IP Law Blog

By Scott Cameron

The United States Government, which created the courts and a legal system to provide an avenue to seek redress for injury, is immune from suit in that system unless the Government agrees to be sued by waiving its immunity. This is commonly known as “sovereign immunity,” and allows many lawsuits to be dismissed at the pleading stage. On July 25, 2008, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit issued an opinion regarding the scope of sovereign immunity as applied in a copyright infringement case. 

The Federal Government has waived its immunity for suits based on its infringing the rights of copyright owners. It is a rather limited waiver, however, and allows the Government to infringe much more freely than a private party. Last week’s Federal Circuit decision, Blueport Co., LLC v. United States, shows how easy it can be for a government employee to lose his rights to work he has created.

By James Kachmar

A California appellate court was recently faced with the issue of when the statute of limitations runs on a claim for trade secret misappropriation against a third party when the plaintiff’s trade secrets are stolen and sold to that third party. On May 30, 2008, the appellate court issued its opinion in Cypress Semiconductor Corporation v. Superior Court (Silvaco Data Systems) and held that the statute of limitations on a cause of action for trade secret misappropriation begins to run when the plaintiff has reason to suspect that the third party knows or reasonably should know that the information in its possession is a trade secret. The appellate court held that the third party’s actual state of mind did not matter for purposes of the running of the statute of limitations.

By Audrey A. Millemann

On May 8, 2008, the Federal Circuit Court of Appeals heard oral argument in a case that may significantly change the patent landscape. The court is expected to clarify, and perhaps narrow, the test for business method patents.

The case is In re Bilski, case no. 2007-1130. The patent claims are directed to a method of hedging the costs of a commodity, specifically, a method of managing risks for consumers of commodities, such as energy, and for commodity providers. The patent application was filed in 1997 and rejected by the PTO under 35 U.S.C. §101 as nonstatutory subject matter. The applicant appealed to the Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences, who affirmed the PTO’s decision in March 2006. The Board held that the applicant’s process was an abstract idea and therefore unpatentable. 

By: Dale C. Campbell and Serena Crouch, Third Year Law Student at McGeorge School of Law

Internet users and privacy advocates across the nation fear they are losing the continuing battle to protect internet privacy rights.  A court decision in a lawsuit between Viacom and YouTube.com is the most recent battlefield regarding data likely to provide the video viewing habits of millions around the world.  

In March 2007, Viacom sued YouTube and Google, Inc. in the United States District Court, Southern District of New York, seeking at least $1 billion in damages for alleged copyright infringement.  Viacom claims that YouTube built its business by willfully offering Viacom’s copyright protected material such as episodes of “The Daily Show with Jon Stewart” and the cartoon “SpongeBob SquarePants.”  Viacom claims that neither YouTube nor its users are licensed to upload its material in the manner it is being used.

By Dale C. Campbell

Search engine websites sell keywords as a component of their advertising programs. By purchasing an advertising keyword, a business’s advertisement will appear next to the search results whenever a person enters the advertising keyword as a search term. Trademark questions arise whenever a competitor purchases an advertisement keyword that is confusingly similar to the protected mark of another competitor, thereby causing its advertisement to pop up next to the search results.

By Scott Hervey          

The First Circuit recently decided a case that exemplifies the downfall of building a brand around merely generic terms. No matter how long the mark owner may use a mark in commerce, it is going to be next to impossible to prevent competitors from using those generic components, even where the use is part of the competitor’s trademark.

Boston Duck Tours operated a sightseeing tour operation of the Boston area since 1994 and used renovated WWII amphibious vehicles commonly referred to as “ducks.” In 2001, Super Duck Tours began operation of a sightseeing land and water tour. Super Duck Tours originally operated its business solely in Portland, Maine. In 2007, Super Duck Tours expanded its operation and began to offer tours in certain parts of Boston not serviced by Boston Duck Tours. 

By Audrey A. Millemann

One of the requirements of a valid patent is enablement. As set forth in 35 U.S.C. section 112, paragraph 1, a patent’s specification must contain “a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same.” The Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit has explained that the enablement requirement is met “when one skilled in the art, after reading the specification, could practice the claimed invention without undue experimentation.” AK Steel Corp. v. Sollac, 344 F.3d. 1234, 1244 (Fed. Cir. 2003). Although anticipation or obviousness based on the prior art is a more frequently asserted basis for invalidating a patent in patent infringement litigation, the Federal Circuit’s decision in Sitrick v. Dreamworks, LLC, 516 F.3d. 993 (Feb. 1, 2008) suggests that lack of enablement may be becoming a far more powerful tool. 

By Andrea Anapolsky

In a complex case stemming from a dispute over scientific discoveries made more than three decades ago, the California Supreme Court has provided fresh guidance on determining when a fiduciary relationship exists. This past April, the court reversed the Court of Appeal’s findings that Genentech, Inc. (“Genentech”) violated a fiduciary duty to City of Hope National Medical Center (“City of Hope”) in connection with a 32-year old licensing agreement. Rather, the court held that a fiduciary relationship is not necessarily imposed simply when one party, in exchange for royalty payments, entrusts a secret invention to another party to develop, patent and market the product. This article provides a review of the case and its implications.

By James Kachmar

On March 5, 2008, the United States District Court for the Northern District of California (“District Court”) in First Advantage Background Services Corp. v. PrivateEyes, Inc., (“First Advantage”) found, inter alia, that the California Uniform Trade Secrets Act, California Civil Code section 3426, et seq. (“CUTSA”) preempts common law claims for intentional interference that are based on wrongful acts amounting to misappropriation of trade secrets. The First Advantage opinion holds that claims for intentional interference that are based on wrongful acts amounting to misappropriation of trade secrets may be preempted by CUTSA.

By Jeffrey Pietsch

Google may soon be facing an expensive and damaging class action lawsuit. A federal court ruled last month that Google can be sued for its role in serving ads on websites that use domain names that violate trademark and cybersquatting laws. This case is significant because Google is not the owner or user of the infringing domain names. Google is simply providing advertising services to these domain names. Google, seeking dismissal of the case, argued along these lines. The court, however, held that Google may be liable for cybersquatting.