Log in or register
Share on LinkedInShare on LinkedIn

ARTICLE · 01 APRIL 2011

IP Update, Vol. 14, No. 3, March 2011 (Part 1)

McDermott Will & Emery
Explore more from McDermott Will & Emery

A federal district court has now held that the false marking statute, 35 USC §292, is unconstitutional for violating the "Take Care" clause of the Constitution.

United StatesIntellectual Property
Author LinkedIn connections

Edited by Paul Devinsky and Rita Weeks

Patents

Is §292 (Qui Tam) Statute Unconstitutional?

Need More than Mouse Disclosure and a Few CIPs to Support Human Antibody Claims

Limitation on the Number of Asserted Claims Does Not Violate Due Process Rights

State Law License Defense to Hypothetical Infringement Suit Satisfies Federal Jurisdiction

Reasonable Royalties Must Be Considered in the Absence of Lost Profits

Chapter Next in the Debate Over Role of the Specification in Claim Construction

I'll Take the Academic Rate Please

Federal Circuit Denies Rehearing in Prosecution Laches Case

Patent Reform Act Becomes "America Invents Act" of 2011

Federal Trade Commission Releases Report on the Patent System

We operate a free-to-view policy, asking only that you register in order to read all of our content. Please login or register to view the rest of this article.

Register for freeORLog in

Related Articles

Legal Intelligence Newsletters: sign up for the latest legal and regulatory news on your chosen topics

Read more about

Related Comparative Guides

See more popular content from

Article

UMG v. DistroKid: When AI Becomes A Consumer Protection Issue

Universal Music Group's lawsuit against DistroKid raises a critical question about AI disclosure in consumer markets: when does the use of artificial intelligence become material information that must be disclosed to consumers? The case centers on allegations that DistroKid distributed mass-generated AI music while creating the impression it was created by legitimate human artists, potentially violating existing consumer protection laws even without specific AI disclosure requirements.
United StatesIntellectual Property
Frankfurt Kurnit Klein & Selz PC
Frankfurt Kurnit Klein & Selz PC
Article

PTAB/USPTO Update - October 2026

The USPTO has released new templates and guidance for AIA trial proceedings, announced key appointments including a Chief AI Officer, and published updated procedures for patent applications and subject matter eligibility declarations. Director Squires delivered multiple addresses emphasizing the constitutional importance of intellectual property rights while the agency expanded its community engagement efforts and international collaboration through WIPO's Global IP Assignment Platform pilot program.
United StatesIntellectual Property
WilmerHale
WilmerHale
Article

The Trademark Scam Field Guide: Look-Alike Filing Sites, Fake USPTO Notices, And How To Get Out If You’ve Been Caught

A business decides to file a trademark. Someone on the team searches for a familiar online legal-services brand, clicks the first result, and lands on a site with a similar-sounding name, a polished design, five-star reviews, and a low flat fee. The application gets filed. Months later the business learns the “service” was not who they thought it was, the filing was signed by someone with no authority to sign it, and the USPTO has suspended the application along with hundreds or thousands of others from the same shop.
United StatesIntellectual Property
Harness IP
Harness IP
Article

Is This Real? Navigating AI Impersonation Under New And Existing Laws

Is this AI-generated, or is it real? As generative AI tools have become increasingly capable of creating realistic images, videos, and audio, they have also made it easier to impersonate real people without their consent. In response, states are increasingly adopting laws that impose civil and criminal liability for certain AI-generated content that replicates an individual’s identity, likeness, voice, or other personal attributes.
United StatesIntellectual Property
Wiley Rein
Wiley Rein