This document summarizes several recent and upcoming Supreme Court cases related to intellectual property law. It discusses key holdings and issues in cases like Cuozzo v. Lee regarding the appealability of Patent Office decisions, Halo v. Pulse regarding standards for enhanced patent damages, and Samsung v. Apple regarding the scope of design patent damages. It also previews several patent cases the Supreme Court has agreed to hear in its upcoming 2016 term.
July’s practice group lunch included an overview of recent decisions, the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, and the United States Supreme Court. The Supreme Court addressed a number of patent law topics this year, including the standard of review for patent claim construction (Teva Pharmaceuticals v. Sandoz), royalties on expired patents (Kimble v. Marvel Enterprises), and defenses to claims of induced infringement (Commil v. Cisco). The initial wave of appeals in post-issuance proceedings provided by the America Invents Act are now being decided by the Federal Circuit. These include cases involving whether the decision to institute is reviewable (In re Cuozzo Speed Technologies) and discussion of the claim construction standards that apply (Microsoft v. Proxyconn). The relationship between administrative challenges and related litigation is also an evolving area (ePlus v. Lawson Software).
Topics covered in this month’s patent prosecution presentation include the Supreme Court’s ruling in the Microsoft v. i4i case upholding the clear and convincing standard. Case law dealing with “analogous art” for mechanical cases is also addressed. Finally, recent case law from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) dealing with inequitable conduct and Bayh-Dole Act is presented.
Topics covered in this month's patent prosecution presentation include recent case law from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) dealing with reissue applications and dependent claims. A brief overview of the arguments being presented in the Microsoft v. i4i case is also reviewed. Oral arguments in this case were recently heard by the United States Supreme Court. Case law developments dealing with written description for mechanical cases is also addressed. Finally, an overview on the breakdown of patent applications filed in Europe in 2010 is presented.
Topics covered in this month’s patent prosecution presentation included:
- Discussion of inequitable conduct cases post-Therasense
- A recent claim construction case in which the Federal Circuit was somewhat in conflict over the best manner for claim construction
- The business method patent review section of the HR 1249-America Invents Act
- Recent Supreme Court cases Kappos v. Hyatt and Caraco Pharm. Labs., Ltd. v. Novo Nordisk A/S.
Topics covered in this month’s patent group presentation include proposed federal trade secret legislation, recent case law regarding the presumption of irreparable harm, and recent case law regarding factual findings and new grounds for rejections.
July’s practice group lunch included an overview of recent decisions, the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, and the United States Supreme Court. The Supreme Court addressed a number of patent law topics this year, including the standard of review for patent claim construction (Teva Pharmaceuticals v. Sandoz), royalties on expired patents (Kimble v. Marvel Enterprises), and defenses to claims of induced infringement (Commil v. Cisco). The initial wave of appeals in post-issuance proceedings provided by the America Invents Act are now being decided by the Federal Circuit. These include cases involving whether the decision to institute is reviewable (In re Cuozzo Speed Technologies) and discussion of the claim construction standards that apply (Microsoft v. Proxyconn). The relationship between administrative challenges and related litigation is also an evolving area (ePlus v. Lawson Software).
Topics covered in this month’s patent prosecution presentation include the Supreme Court’s ruling in the Microsoft v. i4i case upholding the clear and convincing standard. Case law dealing with “analogous art” for mechanical cases is also addressed. Finally, recent case law from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) dealing with inequitable conduct and Bayh-Dole Act is presented.
Topics covered in this month's patent prosecution presentation include recent case law from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) dealing with reissue applications and dependent claims. A brief overview of the arguments being presented in the Microsoft v. i4i case is also reviewed. Oral arguments in this case were recently heard by the United States Supreme Court. Case law developments dealing with written description for mechanical cases is also addressed. Finally, an overview on the breakdown of patent applications filed in Europe in 2010 is presented.
Topics covered in this month’s patent prosecution presentation included:
- Discussion of inequitable conduct cases post-Therasense
- A recent claim construction case in which the Federal Circuit was somewhat in conflict over the best manner for claim construction
- The business method patent review section of the HR 1249-America Invents Act
- Recent Supreme Court cases Kappos v. Hyatt and Caraco Pharm. Labs., Ltd. v. Novo Nordisk A/S.
Topics covered in this month’s patent group presentation include proposed federal trade secret legislation, recent case law regarding the presumption of irreparable harm, and recent case law regarding factual findings and new grounds for rejections.
