The USPTO has published a report on its public review of the rules patent eligible subject matter under US law – what we would call a “manner of manufacture”.
Feedspot has posted a listing of 100 IP blogs from around the world.
The US Supreme Court has declared that an authorised sale of a patented product abroad exhausts the patentee’s rights over that product within the United States of America.
Selected links from last week
Just in time for the 2015 Copyright Symposium, the Second Circuit Court of Appeals has ruled that the Google Books Project is “fair use” of copyright and so not infringing. Judgment here (pdf). Opinion authored by Circuit Judge Leval. Eleanora of the IPkats first look here; Rebecca Tushnet focuses on the fourth factor discussion here. The “four factors” from §107 are: (1) the purpose and character of the use, including whether such.. Read More
Monash is holding a seminar on fair use: ‘Is there a case for fair use? Lessons from the US’, with the lead presenter being Prof. Geoffrey Scott from Penn State’s School of Law. Date: 2 July 25 June at 5:15pm. (Lid dip: Gerard Dalton) Venue: Monash University Law Chambers, Melbourne. Details and registration via here.
Yesterday, the US Supreme Court heard oral arguments on the patentability of Alice Corporation’s payment system.
Software patents: US Supreme Court grants certiorari to determine patentability of Alice Corp’s computer related patent
Well written piece in The New Yorker outlining the role of the US International Trade Commission in patent disputes and President Obama’s veto of the ITC’s order to block imports of “older” Apple products. Mind you, make sure you are not eating your cornflakes over breakfast or sipping your decaf skinny latte when you get to the paragraph: Samsung’s lawyers may take their talents to Seoul, Tokyo, London, or other venues.. Read More
Following last week’s post where Arnold J found Marks & Spencer liable for buying ads on the keyword INTERFLORA because of the initial interest confusion, the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals in the USA has heavily qualified when (perhaps that should be “if” or “if ever”) initial interest confusion can constitute trade mark infringement in the USA. The case is 1-800 Contacts, Inc. v. Lens.com, Inc., 2013 WL 3665627 (10th Cir… Read More