We use cookies to customise content for your subscription and for analytics.
If you continue to browse Lexology, we will assume that you are happy to receive all our cookies. For further information please read our Cookie Policy.
Lexology logo
  Request new password

Search results

Order by most recent / most popular / relevance

Results: 1-10 of 85

Despite Apple’s success in obtaining trademark protection for its store design, such protection remains elusive

  • Edwards Wildman Palmer LLP
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • February 4 2013

Perhaps you've read last week that the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office granted Apple a trademark registration on the interior design of its retail

Maybe you can take it with you: post-mortem rights of publicity in the united states

  • Edwards Wildman Palmer LLP
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • August 31 2012

Rap icon Tupac Shakur was murdered in 1996, but hologram technology allowed him to perform onstage with Snoop Dogg and Dr Dre at Coachella Valley Music and Arts Festival in April 2012. The use of holograph technology raises new issues in the already uncertain area of right of publicity law. These holographic images do not merely replicate the original work of celebrities; they expand on and create new works by those celebrities

Additional Massachusetts life sciences tax incentives authorized by 2012 state budget bill

  • Edwards Wildman Palmer LLP
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • September 2 2011

The 2012 Appropriations Act (the “Act”) was signed into law by Governor Patrick on July 11, 2011

Business methods and software patent eligibility saved with Bilski decision

  • Edwards Wildman Palmer LLP
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • June 29 2010

In an anxiously awaited decision, the U.S. Supreme Court in Bilski v. Kappos (No. 08-964) issued a ruling on June 28, 2010 that preserves at least for now patents on business methods and software

Long awaited Youtube decision broadly interprets safe harbor to UGC websites

  • Edwards Wildman Palmer LLP
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • June 29 2010

On June 23, 2010 the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York granted summary judgment in favor of user generated content website YouTube, finding that it qualified for the safe harbor of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act ("DMCA" or "Act")(17 U.S.C. Section 512(c)) and thus could not be liable for direct or secondary copyright infringement arising out of certain content on the site posted by users that infringed Plaintiff's copyrights

Federal court finds trademark infringement not “in the course of advertising”, not covered

  • Edwards Wildman Palmer LLP
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • April 28 2010

A federal judge in Virginia recently held that an insurer had no duty to defend its insured in a suit alleging trademark infringement, because the alleged infringement was not committed "in the course of advertising

Ninth Circuit holds that infringement of patented website feature constitutes "advertising injury"

  • Edwards Wildman Palmer LLP
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • April 14 2010

The Ninth Circuit recently ruled that a general liability insurer must defend its insured against a patent infringement lawsuit relating to a feature on the insured's website

The Biologics Price Competition and Innovation Act of 2009

  • Edwards Wildman Palmer LLP
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • March 30 2010

Last June, we reported on the emerging debate over "follow-on biologics" and noted that it was likely only a matter of time before Congress passed into law a structured pathway for abbreviated FDA approval of such drugs

Ambitious open source enforcement action

  • Edwards Wildman Palmer LLP
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • February 18 2010

The Software Freedom Law Center ("SFLC") continued its series of copyright infringement lawsuits against companies distributing "open source software" embedded in their products allegedly in violation of the license governing the open source software

Federal Circuit upholds decision granting additional patent term adjustment to compensate for examination delays

  • Edwards Wildman Palmer LLP
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • January 12 2010

On January 7, 2010 the U.S. Court of Appeals for Federal Circuit affirmed a district court decision holding that the interpretation of the patent term adjustment statute that the U.S. Patent Office follows is incorrect as a matter of law