Georgetown Univ. Law Center Conference: Patent Law Developments in the Suprem...WilmerHale
From The Georgetown University Law Center Conference: The Changing Patent Landscape held on March 23, 2015.
This presentation covers:
- Patent Eligibility: The Alice Effect
- Attorney’s Fees: The Octane/Highmark Fallout
- Indefiniteness: The Nautilus Voyage
- Patent Damages: Reasonable royalties after VirnetX and D-Link
- Injunctive Relief: eBay, Apple/Samsung, and the ITC
- Inter Partes Reviews: The Gathering Appellate Storm
- The Next Wave: Teva, Commil, Kimble, Google
Topics covered in this month’s patent prosecution presentation include a discussion of the new extended missing parts program, the Microsoft v. i4i case in which the clear and convincing standard for the presumption of validity is being challenged, the Costco v. Omega case regarding foreign first sale doctrine, patent office appeals practice, and joint infringement.
Topics covered in this month’s patent group presentation include prioritized examination, discussion of a case regarding the De Novo standard of review, and discussion of recent case law following the Bilski decision.
Georgetown Univ. Law Center Conference: Post-Grant Patent Proceedings: Are th...WilmerHale
From The Georgetown University Law Center Conference: The Changing Patent Landscape held on March 23, 2015.
This presentation covers:
- Statistics on Post-Grant Proceedings
- Rule Changes for Post-Grant Proceedings
- IPR as Part of a Litigation Strategy
- Patent Owner’s Strategy in an IPR
- IPR Termination
Session V. Estoppel and Privity in US PTO Post-Grant ProceedingsWilmerHale
Shared at the IIPI/BNA AIA Post-Grant
Patent Practice Conference.
Session V. Estoppel and Privity in US PTO Post-Grant Proceedings covers:
1) Estoppel - Privity
• When does issue arise?
• What factors are important?
• How is the issue resolved
2) Practice tips
• Evaluating Privity
• Arguing Estoppel
3) Mock Arguments
Enhanced Damages for Patent Infringement - Workman NydeggerWorkman Nydegger
Enhanced damages in patent infringement suits in recent years have been limited due to the application of the Seagate test. This test was developed as a standard used by courts to determine when to award enhanced damages. The Supreme Court’s recent decision in Halo v. Pulse found the Seagate test to be unduly rigid and inconsistent with the actual statute regarding enhanced damages. The Court restored the process of awarding enhanced damages to its intended scope.
We review the history of enhanced damages in patent infringement suits, including the introduction of the Seagate test. Halo v. Pulse is reviewed and the Supreme Court’s reasoning behind eliminating the Seagate test is described. We also discuss the impact the removal of the Seagate test has on patent infringement suits and potential patent infringers.
http://www.wnlaw.com/blog/enhanced-damages-patent-infringement-halo-v-pulse/
Patents on Software and Business Methods: Have the Rules Changed?Karl Larson
The standard for patentable subject matter under Bilski is a “machine-or-transformation test,” which restricts patenting to inventions that are either tied to a particular machine or apparatus, or that transform a particular article into a different state or thing.
On November 30, 2010, Woodard, Emhardt attorney John Bradshaw was a featured speaker in a webinar entitled “Summary of Pitfalls and Strategies to Avoid Charges of Inequitable Conduct.” The webinar was part of the Practical Tips for Young Lawyers series sponsored by the Intellectual Property Section of the American Bar Association. Mr. Bradshaw's presentation focused on the development of the doctrine of inequitable conduct and included a summary of specific circumstances where inequitable conduct has been found. Predictions on where the doctrine may be heading and current best practices for patent prosecutors was also discussed.
Topics covered in this month’s presentation included:
• Federal Circuit “computer readable medium” claim eligibility
• Update on patent eligibility of isolated DNA
• USPTO’s Ombudsman Program became permanent
• USPTO just issued Patent No. 8,000,000
Topics covered: America Invents Act
Effective Dates
Major Changes to 102 & 103
Derivation Proceedings
Post Grant Review
Citation of Art
Prior Use Defense
Miscellaneous Provisions
Page copy:
Knobbe Practice Japan Webinar Series
Partners Irfan Lateef and Mauricio Uribe provided an overview of patent litigation in the United States. They provided insights and practical tips related to understanding patent litigation in the United States and developing effective litigation strategies, including phases, timelines and milestones, fees and costs, and legal remedies. The presentation was summarized in Japanese by IP Strategist, Kenny Masaki.
