The extent of patent coverage in offshore waters: a comparison *

South Africa, United Kingdom, USA - April 5 2012
Patents are often said to be defined by their claims and, as such, are analogous in the parlance of real property to the “metes and bounds” of a deed to real property.

Co-authors: Ashley Tarokh, Ph.D., Hiroshi Sheraton.

---

Amazon’s ‘one-click’ patent still alive in Canada *

Canada - December 30 2011
The Canadian Federal Court of Appeal, addressing whether Amazon’s famous “one-click” business method was properly considered statutory subject matter under the Canadian Patent Act, allowed Amazon’s appeal from the Patent Appeal Board but directed the Commissioner of Patents to reexamine the patent on an expedited basis, not with the lower court’s direction that the claims at issue constituted patentable subject matter, but instead directing that the Commissioner identify the actual invention after a purposive construction of the claims.

---

Strict proportionality not required between attorneys’ fees and damages *

USA - July 31 2011
In a recent action for copyright infringement, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit upheld the district court’s award of attorneys’ fees, noting that strict proportionality between fees and damages is not required.

Co-authors: Blake Wong.

---

eBay standard applies to preliminary injunctions in trademark cases *

USA - June 30 2011
Considering whether requests for preliminary injunctions against alleged trademark infringement are subject to the traditional equitable principles set forth by the Supreme Court of the United States in eBay v. MercExchange, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit vacated the district court’s grant of preliminary injunction to a trademark owner.

---

Inequitable conduct: shifting back to the exception? *

USA - July 7 2010
Holding that inequitable conduct properly renders a patent unenforceable when a person falsely swears before the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) that he invented a device, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirmed a district court’s judgment of unenforceability for inequitable conduct, affirming the award of attorneys’ fees and costs to the defendant while reversing the lower court’s 28 U.S.C. §1927 sanctions against one of Advanced Magnetic Closures’attorneys.

---