Intellectual Property News and Reports

Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act of 1996 bars many claims against internet service providers. See 47 U.S.C. § 230(c). But Section 230 does not bar intellectual property claims. § 230(e)(2). The question presented in this appeal is whether... Read more →

Appellants John Frederick Dryer, Elvin Lamont Bethea, and Edward Alvin White played professional football in the National Football League (“NFL”). They participated in a putative class-action lawsuit in which twenty-three former NFL players sued the NFL on behalf of themselves... Read more →

The panel affirmed the district court’s judgment after a jury trial on claims under the Lanham Act and Nevada state law regarding the use of Bob Marley images on apparel and other merchandise. Affirming the denial of defendants’ post-trial motion... Read more →

Ashley Gasper is an adult movie actor who performs under the stage name Jules Jordan, and is the president and sole shareholder of Jules Jordan Video (“JJV”), the creator of the videos in which Gasper appears. He and his company... Read more →

This appeal presents the question, inter alia, of whether the Lanham Act and California’s common law right of publicity apply extra-territorially to events occurring in Great Britain. Under the circumstances presented by this case, we conclude that such claims are... Read more →

We must decide whether California law allows a celebrity to sue a greeting card company for using her image and catchphrase in a birthday card without her permission. Download Hilton v. Hallmark Cards Read more →

In 1986, professional model Russell Christoff was paid $250 to pose for a photograph to be used in Canada on a label for bricks of coffee. Sixteen years later, Christoff saw his face on a jar of Taster‟s Choice instant... Read more →

On the merits in this appeal, E-Pass Technologies, Inc. (“E-Pass”) challenges two final determinations of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California (i) concluding that three related cases filed by E-Pass were exceptional under 35 U.S.C. §... Read more →

Henkel Corporation (“Henkel”) appeals from a final decision of the Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences (“the Board”), Henkel Corp. v. Procter & Gamble Co., Patent Interference No. 105,174 (B.P.A.I. Mar. 28, 2008) (“Board Decision”), which awarded priority of invention... Read more →

We must resolve this clash between parties claiming different types of intellectual property. Although we agree with much of the Court’s trademark analysis, for the reasons that follow we vacate the Court’s grant of summary judgment for the Estate and... Read more →