Georgetown Univ. Law Center Conference: Patent Law Developments in the Suprem...WilmerHale
From The Georgetown University Law Center Conference: The Changing Patent Landscape held on March 23, 2015.
This presentation covers:
- Patent Eligibility: The Alice Effect
- Attorney’s Fees: The Octane/Highmark Fallout
- Indefiniteness: The Nautilus Voyage
- Patent Damages: Reasonable royalties after VirnetX and D-Link
- Injunctive Relief: eBay, Apple/Samsung, and the ITC
- Inter Partes Reviews: The Gathering Appellate Storm
- The Next Wave: Teva, Commil, Kimble, Google
Topics covered in this month’s patent prosecution presentation include a discussion of the new extended missing parts program, the Microsoft v. i4i case in which the clear and convincing standard for the presumption of validity is being challenged, the Costco v. Omega case regarding foreign first sale doctrine, patent office appeals practice, and joint infringement.
Topics covered in this month’s patent group presentation include prioritized examination, discussion of a case regarding the De Novo standard of review, and discussion of recent case law following the Bilski decision.
Georgetown Univ. Law Center Conference: Post-Grant Patent Proceedings: Are th...WilmerHale
From The Georgetown University Law Center Conference: The Changing Patent Landscape held on March 23, 2015.
This presentation covers:
- Statistics on Post-Grant Proceedings
- Rule Changes for Post-Grant Proceedings
- IPR as Part of a Litigation Strategy
- Patent Owner’s Strategy in an IPR
- IPR Termination
Session V. Estoppel and Privity in US PTO Post-Grant ProceedingsWilmerHale
Shared at the IIPI/BNA AIA Post-Grant
Patent Practice Conference.
Session V. Estoppel and Privity in US PTO Post-Grant Proceedings covers:
1) Estoppel - Privity
• When does issue arise?
• What factors are important?
• How is the issue resolved
2) Practice tips
• Evaluating Privity
• Arguing Estoppel
3) Mock Arguments
Enhanced Damages for Patent Infringement - Workman NydeggerWorkman Nydegger
Enhanced damages in patent infringement suits in recent years have been limited due to the application of the Seagate test. This test was developed as a standard used by courts to determine when to award enhanced damages. The Supreme Court’s recent decision in Halo v. Pulse found the Seagate test to be unduly rigid and inconsistent with the actual statute regarding enhanced damages. The Court restored the process of awarding enhanced damages to its intended scope.
We review the history of enhanced damages in patent infringement suits, including the introduction of the Seagate test. Halo v. Pulse is reviewed and the Supreme Court’s reasoning behind eliminating the Seagate test is described. We also discuss the impact the removal of the Seagate test has on patent infringement suits and potential patent infringers.
http://www.wnlaw.com/blog/enhanced-damages-patent-infringement-halo-v-pulse/
Patents on Software and Business Methods: Have the Rules Changed?Karl Larson
The standard for patentable subject matter under Bilski is a “machine-or-transformation test,” which restricts patenting to inventions that are either tied to a particular machine or apparatus, or that transform a particular article into a different state or thing.
On November 30, 2010, Woodard, Emhardt attorney John Bradshaw was a featured speaker in a webinar entitled “Summary of Pitfalls and Strategies to Avoid Charges of Inequitable Conduct.” The webinar was part of the Practical Tips for Young Lawyers series sponsored by the Intellectual Property Section of the American Bar Association. Mr. Bradshaw's presentation focused on the development of the doctrine of inequitable conduct and included a summary of specific circumstances where inequitable conduct has been found. Predictions on where the doctrine may be heading and current best practices for patent prosecutors was also discussed.
Topics covered in this month’s presentation included:
• Federal Circuit “computer readable medium” claim eligibility
• Update on patent eligibility of isolated DNA
• USPTO’s Ombudsman Program became permanent
• USPTO just issued Patent No. 8,000,000
Topics covered: America Invents Act
Effective Dates
Major Changes to 102 & 103
Derivation Proceedings
Post Grant Review
Citation of Art
Prior Use Defense
Miscellaneous Provisions
Page copy:
Knobbe Practice Japan Webinar Series
Partners Irfan Lateef and Mauricio Uribe provided an overview of patent litigation in the United States. They provided insights and practical tips related to understanding patent litigation in the United States and developing effective litigation strategies, including phases, timelines and milestones, fees and costs, and legal remedies. The presentation was summarized in Japanese by IP Strategist, Kenny Masaki.
