CAFC fine-tunes SAS Institute Inc. v. Iancu in Nestle Purina PetCare?
The CAFC noted: We agree with the parties that remand is necessary
and appropriate in light of SAS and Polaris.
posted by Lawrence B. Ebert at 8:43 AM
Monday, June 11, 2018
The CAFC noted: We agree with the parties that remand is necessary
and appropriate in light of SAS and Polaris.
About Me
- Name: Lawrence B. Ebert
I'm a patent lawyer located in central New Jersey. I have a J.D. from the University of Chicago and a Ph.D. from Stanford University, where I studied graphite intercalation compounds at the Center for Materials Research. I worked at Exxon Corporate Research in areas ranging from engine deposits through coal and petroleum to fullerenes. An article that I wrote in The Trademark Reporter, 1994, 84, 379-407 on color trademarks was cited by Supreme Court in Qualitex v. Jacobson, 514 US 159 (1995) and the methodology was adopted in the Capri case in N.D. Ill. An article that I wrote on DNA profiling was cited by the Colorado Supreme Court (Shreck case) and a Florida appellate court (Brim case). I was interviewed by NHK-TV about the Jan-Hendrik Schon affair. I am developing ipABC, an entity that combines rigorous IP analytics with study of business models, to optimize utilization of intellectual property. I can be reached at C8AsF5 at yahoo.com.
Previous Posts
- CAFC examines 285/exceptional case in Stone Basket...
- CAFC addresses "videos as prior art" in the preced...
- YouTube videos and comments to blogs as prior art ...
- Brain atrophy in multiple sclerosis
- Is Gabibbo a knock-off of "Big Red" of Western Ken...
- Secondary meaning issue in the Converse case
- CAFC addresses "SAS Institute" issues in PGS Geoph...
- Federal employees as inventors
- The relation of the USS Indianapolis to present da...
- The 10 millionth numbered US patent to issue on 5 ...
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home