- Details
- Published: 30 June 2015 30 June 2015
Senior attorney Stephen Grant was recently asked to comment on a recent trademark dispute involving the University of Arizona and nearby Jonathan Alder High School.
Local High School Logo an Issue for University of Arizona
Ohio lawmakers take a stab at patent reform
- Details
- Published: 13 March 2015 13 March 2015
By Beverly A. Marsh, Partner, Standley Law Group LLP
In an effort to address patent reform at the state level, the 130th General Assembly of the State of Ohio has introduced House Bill No. 573. 1 The asserted purpose of Bill 573 is to: 1) prohibit "bad faith" assertions of patent infringement, 2) allow tort actions to be brought against those making bad faith assertions of patent infringement in the Ohio Courts of Common Pleas, and 3) allow the Attorney General to investigate and bring suit against those it believes are making bad faith assertions of patent infringement. Patent holders who are unsuccessful in defending against such a suit may be required to pay the other side’s costs and attorney’s fees, compensatory damages, and possible trebling of costs, fees, and damages. This bill has no doubt been introduced to lessen the harsh impact that a growing number of patent infringement suits have caused Ohio businesses.
Supreme Court Decision in Hana Financial, Inc. v. Hana Bank
- Details
- Published: 03 February 2015 03 February 2015
By Beverly A. Marsh, Partner, Standley Law Group LLP
Last month the Supreme Court issued its first trademark decision for 2015. In Hana Financial, Inc. v. Hana Bank, No. 13-1211, in an opinion delivered by Justice Sotomayor, the Court unanimously held that the determination of whether two trademarks may be "tacked" for purposes of determining priority is a question of fact, not law, and therefore is a proper question for the jury.
Double Trouble?
- Details
- Published: 23 September 2014 23 September 2014
By Stephen L. Grant, Sr. Atty, Standley Law Group LLP
"Double patenting" comes in two different flavors. One flavor is a bit bland; it doesn’t have the depth of nuance. But the second flavor, and especially its US patent law overtones, makes for tasty reading. And so, a sample of Gilead Sciences, Inc. v. Natco Pharma Limited 1 is suggested to you.
Cybor lives!
- Details
- Published: 23 September 2014 23 September 2014
By Stephen L. Grant, Sr. Atty, Standley Law Group LLP
On Feb. 21, the Federal Circuit handed down the awaited decision in Lighting Ballast Control,1 a case scheduled for en banc rehearing to determine the ongoing viability of the Cybor2 doctrine that all patent claim constructions are entitled to de novo review upon appeal. In a split 6-4 decision,3 Cybor lives on. From reading the three opinions,4 the concurrence by Judge Lourie may have the most lasting value. But first, let’s set up the case for you.
The questions posed by the Federal Circuit for briefing were:
- Should this Court overrule Cybor?
- Should this Court afford deference to any aspect of a district court’s claim construction?
- If so, which aspects should be afforded deference?