July’s practice group lunch included an overview of recent news from the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) and decisions from the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board (TTAB). The USPTO continues to revise its manuals for trademark practice (TMEP and TBMP) on a rolling basis, and has issued new rules and guidance on certain specific types of trademarks, such as collective marks and repeating patterns. The TTAB has decided that it will presume that, between a manufacture and an exclusive distributor, the manufacture owns the mark, subject to rebuttal (UVeritech v. Amax Lighting). Another TTAB case addresses the interaction between the courts and the USPTO, where the TTAB refused to vacate a decision even though the parties later settled the case while on appeal (University of Alabama v. Pitts).
This presentation discusses the nuts and bolts of filing complaints as well as the elements required to file a UDRP action. In addition, the presentation provides an overview of the UDRP process and practical tips on how to handle the UDRP and URS processes.
This article discusses changes in the patent law obviousness doctrine after KSR and provides strategy recommendations for protecting biotechnology inventions
Stays of Litigation Pending Post-AIA Patent ReviewKlemchuk LLP
Brief overview of post-AIA patent review procedures, overview of post-AIA stays of litigation pending patent review, and the analysis of district court orders on motions to stay pending patent review
USPTO Examiner Guidelines Post - Alice v. CLS BankUSPatentsNMore
USPTO Preliminary Examination Instructions in view of U.S. Supreme Court decision Alice Corporation Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank International, et al.
Issued June 25, 2014.
This segment will discuss the statutory and procedural background of post-grant review proceedings. It will discuss the types of proceedings available and provide a high-level discussion of how the proceedings are conducted.
Part of the webinar series:
IP-301 POST-GRANT REVIEW TRIALS 2022
See more at https://www.financialpoise.com/webinars/
Getting past alice schecter patexia (2016-02-25)Patexia Inc.
Mr Schecter's webinar will focus on the aftermath of the Supreme Court decision in the Alice case and potential paths going forward. Mr. Schecter will begin with an examination of how the lower courts and the USPTO have reacted to the Alice decision, and then consider the possibility of additional Supreme Court jurisprudence or legislation.
Marta Paul spoke on recent developments in US trademark law at the August practice group lunch. Topics included the Supreme Court’s decision in Matal v. Tam on “disparaging” trademarks, as well as how the USPTO is handling similar parts of the trademark statute in the wake of the decision. More news from the USPTO included a new examination guideline on “merely informational matter” and recent cases from the TTAB. Finally, Marta discussed a recent precedential decision from the Court of Appeal for the Federal Circuit, In re I.AM.SYMBOLIC, LLC, involving likelihood of confusion and the effect of subject matter limitations in the identifications of goods or services used in trademark applications.
Topics covered in this patent prosecution lunch presentation include information about newly appointed Federal Circuit Judge Kara Stoll and the Cooperative Patent Classification (CPC) system. In addition, the presentation describes recent problems of accessing Private PAIR/EFS Web using the Google Chrome browser as well as how to change an entity size in Private PAIR. It also discusses the new Expedited Patent Appeal Pilot program as well as the Collaborative Search Pilot Programs (CSP) between the US Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO), the Japan Patent Office (JPO), and Korean Intellectual Property Office (KIPO). Some recent decisions concerning divisional applications and their impact on the obviousness type double patenting rejections along with patent term adjustment are further analyzed.
The following presentation describes a recently passed, and soon to be signed, Indiana law regarding how to address the problem of bad-faith assertions of patent infringement by patent assertion entities, sometimes referred to as "patent trolls." The law provides a definition of what constitutes bad faith assertion of patent infringement as well as gives guidance on basic information that is required for patent cease and desist or demand letters. It also provides procedures for having the entity post a pre-trial bond and/or be subject to damages or other remedies for bad faith assertion of patent infringement.
The presentation provides some background information about intellectual property as related to businesses and how the intellectual property can be used as a security interest or collateral for obtaining financing for businesses.
Introducing New Government Regulation on Toll Road.pdfAHRP Law Firm
For nearly two decades, Government Regulation Number 15 of 2005 on Toll Roads ("GR No. 15/2005") has served as the cornerstone of toll road legislation. However, with the emergence of various new developments and legal requirements, the Government has enacted Government Regulation Number 23 of 2024 on Toll Roads to replace GR No. 15/2005. This new regulation introduces several provisions impacting toll business entities and toll road users. Find out more out insights about this topic in our Legal Brief publication.
