CAFC says: "patent infringement is not a recognized predicate “racketeering activity” for a RICO claim"
See ARUNACHALAM v. IBM. 2018-2105.
posted by Lawrence B. Ebert at 6:37 PM
Monday, January 28, 2019
See ARUNACHALAM v. IBM. 2018-2105.
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
- Jay Bell: “When it comes down to it, not one thin...
- Special 40th Anniversary Episode of "CBS Sunday Mo...
- Multiple sclerosis and gadolinium contrasting agents
- Obviousness through a single reference?
- CAFC explores "public use" in Barry v. Medtronic; ...
- CAFC reverses ED Va in SUPERNUS PHARMACEUTICALS, a...
- The gunpowder engine
- CBS Sunday Morning on January 20, 2019 presents th...
- TTAB decision in Guild Mortgage vacated
- CRISPR to bring us a spicy tomato?
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home