The second prong concerns personal jurisdiction, which means that the accused infringer must establish that a federal district court has the authority to exercise its power over the defendant (i.e., the patent owner). This can be established by proving that the defendant had certain minimum contacts with the state in which the court sat.

A patent owner who attempts to inform a potential infringer about his or her patent rights runs the risk that the accused infringer might decide to file a declaratory judgment action. Through such an action, the accused infringer can seek to have a court declare that the accused infringer is not infringing the patent-at-issue. Alternatively, the accused infringer might seek to have the court declare that the patent is invalid.

More than a century ago, Supreme Court Justice Joseph P. Bradley observed...

The most-recent intellectual-property decision by the Supreme Court concerned the issue of assignor estoppel.

My last blog post discussed two changes to the U.S. trademark prosecution process that were contained within the recently enacted Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2021 (CAA). This blog will discuss two new types of administrative proceedings that were created by the CAA.

My last blog post discussed the changes to U.S. copyright law that were contained within the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2021 (“CAA”), which was signed into law on Dec. 27, 2020, primarily to provide relief from the economic damage caused by COVID-19.

The Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2021 was signed into law on Dec. 27, 2020. The primary purpose of the law is to provide relief from the economic damage caused by COVID-19. However, the law also includes two significant changes to U.S. copyright law.

An initiative by the Chinese government to encourage its citizens to obtain United States trademark registrations and other intellectual property led to a substantial increase in filings in the United States Patent and Trademark Office.

A recent decision by the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, the second highest appellate court for patent cases in the United States, demonstrates the difference between inventorship and ownership ... again.

The Supreme Court made a very narrow ruling on the issue of “defense preclusion” in a trademark action in Lucky Brand Dungarees Inc. v. Marcel Fashions Group Inc., Docket No. 18-1086 (May 14, 2020).