RIGHTS OF VICTIM EDITED PRESENTATION(SAIF JAVED).pptxOmGod1
Victims of crime have a range of rights designed to ensure their protection, support, and participation in the justice system. These rights include the right to be treated with dignity and respect, the right to be informed about the progress of their case, and the right to be heard during legal proceedings. Victims are entitled to protection from intimidation and harm, access to support services such as counseling and medical care, and the right to restitution from the offender. Additionally, many jurisdictions provide victims with the right to participate in parole hearings and the right to privacy to protect their personal information from public disclosure. These rights aim to acknowledge the impact of crime on victims and to provide them with the necessary resources and involvement in the judicial process.
In 2020, the Ministry of Home Affairs established a committee led by Prof. (Dr.) Ranbir Singh, former Vice Chancellor of National Law University (NLU), Delhi. This committee was tasked with reviewing the three codes of criminal law. The primary objective of the committee was to propose comprehensive reforms to the country’s criminal laws in a manner that is both principled and effective.
The committee’s focus was on ensuring the safety and security of individuals, communities, and the nation as a whole. Throughout its deliberations, the committee aimed to uphold constitutional values such as justice, dignity, and the intrinsic value of each individual. Their goal was to recommend amendments to the criminal laws that align with these values and priorities.
Subsequently, in February, the committee successfully submitted its recommendations regarding amendments to the criminal law. These recommendations are intended to serve as a foundation for enhancing the current legal framework, promoting safety and security, and upholding the constitutional principles of justice, dignity, and the inherent worth of every individual.
DNA Testing in Civil and Criminal Matters.pptxpatrons legal
Get insights into DNA testing and its application in civil and criminal matters. Find out how it contributes to fair and accurate legal proceedings. For more information: https://www.patronslegal.com/criminal-litigation.html
Responsibilities of the office bearers while registering multi-state cooperat...Finlaw Consultancy Pvt Ltd
Introduction-
The process of register multi-state cooperative society in India is governed by the Multi-State Co-operative Societies Act, 2002. This process requires the office bearers to undertake several crucial responsibilities to ensure compliance with legal and regulatory frameworks. The key office bearers typically include the President, Secretary, and Treasurer, along with other elected members of the managing committee. Their responsibilities encompass administrative, legal, and financial duties essential for the successful registration and operation of the society.
NATURE, ORIGIN AND DEVELOPMENT OF INTERNATIONAL LAW.pptxanvithaav
These slides helps the student of international law to understand what is the nature of international law? and how international law was originated and developed?.
The slides was well structured along with the highlighted points for better understanding .
WINDING UP of COMPANY, Modes of DissolutionKHURRAMWALI
Winding up, also known as liquidation, refers to the legal and financial process of dissolving a company. It involves ceasing operations, selling assets, settling debts, and ultimately removing the company from the official business registry.
Here's a breakdown of the key aspects of winding up:
Reasons for Winding Up:
Insolvency: This is the most common reason, where the company cannot pay its debts. Creditors may initiate a compulsory winding up to recover their dues.
Voluntary Closure: The owners may decide to close the company due to reasons like reaching business goals, facing losses, or merging with another company.
Deadlock: If shareholders or directors cannot agree on how to run the company, a court may order a winding up.
Types of Winding Up:
Voluntary Winding Up: This is initiated by the company's shareholders through a resolution passed by a majority vote. There are two main types:
Members' Voluntary Winding Up: The company is solvent (has enough assets to pay off its debts) and shareholders will receive any remaining assets after debts are settled.
Creditors' Voluntary Winding Up: The company is insolvent and creditors will be prioritized in receiving payment from the sale of assets.
Compulsory Winding Up: This is initiated by a court order, typically at the request of creditors, government agencies, or even by the company itself if it's insolvent.
Process of Winding Up:
Appointment of Liquidator: A qualified professional is appointed to oversee the winding-up process. They are responsible for selling assets, paying off debts, and distributing any remaining funds.
Cease Trading: The company stops its regular business operations.
Notification of Creditors: Creditors are informed about the winding up and invited to submit their claims.
Sale of Assets: The company's assets are sold to generate cash to pay off creditors.
Payment of Debts: Creditors are paid according to a set order of priority, with secured creditors receiving payment before unsecured creditors.
