11/23/2016

Written By: Roland Casillas
              Web and Blog Editor

Patent No. U.S. 8,375,847 B1

Winch for Turkey Deep Fryers

Inventors: William P. Anganes

11/21/2016

Review: The Criminal Law Of Intellectual Property and Information: Cases and Materials, 2nd Edition

Asha Puttaiah

The Criminal Law of Intellectual Property and Information: Cases and Materials, 2nd Edition by Geraldine Moohr, Jacqueline Lipton, and Irina Manta (2015, West Academic.)

A law enforcement officer buys original copyrighted movies for his video rental shop. In order to prevent damage to his newly acquired video property, he produces one copy of each original movie and rents the copy while keeping the originals in a safe place. Has he violated the copyright owner’s federally recognized property right with his self-created ‘insurance’ program? Is it a criminal violation? Is a civil infringement? Does his distribution business implicate the Commerce Clause because it entails interstate commerce? If yes, does this invoke a federal criminal statute? Or is it merely a localized property right infringement? Is it merely bad or good business practice? Does property right infringement constitute theft? Does the law enforcement officer’s role as a business owner affect what he is authorized to do with the copyrighted video in comparison to what he is authorized to do as a private citizen? As a law enforcement officer, should he have known better? One last question – Is your head spinning yet?

11/17/2016

Written By: Roland Casillas
      Web and Blog Editor

Patent No. U.S. 8,549,699 B1

Illuminated Leaf Blower

Inventors: Francisco A. Domingo

11/15/2016

Michael B. Pierorazio

In re: Lawrence Everatt Anderson,

http://www.cafc.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/opinions-orders/16-1156.Opinion.10-11-2016.1.PDF

The Federal Circuit holds that “the speed being displayed on the display for use by a motorist in determining a route of travel” is a non-limiting statement of intended use because the “‘for use’ language does not add a structural limitation to the claimed system or method.”
11/09/2016

Written By: Roland Casillas
      Web and Blog Editor

Patent No. US 4,189,904 A

Leaf Mulcher Attachment for Lawn Mowers

Inventors: Alexander D. Parker

11/08/2016

In Support of Trademark Trial and Appeal Board Rulemaking: Replacing the Two-Month Time Period With A Sixty-Three Day Time Period

Alexander Sofocleous

When an appellant is dissatisfied with a decision by the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“PTAB”) or Trademark Trial and Appeal Board (“TTAB”), the appellant may seek judicial review. Generally, in ex parte patent prosecution or prosecution of an application to register a mark, a dissatisfied appellant may request reopening of prosecution or seek judicial review of a PTAB or TTAB decision affirming or affirming-in-part an examiner’s action. Such PTAB or TTAB decisions occur frequently. Properly calculating the time period for seeking judicial review is critical because being late has consequences.

11/02/2016

Written By: Roland Casillas
      Web and Blog Editor

Patent No. 5,058,370 A

Yard Rake with Pick-Up Head

Inventors: Elise M. K. Russell

10/24/2016

Written By: Roland Casillas
      Web and Blog Editor

Patent No. 7,878,878 B2

Life Size Halloween Novelty Item

Inventors: Darren S. Massaro 

© 2000-2014, Journal of the Patent & Trademark Office Society
Disclaimer & Privacy Policy