all - Opinion Summaries

INTERMATIC INC. v. LAMSON & SESSIONS CO.

Intellectual Property, Patent
Prosecution history estoppel applies to a claim limitation that was narrowed in order to obtain allowance of a claim during reexamination, despite the...

BOSE CORP. v. JBL, INC.

Intellectual Property, Patent
For purposes of the doctrine of equivalents, a claim that a device has "an ellipse" does not narrow the scope of a claim against a device with a "a...

IN RE THRIFTY, INC.

Intellectual Property, Trademark
A mark consisting solely of a color is not analogous to a word mark, in that the commercial impression of a color mark varies as its medium changes.

SMITH & NEPHEW, INC. v. ETHICON, INC.

Intellectual Property, Patent
Failure to disclose all procedures in the claim does not automatically invalidate a patent or make undiclosed procedures part of the public domain.

US v. BROADCAST MUSIC, INC.

Intellectual Property, Copyright
A blanket license for music performance with a fee structure that includes reductions (or "carve-outs") to reflect any per piece or direct licenses...

VITTORIA N. AM., L.L.C. v. EURO-ASIA IMPS. INC.

Intellectual Property, Trademark, International Trade
A domestic distributor's agreement with foreign manufacturer to jointly develop and market trademarked goods in the US does not make the two entities...

GIONFRIDDO v. MAJOR LEAGUE BASEBALL

Intellectual Property, Sports Law
Sport's league's use of factual data concerning players, their performance statistics, and verbal descriptions and video depictions of their play does...

J.E.M. AG SUPPLY INC. v. PIONEER HI-BRED INT'L, INC.

Intellectual Property
Newly developed plant breeds are subject to 35 USC 101 of the Patent Act and neither the Plant Patent Act of 1930 or Plant Variety Protection Act...

BOISSON v. BANIAN, LTD.

Intellectual Property, Copyright
The alphabetical arrangement of the letters in the five-by-six block format on a quilt required some minimum degree of creativity and is thus...

DETHMERS MFG. CO., INC. v. AUTOMATIC EQUIPMENT MFG CO.

Intellectual Property, Patent
Word-for-word correspondence is not required between a reissue declaration and the changes made in a reissue application under 37 CFR 1.175(a).