Recently in Intellectual Property Law Category

This week, the Federal Circuit Court of Appeals said "game over" to an infringement claim filed against Nintendo. The action was brought by Motiva, an American company that claimed to have beat Nintendo to the technology used in the Wii gaming console.

Motiva filed a complaint with the International Trade Commission (ITC), claiming Nintendo had infringed its patents to track a game user's movements. The Commission rejected the claim, holding that Motiva hadn't taken affirmative steps to capitalize on the technology. On Monday, the Federal Circuit affirmed the Commission's finding.

Allergan, a specialty pharmaceutical company, has been battling it out in court with fellow pharmaceutical maker Sandoz over the right to sell a generic version of Allergan's popular glaucoma drug, Combigan. Last week, the Federal Circuit reversed a district court's ruling that many of Allergan's patent claims were nonobvious under 35 U.S.C. §103.

While most of Allergan's claims were deemed obvious, the Federal Circuit court upheld a method claim because it arguably involves a nonobvious result. Sandoz is consequently barred from entering the market until the Combigan patent in question expires in 2022.

The most interesting part of the case, however, may be Judge Dyk's dissent, in which he argues that the method claim is invalid because it's merely a "discovered result of an existing method or use."

The common refrain these days is that going to law school is a terrible, horrible, no-good, very bad idea. There just aren’t any jobs.

Perhaps the real issue is not that there aren’t any jobs; it’s that the only jobs are going to that rare breed of lawyers that understands math and science: patent lawyers.

According to data compiled by Peer Monitor, demand for intellectual property patent work rose 5.1 percent year-over-year in the first quarter of 2013, Thomson Reuters reports.

If you watched “A Different World,” the 80s/90s “Cosby Show” spinoff that followed Denise Huxtable to Hillman College, you’ll remember Dwayne Wayne’s flip-up sunglass/eyeglass combo. (You may also remember future “My Cousin Vinny” star and Oscar-winner Marisa Tomei’s season on the show. Or maybe not.)

But — until they make an ironic comeback — flip-up sunglasses are relics of the past. These days, multitasking glasses use magnets, a patent-protected technological advancement. Which brings us to a Federal Circuit collateral estoppel dispute between Aspex Eyewear and Zenni Optical over magnetic clip-on eyewear.

The next time you see a bottle of Crest mouthwash, take a moment to appreciate the angles of the bottle. Particularly the trapezoidal-shaped surface near the top. Crest really cares about that trapezoid, so much that its parent company, Proctor and Gamble, tried to patent it, Patently-O reports.

We say tried, because the Federal Circuit Court of Appeals ruled this week that P&G did not succeed.

It's not enough to notify a competitor that its design infringes on your patent, and then forget about the claim for years.

The Federal Circuit Court of Appeals ruled last week that equitable estoppel applies to block a patentee from alleging patent infringement following a five-year delay in pursuing its claim, Patently-O reports.

When you walk into a business meeting at Bed Bath and Beyond (BB&B), you expect fluorescent lighting and comfortable home goods. Maybe a set of slippers. A soft throw casually tossed over the side of the conference table.

You don't expect the retailer to steal your design for the Towel Tote. But that occasionally happens. At least, it allegedly happened to Roger Hall.

Marsha Fox had only one option when the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board refused to register her trademark for a custom-candy line: Pray that the Federal Circuit Court of Appeals would have a sense of humor. Sadly, it didn't.

This week, the Federal Circuit agreed that Fox's mark was unregistrable because it creates a clearly vulgar double entendre.

So what turn of phrase was too offensive to trademark?

The Federal Circuit has twice ruled that human genes can be patented. Now, it's the Supreme Court's turn to decide.

Last week, the Court granted certiorari in Association for Molecular Pathology v. Myriad Genetics, Inc.

A district court in Vermont is typically bound by Second Circuit precedent. When that same court is deciding a patent issue, however, it must defer to the Federal Circuit's standards of proof.

Confusion regarding the proper standard is an reasonable mistake, but one that can result in a remand.