News & Publications

The Ninth Circuit on August 11, 2020, vacated a 2019 ruling that held that Qualcomm was charging phone makers “unreasonably high” licensing fees and thwarting competition.

The US Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit on August 7, 2020, held that Petroleum Analyzer Co. (PA), a leading lab instrument maker, didn’t steal a former employee’s trade secrets covering a sulfur-detecting lamp.

The US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit on August 6, 2020, affirmed that the government can use PACER revenues for operating the electronic court record system, but not for unrelated court technology projects.

The US Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit on August 4, 2020, held that a bee farm didn’t infringe a copyright related to a honey harvesting aid when it replaced the tool with its own version.

Teva Pharmaceuticals USA Inc., an American Israeli pharmaceutical company that specializes in generic drugs, beat back IBSA Institut Biochimique’s patent infringement suit concerning the thyroid drug Tirosint.

In this edition of AIPLA Direct Live, AIPLA President Barbara A. Fiacco asks the Honorable Chris Coons, United States Senator from Delaware, about the state of the intellectual property landscape.

The Federal Circuit on July 29, 2020, held that FanDuel, the US bookmaker and daily fantasy sports provider, failed to show that part of a competitor’s remote gambling patent was invalid as obvious.

The US Patent and Trademark Office on July 30, 2020, issued a proposed rule to update its professional conduct rules to more closely align with American Bar Association guidelines.

The First Circuit on July 22, 2020, held that a San Juan, Puerto Rico-based tax planning and consulting firm can’t hold a former employee liable for misappropriating trade secrets or breaching a nondisclosure agreement.

The US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit on July 27, 2020, held that Australian Therapeutic Supply Pty. Ltd. (ATS), an Australian condom maker, can challenge a trademark registration for the mark “Naked” despite the fact that ATS contracted away its proprietary rights in its unregistered marks.