Solicitor General Weighs in on Section 101, Prompts High Court to Grant Review in Athena Diagnostics v. Mayo Collaborative Services

By Andy Halaby At the Supreme Court’s request, the Solicitor General on Friday, December 6, weighed in on two pending cert petitions dealing with patent subject matter eligibility under 35 U.S.C. § 101.  Though the Solicitor General urged on behalf the United States that both those cert petitions be denied, he seized the opportunity, in both briefs, to maintain that the Supreme Court should accept review in yet another case, Athena Diagnostics v. Mayo Collaborative Services, and use that opportunity to straighten out what the Solicitor General maintains is a recent, deviant strain of Court decisions interpreting § 101. In   Read More »

Posted in IP and Technology Litigation, Patent Litigation | Tagged , ,

Share this Article:

Google v. Oracle Heads to the Supreme Court

By Andy Halaby The Supreme Court’s cert grant on the Federal Circuit’s most recent decision in the long-running and highly publicized battle between Oracle and Google appears to confront policy questions as much as legal ones — such as whether the nation’s economy would be better or worse off, and under what circumstances, allowing software developers to copy others’ application programming interfaces without paying for them.  That the Court granted cert, notwithstanding the Solicitor General’s urging it not too, suggests the Court may be prepared to tackle those questions. Google’s petition challenges the Federal Circuit’s determinations that •  certain of   Read More »

Posted in Copyright Litigation, IP and Technology Litigation | Tagged ,

Share this Article:

Is “Booking.com” Generic? We’ll Booking.See

By Andy Halaby The Supreme Court’s decision in United States Patent & Trademark Office v. Booking.com to take up whether booking.com is generic, and thus unprotectable as a trademark, is intriguing. The government maintains the term is generic.  It starts with the premise that the root term “booking” is generic.  As for “.com,” the government likens it to “Company,” and invokes the Supreme Court’s 1888 decision in Goodyear’s Rubber Mfg. Co. v. Goodyear Rubber Co. where the Court observed, The addition of the word ‘Company’ only indicates that parties have formed an association or partnership to deal in such goods,   Read More »

Posted in Trademark Litigation | Tagged ,

Share this Article:

House Approves Legislation to Create Copyright Small Claims Board

By Shalayne L. Pillar and David G. Barker On October 22, 2019, the U.S. House of Representatives voted 410-6 in favor of the Copyright Alternative in Small-Claims Enforcement Act of 2019, or CASE Act.  If passed into law, the CASE Act would create a voluntary small claims board within the U.S. Copyright Office, called the Copyright Claims Board.  Lawsuits filed under the CASE Act would allow recovery up to $30,000, with a cap of $15,000 for statutory damages per work infringed. The CASE Act seeks to address the high cost of copyright litigation, which often limits the ability of small   Read More »

Posted in Copyright Litigation | Tagged

Share this Article:

The Truth Is in the Syrup: Bud Light Ordered to Remove ‘No Corn Syrup’ from Packaging in False Advertising Battle

By Shalayne Pillar and David G. Barker The U.S. District Court, District of Wisconsin, recently ordered Anheuser-Busch to stop using the label “No Corn Syrup” on its packaging, the latest ruling in a false advertising battle filed over Anheuser-Busch’s attack ads aimed at rival MillerCoors. The case involves Anheuser-Busch’s Bud Light ad campaign that highlighted MillerCoors’s use of corn syrup in brewing Coors Light and Miller Lite.  Anheuser-Busch’s claims are (technically) true: MillerCoors does use corn syrup as a “fermentation aid” during the brewing process, while Bud Light does not.  Nevertheless, MillerCoors sued Anheuser-Busch for false advertising, claiming the ads   Read More »

Posted in False Advertising, IP and Technology Litigation | Tagged , , , ,

Share this Article: