-
Dec 1, 2024 | 
lawjournalnewsletters.com | Catherine Nyarady |Crystal Parker
Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30% Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
-
Nov 26, 2024 | 
bakerbotts.com | Rob Maier |Catherine Nyarady |Crystal Parker
Who Got The Work Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct.
-
Sep 24, 2024 | 
bakerbotts.com | Rob Maier |Alex Anteau |Catherine Nyarady |Crystal Parker
Who Got The Work Burr & Forman partner Garry K. Grooms has entered an appearance for 4M Acquisitions and Wallace D. Tweden in a pending environmental lawsuit. The action, filed July 22 in Tennessee Middle District Court by the McKellar Law Group and Mark E.
-
Aug 1, 2024 | 
lawjournalnewsletters.com | Catherine Nyarady |Crystal Parker
Intellectual PropertyLitigationPatent Licensing and TransactionsPatent LitigationThe Act is intended to guard against patent trolling and creates a private cause of action for those targeted by bad faith infringement assertions and contemplates two types of relief: remedies and a bond requirement. On May 3, 2023, Judge David C. Nye of the U.S. District Court for the District of Idaho issued an order in Katana Silicon Technologies v. Micron Technology, 671 F.Supp.3d 1138 (D.
-
Jul 9, 2024 | 
law.com | Catherine Nyarady |Crystal Parker
On May 3, 2023, Judge David C. Nye of the U.S. District Court for the District of Idaho issued an order in Katana Silicon Technologies v. Micron Technology, 671 F.Supp.3d 1138 (D. Idaho 2023) and Micron Technology v. Longhorn IP, No. 1:22-cv-00273-DCN (D. Idaho July 5, 2022) (collectively, the litigations), imposing the first-ever bond order under Idaho’s Bad Faith Assertions of Patent Infringement Act (the act).
-
May 7, 2024 | 
law.com | Catherine Nyarady |Crystal Parker
On April 15, 2024, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit affirmed a district court decision denying trademark registration to TBL Licensing LLC (Timberland) for its Timberland boots. Timberland had sought trademark registration for eight specific features of one its boots on the theory that the features were “distinctive” and that consumers identified those features with Timberland.
-
Mar 12, 2024 | 
law.com | Catherine Nyarady |Crystal Parker
An en banc panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit will soon decide whether to amend its long-standing framework for assessing design patent obviousness, known as the Rosen-Durling test. The forthcoming decision in LKQ v. GM Global Technology Operations, No. 2021-2348 (LKQ) will be the first en banc decision the Federal Circuit has issued in a design patent case since 2008. On Feb.
-
Jan 9, 2024 | 
law.com | Catherine Nyarady |Crystal Parker
On Dec. 5, 2023, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit determined that no special First Amendment protections applied to a defendant’s use of the Vans Inc. (Vans) Old Skool shoe trademark in selling its own shoes purportedly intended as a critique of sneaker culture. See Vans v. MSCHF Product Studio, 88 F.4th 125, 128 (2d Cir. 2023).
-
Nov 7, 2023 | 
law.com | Catherine Nyarady |Crystal Parker
On Aug. 18, 2023, the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia granted summary judgment for the United States Copyright Office (Copyright Office) in Thaler v. Perlmutter, 1:22-cv-1564 (D.D.C.), affirming the Copyright Office’s denial of copyright registration for artwork created by a generative artificial intelligence (generative AI) system.
-
Sep 12, 2023 | 
law.com | Catherine Nyarady |Crystal Parker
The Lanham Act provides legal protections to trademark holders and, since 1946, it has prohibited the registration of any trademark containing the name, portrait or signature of a living person, except with their written consent. The U.S. Supreme Court will consider whether this prohibition presents a conflict with the Free Speech Clause of the First Amendment. In particular, the court is positioned, in granting certiorari in Vidal v. Elster (Dkt.
