The USPTO will be hoping it has better luck than petitioners in IP cases that were denied by the Supreme Court following its April 15 conference.
The Supreme Court today hears arguments in the keenly-watched Cuozzo v Lee case, which will debate the Patent Trial and Appeal Board’s claim construction standard.
The death of Prince last Thursday was a massive loss to the music world. But, as the Wall Street Journal reported, he was also known as a fierce defender of copyright.
Just last year, a federal appeals court in California ruled against Universal Music and Prince in the long-running “Dancing Baby” case. The court ruled in the case involving a 29-second home video of a baby dancing to “Let’s Go Crazy” that copyright holders must consider fair use before sending a takedown notice.
In 2014, Prince filed a lawsuit against 22 website owners, accusing them of sharing bootlegs of his concerts. The pop star demanded $1 million each, adding up to a total of $22 million. However, the suit was quickly dropped when the website owners took down the offending videos.
Prince was also issued the first takedown notices for videos on the Vine platform, which limits videos to six seconds. This inspired the Electronic Frontier Foundation to grant Prince the Raspberry Beret Lifetime Agreement Award for “extraordinary abuses of the takedown process in the name of silencing speech”.
The EFF also highlighted Prince’s demands for taking down fan videos of his cover of Radiohead’s Creep at the Coachella Music Festival.
Prince was also active in battling against Pirate Bay. In addition, in the 1990s he sued a Chicago bike messenger who made a guitar in the shape of the symbol adopted as his name for a period.
In an interview with The Guardian in 2011, Prince compared to piracy as “carjacking”. “The industry changed,” he said. “We made money [online] before piracy was real crazy. Nobody’s making money now except phone companies, Apple and Google. I’m supposed to go to the White House to talk about copyright protection. It’s like the gold rush out there. Or a carjacking. There’s no boundaries.”
Adidas sues Ecco
Footwear maker Adidas has sued rival Ecco alleging infringement of its three-stripe trade mark, reports The Fashion Law.
The suit was filed in federal court in Portland, Oregan, and claims the Danish footwear marker "intentionally adopted and used counterfeit and/or confusingly similar imitations of the Three-Stripe Mark knowing that they would mislead and deceive consumers into believing that the [sneakers] were produced, authorized, or licensed by adidas, or that they originated from adidas.”
Amend not abolish 101
Manny Schecter, chief patent counsel at IBM has some suggestions for what to do about Alice, as outlined on the IPWatchdog blog.
Responding to David Kappos’s recent call for Seciton 101 to be abolished, Schecter said: “We could just amend it to fix this problem, I don’t think we necessarily have to abolish it.”
He continued: “We are at the point where I think we need legislation. This is a golden goose industry… don’t let the courts mess it up.”