Rights of Publicity refer to the right of an individual, including musicians and artists, to control the commercial use of their name, image, likeness, or other unequivocal aspects of one's identity....
Continue reading
Rights of Publicity refer to the right of an individual, including musicians and artists, to control the commercial use of their name, image, likeness, or other unequivocal aspects of one's identity....
Continue reading
Rights of Publicity refer to the right of an individual, including musicians and artists, to control the commercial use of their name, image, likeness, or other unequivocal aspects of one's identity....
Continue reading
Rights of Publicity refer to the right of an individual, including musicians and artists, to control the commercial use of their name, image, likeness, or other unequivocal aspects of one's identity....
Continue reading
The Johnson & Johnson talc-based baby powder legal case, particularly the $700 million settlement, has significant implications for the company's intellectual property (IP), specifically its brand image....
Continue reading
Rights of Publicity refer to the right of an individual, including musicians and artists, to control the commercial use of their name, image, likeness, or other unequivocal aspects of one's identity....
Continue reading
In the fast-paced world of technology startups, securing a patent can often be the difference between success and obscurity. However, the patent process can seem like a daunting labyrinth for the uninitiated....
Continue reading
In the high-stakes arena of startups, where innovation leads and competition follows, intellectual property (IP) is not just an asset; it’s the lifeblood that can dictate success or failure....
Continue reading
The Johnson & Johnson talc-based baby powder legal case, particularly the $700 million settlement, has significant implications for the company's intellectual property (IP), specifically its brand image....
Continue reading“Questions of whether an accused patent infringer’s conduct was “egregious behavior” or “worthy of punishment” are not appropriate for jury consideration, agreed the CAFC. Nonetheless, it considered the jury instruction to be reasonably clear and correct to test for willful infringement.” On January 13, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) issued a precedential decision affirming the District Court’s judgment of invalidity as to the asserted claims of U.S. Patent No. 8,720,320 (the ‘320 patent) and the award of attorney’s fees. The CAFC also affirmed the ruling of infringement as to the asserted claims of U.S. Patent No. 8,707,855 (the ‘855 patent). Adrian Rivera...
Continue reading