Archive: March 2019

1
Final Approval given to EU Copyright Directive
2
Can the mere registration of company name infringe? In the case of BMW, yes!
3
U.S. Supreme Court Decides Two Copyright Cases and Impacts Registration Strategy for Copyright Owners
4
US: Helpful Guidance From Judge Bryson Regarding Stays Pending IPR

Final Approval given to EU Copyright Directive

On 27 March 2019, the European Parliament approved, with a vote of 348 to 274, the new Directive on Copyright in the Digital Single Market (the “DSM”) which will significantly tighten copyright on the internet.

While the new Directive has been hailed by record labels, artists and media companies as a move to fairly compensate artists, many tech firms like Google and Reddit, and internet activists argue that it will restrict and even destroy user-generated content, with Google stating that it would “harm Europe’s creative and digital industries.”

Read More

Can the mere registration of company name infringe? In the case of BMW, yes!

On 12 February 2019, car manufacturer (and globally recognised car brand) BMW was granted summary judgment in its claims for passing-off and trade mark infringement against BMW Telecommunications Ltd and Benjamin Michael Whitehouse (the sole director of BMW Telecommunications Ltd). The respondents were a consultancy business providing services for railway signaling and telecommunications.

Read More

U.S. Supreme Court Decides Two Copyright Cases and Impacts Registration Strategy for Copyright Owners

March 4, 2019, marked the first time in over 100 years that the Supreme Court of the United States issued two copyright decisions in the same day[1] – both unanimous and both strict interpretations of statutory language.  In the first of these two decisions, the Supreme Court unanimously held in Fourth Estate Public Benefit Corporation v. Wall-Street.com that copyright owners must obtain a registration from the U.S. Copyright Office prior to filing an infringement action.[2]  The Court, in an opinion authored by Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, resolved a long-standing circuit split on whether the “application approach” (merely filing a copyright application) or the “registration approach” (obtaining a copyright registration) is sufficient to file a copyright infringement suit under § 411(a) of the Copyright Act of 1976.  In the second decision, the Court in Rimini Street, Inc. v. Oracle USA, Inc. determined that “full costs” under § 505 of the Copyright Act did not authorize awarding litigation expenses beyond those specified in the general costs statute.

Read More

US: Helpful Guidance From Judge Bryson Regarding Stays Pending IPR

Judge Bryson of the Federal Circuit, sitting by designation in the Eastern District of Texas, issued one of the clearest articulations to date in favor of granting a stay pending inter partes review.[1] Notably, in this case, claim construction had ended, discovery was nearly complete, and trial was set to begin in three months. The defendant, Samsung, had recently joined an instituted IPR covering six of the eleven asserted claims and moved to stay the district court proceeding.

Judge Bryson clearly articulated the three factors that district courts consider when analyzing whether or not to grant a stay:
1) whether the stay will unduly prejudice the non-moving party;
2) whether the proceedings had reached an advance stage, including the stage of discovery and whether a trial date is set; and
3) whether the stay will likely result in simplifying the case before the court.

After noting that the congressional intent of post-grant review before the patent office was to be a “quick and cost effective alternative[] to litigation” to provide a “faster, less costly alternative to civil litigation to challenge patents” and to be “an inexpensive substitute for district court litigation that allows key issues to be addressed by experts in the field” he proceeded to walk through the three factors.

Read More

Copyright © 2019, K&L Gates LLP. All Rights Reserved.