Americas – Page 2 – IP Law Watch

The Charging Bull and the Fearless Girl: Moral Rights Protections in Australia and the U.S.

Jun 05 2017

The Charging Bull has been an iconic New York City landmark since it was placed outside the New York Stock Exchange in December 1989 in an act of guerrilla art. Despite initially being removed, the statue’s popularity caused it to be relocated to Bowling Green days later, where it has since remained, on loan to the New York City Council. Earlier this year, on the eve of International Women’s Day, Charging Bull was joined at Bowling Green by a second guerrilla-art installation, sculptor Kristen Visbal’s four foot statue titled Fearless Girl, who stares defiantly at the Charging Bull.

The artist behind the Charging Bull, Artutro Di Modica, claims that the placement of Fearless Girl is an insult to the Charging Bull and that her placement is ‘attacking the bull’. The competing interests of the artists raise interesting questions in intellectual property law, specifically regarding Di Modica’s ‘moral rights’. Does the Fearless Girl have reason to fear impending intellectual property litigation? Or will the Charging Bull have to accept the new kid on the block?

Click here to read more.

By: Sophie Taylor

Sandoz v. Amgen—Biosimilars at the Supreme Court—Oral Argument

May 02 2017

All nine U.S. Supreme Court justices heard argument on Wednesday April 26th, in Sandoz Inc., v. Amgen Inc. The Supreme Court is reviewing interpretations of the Biologics Price Competition and Innovation Act (BPCIA) made by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. Wednesday’s arguments focused on four main issues:

whether the FDA could preliminarily grant licensure prior to the expiration of the 12 year statutory period;
whether the notice of commercial marketing requires official licensure to be made;
whether the “patent dance” was required by the BPCIA; and
whether state law could be used to enforce compliance with the “patent dance” elements of the BPCIA.

Industry watchers hope that the Supreme Court will streamline the process for getting biosimilars to market by providing increased certainty.

To read the full alert, click here.

By: Theodore J. Angelis, Peter Giunta, Kenneth C. Liao, Margaux L. Nair and Jenna Bruce

Australian Patent Office Decides First Opposition Under Raising The Bar Act

Dec 08 2015

By Nigel Lokan

In the matter of CSR Building Products Limited v. United States Gypsum Company¹ the Australian Patent Office has heard and decided the first patent opposition in which the provisions of the IP Laws Amendment Act 2012 (Raising the Bar Act) apply.

The Raising the Bar Act introduced a number of changes to the Australian patent legislation with the intent of raising the standard required to support the grant of a patent and to bring Australia’s patent laws into line with those of its major trading partners. The Raising the Bar Act applies to all patent applications for which a request for examination was filed on or after 15 April 2013.

High Court of Australia Finds Claims for Isolated Genetic Material not Patentable Subject Matter

Oct 08 2015

On 7 October 2015, the High Court of Australia (High Court) issued its decision[1] in the long running dispute concerning Myriad Genetics, Inc.’s (Myriad) patent relating to an isolated nucleic acid coding for mutant or polymorphic BRCA1 polypeptide. Mutations in the BRCA1 gene can serve as indicators of a woman’s risk of developing breast cancer.

In a unanimous decision, the High Court found that claims directed to the isolated nucleic acid are invalid on the basis that they are not a ‘manner of manufacture’ and therefore not patentable subject matter. The High Court took the view that the claimed invention would extend the scope of the concept of “manner of manufacture” and that this was not something which was appropriate for courts to do. In light of the High Court’s decision, it will be interesting to see whether there is a legislative response to this issue.

Consider Fair Use Before Submitting Takedown Request

Sep 28 2015

The U.S. Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) has been a potent tool for combatting copyright infringement on the Internet. Section 512 shields Internet service providers from liability if they expeditiously remove content after copyright owners submit takedown requests notifying the ISP of infringing content. Last week, in Lenz v. Universal Music Corp., the Ninth Circuit held that copyright owners must consider fair use before sending takedown notices, or they could face liability for damages.