Distribution to Shareholders: If there are any remaining funds after all debts are settled, they are distributed to shareholders according to their ownership stake.
Dissolution: Once all claims are settled and distributions made, the company is officially dissolved and removed from the business register.
Impact of Winding Up:
Employees: Employees will likely lose their jobs during the winding-up process.
Creditors: Creditors may not recover their debts in full, especially if the company is insolvent.
Shareholders: Shareholders may not receive any payout if the company's debts exceed its assets.
Winding up is a complex legal and financial process that can have significant consequences for all parties involved. It's important to seek professional legal and financial advice when considering winding up a company.
ASHWINI KUMAR UPADHYAY v/s Union of India.pptxshweeta209
transfer of the P.I.L filed by lawyer Ashwini Kumar Upadhyay in Delhi High Court to Supreme Court.
on the issue of UNIFORM MARRIAGE AGE of men and women.
2. In re Cuozzo Speed Techs.
• The IPR institution decision is “final and
nonappealable,” pursuant to statute § 314.
– Possible Exception: “[W]e emphasize that our
interpretation applies where the grounds for attacking
the decision to institute inter partes review consist of
questions that are closely tied to the application and
interpretation of statutes related to the Patent Office’s
decision to initiate inter partes review… This means
that we need not, and do not, decide the precise effect
of §314(d) on appeals that implicate constitutional
questions, that depend on other less closely related
statutes, or that present other questions of
interpretation that reach, in terms of scope and impact,
well beyond ‘this section.’”
• Broadest reasonable interpretation is a
reasonable exercise of rulemaking authority.
3. Styker v. Zimmer; Halo v. Pulse
• CAFC In re Seagate Test:
– Clear and convincing, objectively high likelihood of inf.,
risk known or so obvious should have been known,
mixed standard of review.
• HELD: Seagate not consistent with § 284.
• Statute says “may.” Discretion to court, but
“[d]iscretion is not whim.” 180 years of precedent
establish enhanced damages are a sanction for
“egregious” infringement behavior.
• The focus is subjective willfulness at time of
infringement, not litigation-induced
opinion/defense.
• Preponderance of evidence, reviewed for abuse
of discretion.
5. October Term 2015—Other Outcomes I
• Cert. denied in Sequenom v. Ariosa
– Cell-free fetal DNA tests were conventional technique
applied to natural phenomenon, ineligible under Mayo
• Cert. denied in Shukh v. Seagate
– Case challenged CAFC “automatic assignment” rule in
inventor agreements.
• Cert. denied in Limelight v. Akamai
– Direct infringement can be divided if steps of method
are “attributable” to single entity.
• Cert. denied in Authors Guild v. Google
– Google Books is fair use
• Cert. denials relating to claim construction (both
court and PTAB), abstract ideas, misc. other
issues.
6. October Term 2015—Other Outcomes II
• GVR in light of Stryker/Halo.
– Innovention Toys v. MGA
– WesternGeco LLC v. ION Geophysical
• GVR in light of Cuozzo.
– Click-To-Call Techs v. Oracle Corp.
• GVR in light of Commil (2015)
– Medtronic v. NuVasive, intent issue for inducement
7. October Term 2016—Granted Petitions I
• Samsung v. Apple
– “Whether, where a design patent is applied to
only a component of a product, an award of
infringer’s profits should be limited to those
profits attributable to the component.”
• Life Technologies v. Promega
– “Whether the Federal Circuit erred in holding
that supplying a single, commodity component
of a multi-component invention from the United
States is an infringing act under 35 U.S.C.§
271(f)(1), exposing the manufacturer to liability
for all worldwide sales.”
10. October Term 2016—Pending Petitions II
• Lee v. Tam; Pro-Football, Inc. v. Blackhorse
– Whether the disparagement provision of the Lanham
Act, 15 U.S.C. 1052(a), which provides that no
trademark shall be refused registration on account of
its nature unless, inter alia, it “[c]onsists of . . . matter
which may disparage . . . persons, living or dead,
institutions, beliefs, or national symbols, or bring them
into contempt, or disrepute” is facially invalid under the
Free Speech Clause of the First Amendment.
• NCAA v. O’Bannon
– (2) whether the First Amendment protects a speaker
against a state-law right-of-publicity claim based on the
realistic portrayal of a person in an expressive work
(here, a student-athlete in a college-sports videogame)