Intellectual Property News and Reports

Held: Applying the presumption against extraterritoriality, §1114(1)(a) and §1125(a)(1) of the Lanham Act are not extraterritorial and extend only to claims where the infringing use in commerce is domestic. Pp. 3–15. (a) The presumption against extraterritoriality reflects the longstanding principle... Read more →

Held: 1. When an alleged infringer uses a trademark as a designation of source for the infringer’s own goods, the Rogers test does not apply. Pp. 10–19. (a) The Second Circuit created the Rogers test for titles of “artistic works”... Read more →

Held: The “purpose and character” of AWF’s use of Goldsmith’s photograph in commercially licensing Orange Prince to Condé Nast does not favor AWF’s fair use defense to copyright infringement. Pp. 12–38. (a) AWF contends that the Prince Series works are... Read more →

Held: The courts below correctly concluded that Amgen failed “to enable any person skilled in the art . . . to make and use the [invention]” as defined by the relevant claims. Pp. 7–19. (a) The patent “bargain” describes the... Read more →

Held: Section 411(b) does not distinguish between a mistake of law and a mistake of fact; lack of either factual or legal knowledge can excuse an inaccuracy in a copyright registration under §411(b)(1)(A)’s safe harbor. Pp. 4–9. (a) The Copyright... Read more →

Held: Assignor estoppel is well grounded in centuries-old fairness principles, and the Federal Circuit was right to uphold it. But assignor estoppel applies only when the assignor’s claim of invalidity contradicts explicit or implicit representations he made in assigning the... Read more →

Held: The judgment is vacated, and the case is remanded. 941 F. 3d 1320, vacated and remanded. THE CHIEF JUSTICE delivered the opinion of the Court with respect to Parts I and II, concluding that the unreviewable authority wielded by... Read more →

Google’s copying of the Java SE API, which included only those lines of code that were needed to allow programmers to put their accrued talents to work in a new and transformative program, was a fair use of that material... Read more →

A term styled “generic.com” is a generic name for a class of goods or services only if the term has that meaning to consumers. Pp. 6–14. (a) Whether a compound term is generic turns on whether that term, taken as... Read more →

Held: Because Marcel’s 2011 Action challenged different conduct—and raised different claims—from the 2005 Action, Marcel cannot preclude Lucky Brand from raising new defenses. Pp. 6–12. (a) This case asks whether so-called “defense preclusion” is a valid application of res judicata:... Read more →