This decision cautions copyright owners to take a closer look at infringing content and document their fair use analysis before submitting takedown requests. An intensive investigation is not required and the fair use analysis may not be correct, but the copyright owner must have a good faith belief that fair use does not apply.

Australian High Court Rules Rosuvastatin Low Dose Patent Obvious

Sep 16 2015

In an eagerly awaited decision¹ the Australian High Court has upheld a decision of a five judge bench of the Full Federal Court that AstraZeneca’s patent relating to low dosages of rosuvastatin is invalid on the basis that the claims lack an inventive step.

Section 7(3) of the Patents Act 1990 (Act) as it existed at the priority date of Astra Zeneca’s patent imposed a threshold requirement that in order to be considered for assessing inventive step a document must be “ascertained, understood and regarded as relevant” by a person skilled in the art.

Southern District of New York Court Parses ‘Fair Use’ in Fox News’ Copyright Infringement Dispute with Media Monitoring Service

Sep 10 2015

On 25 August 2015, the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York (SDNY) ruled that certain functions of the TVEyes media-monitoring service infringe Fox News’ copyrights in its programming content.

TVEyes is a for-profit, media-monitoring service with over 22,000 subscribers that indexes nearly all news-related television and radio content in a searchable database. TVEyes allows users to track the usage of words or phrases of interest and to view the transcripts and video clips of the portions of the television broadcast that use the search term. Subscribers may set ‘watch lists’ for terms to receive real time alerts when certain terms are used and search past broadcasts. TVEyes also provides subscribers with analytic data such as a segment’s Nielsen viewership rating, the frequency with which a term has been mentioned over a specified time period and the geographic markets and channels where a term is used. Additionally, TVEyes users may archive, indefinitely, video clips that appear in response to search queries on TVEyes’ server. Users can also email the video clip links to others, allowing the recipients of the link to view the video clip on TVEyes’ server, as well as download copies of identified digital video clips for offline use and permanent storage.

Fashion Designer Tory Burch Awarded US$41 million in U.S. Trade Mark Case

Jul 27 2015

In November 2013, fashion designer Tory Burch sued Youngran Kim, and three companies controlled by Kim, for counterfeiting and trade mark infringement relating to the sale of jewellery. The jewellery featured a registered logo trade mark design owned by Tory Burch. While this was not the basis of Tory Burch’s legal claim, it is worth noting that, as well as featuring Tory Burch’s logo device, the defendants’ jewellery also closely resembled jewellery designs that had been released by Tory Burch, as seen below.

BPCIA Statute: Patent Dance Is Optional, But Opting Out Has Consequences

Jul 24 2015

The Federal Circuit issued a ruling on July 21, 2015 in the Amgen Inc. et al. v. Sandoz Inc., Case No. 2015-1499, appeal after hearing oral arguments on June 3, 2015. See BPCIA: A “Choose Your Own Adventure” Statute? (describing the parties’ oral arguments before the Federal Circuit). Amgen Inc. (“Amgen”) appealed the Northern District of California’s decision holding that the Biologics Price Competition and Innovation Act’s (“BPCIA’s”) “patent dance” provisions are optional and that the 180-day notice provision does not require licensure. See Dancing Not Required: District Court Denies Amgen’s Bid for Preliminary Injunction, Finds BPCIA “Patent Dance” Optional.

To read the full alert, click here.

Connecticut Mandates Identity Theft Services for Social Security Number Data Breaches

Jul 07 2015

On June 30, 2015, Connecticut’s governor signed into law an amendment to the state’s data-security-breach-notice statute to mandate ‘appropriate’ identity theft prevention services for breaches involving social security numbers. Identity theft mitigation services are also required ‘if applicable’, e.g., if identify theft actually occurs. The services must be provided at no cost and for at least 12 months. The statute does not explain which identity theft ‘prevention’ or ‘mitigation’ services are mandated or which are ‘appropriate.’

Tag:Americas