Love it or hate it, inter partes review (IPR) is now a judicially endorsed fixture in the Patent Trial and Appeal Board's (PTAB) toolbox. We wrote about this in the first September post on this blog, noting that the U.S. Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of this administrative form of review in resolving disputes over the validity of granted patents and claims of alleged patent infringement.
In one of our recent posts, we outlined the four situations under which online service providers can avoid monetary liability if some user infringes on another's copyrighted material. Among these so-called safe harbor provisions of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) is the takedown.
"Star Trek" fans appreciate the dangers of being a red shirt. In that universe, ship security personnel wear red and crewmembers in that color are the most likely to die on away missions. The trope has spurred a whole collection of paranoia jokes?
Twenty years ago, the United States joined a caravan of nations entering the internet age. It did this by passing the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA). Depending on what role you play in the online world, this law may be the bane of your existence or a godsend for securing intellectual property rights within the World Wide Web.
Time is money and the purpose of business is not to waste either commodity. Because it can cost money, courts don't like to waste time either, which is why Rule 11 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure exists.
Having a patented technology is a significant intangible asset that can have a lot of potential value. Realizing that value in the form of actual revenue is a different story. Strategic thinking that leads to an overall plan for managing intellectual property is essential. And part of that plan needs to be a determination of what to do with any given patent.