d 665, 2008 WL 4290856 (Fed.Cir. 2008) (en banc) (No. 06-1562), recently clarified “the appropriate legal standard to be used in assessing claims of design patent infringement.” The court held “that the ‘point of novelty’ test should no longer be used in the analysis of a claim of design patent infringement.” Rather, “the ‘ordinary observer’ test should be the sole test for determining whether a design pate

The Supreme Court recently issued a unanimous opinion that could change the way the United States Patent and Trademark Office and the courts decide whether an invention is obvious and, therefore, must be denied patent protection. In KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. ___ (2007), the Court does away with the strict “teaching, suggestion, or motivation” test employed by lower courts in favor of a reiteration of its previous, more flexible approach. Under the stand

Three medical school professors from the University of Colorado and Columbia University developed a method to diagnose low levels of cobalamin and folate, two vitamins found in the blood serum of warm-blooded animals. Brief for Respondents at 1-2, 6. Their research revealed that low levels of these vitamins correlate with high levels of the amino acid homocysteine. Id. at 2. The professors argue that this research is unique because they were the first to study the relationshi

No. 04-480 (U.S. June 27, 2005) The U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that anyone who distributes a device — including software — is liable for copyright infringement committed by others if the device is distributed “with the object of promoting its use to infringe copyright, as shown by clear expression or other affirmative steps taken to foster infringement.” In so doing, the Court vacated a lower court’s judgment in favor of defendants and remanded the case for further proceedi