EnglishJapaneseGermanKoreanChinese
Staas & Halsey, LLP
PatentsTrademarksCopyrightsTrade Secrets
Licensing and ContractsLitigationConsulting
Contact & Directions
The Firm
Practice Areas
Attorneys
IP News
Publications
IP Links
Recruiting
Home

Since 1971, the law firm of Staas & Halsey LLP has assisted clients from every major nation and throughout the United States in protecting their intellectual and industrial property rights.

Intellectual Property FAQ

Legal News & Resources

Virtual Tour


Call us at
202.434.1500

or
Contact Us by submitting the
Online Form




Print this page

Legal News & Resources

News

[08/26] Patent dispute spins around Cedar Fair's new ride
[08/13] Oracle sues Google for patent infringement
[08/10] Yahoo heartened by patent verdict

More...

Articles

Technology Licensing

Patented technology, like other forms of patented intellectual property, may be transferred through a license. A properly drafted technology license clearly states the scope, length of time, and any geographical limitations defining the agreement. Due to its complex nature, an experienced intellectual property attorney will be in the best position to advise you and protect your interests if you are considering entering into a technology license.

More...

Avoiding Infringement Problems

A utility patent may be granted for one of the following types of inventions: a process, a machine, a manufacture, or a composition of matter. A utility patent allows owners to stop the unauthorized use of their inventions for up to twenty years from filing. Design patents last fourteen years from when they were issued, and protect the appearance of products.

More...

Case Summaries

[09/03] Seller Agency Council, Inc. v. Kennedy Ctr. for Real Estate Educ., Inc.
An order denying counter-claimants damages, attorneys' fees, and costs in an action for trademark infringement against plaintiffs is affirmed in part, vacated in part, and remanded where: 1) the doctrine of unclean hands does not bar the application of the equitable defense of acquiescence in this instance; 2) plaintiff had permission to use the marks at issue before July 12, 2006; and 3) a remand was proper so that the district court may consider the applicability of plaintiffs' defense of acquiescence in a manner consistent with the circuit court's opinion.

[09/03] F.B.T. Prods., LLC v. Aftermath Records
In a dispute concerning the percentage of royalties due to plaintiffs under their contracts with defendant in connection with the recordings of the rapper Eminem, judgment in favor of defendant is reversed and an attorney's fees award in its favor is vacated where: 1) a "Masters Licensed" provision unambiguously applies to permanent downloads and mastertones; and 2) thus, the district court should have granted summary judgment to plaintiffs.

[09/02] Bodum USA, Inc. v. La Cafetiere, Inc.
In a suit for common law trade dress of a French-press coffee maker known as the Chambord, district court's judgment in favor of the defendant is affirmed as, Article 4 of the parties' contract is clear and precise as it allows defendant to sell the coffee maker design anywhere except France - provided that it does not use the Chambord or Melior names and does not use plaintiff's supply channels for four years.

[09/02] Bouchat v. Baltimore Ravens Ltd, P'Ship
In plaintiff's copyright infringement suit against the Baltimore Ravens football organization and National Football League entities for their unauthorized copying of a Ravens team logo, drawn by plaintiff, that was used for three seasons as the team's official symbol, district court's determination that defendants' depictions of the logo in season highlight films and in the Ravens corporate lobby were fair use, in entering judgment against the plaintiff is reversed in part, affirmed in part and remanded where: 1) because defendants cannot establish a fair use defense for the depictions of the logo in the highlight films, where the logo use is nontransformative and commercial, district court's judgment on this matter is reversed; 2) defendants' claim that plaintiff's request for injunctive relief against these acts of infringement is precluded is rejected and on remand, district court is directed to consider whether an injunction is appropriate; and 3) district court's finding of fair use as to the depictions of the logo in the Ravens corporate lobby, where team history is portrayed, free of charge, is affirmed.

[09/01] Eli Lilly & Co. v. Teva Pharm. USA, Inc.
In a patent infringement suit related to a drug for postmenopausal osteoporosis, judgment of the district court is affirmed where: 1) the record amply supports the district court's conclusion that the ordinary artisan would not have considered it obvious to use raloxifene to treat postmenopausal osteoporosis; 2) because the district court's conclusion that the Bone Loss Patents would not have been obvious, its conclusion as to the Low Dose Patent is affirmed as well; 3) district court did not err in concluding that the Bone Loss Patents and the Low Dose Patents were not invalid for lack of enablement; 4) the district court did not clearly err in invalidating the asserted claims of the Particle Size Patents for lack of written description.

[09/01] Funai Elec. Co., Ltd. v. Daewoo Elec. Corp.
In a patent infringement suit pertaining to various electrical and mechanical components of video cassette players and recorders (VCRs), judgment of the district court is affirmed in part, reversed in part and remanded where: 1) district court's judgment of infringement of three patents and the damages for the infringement are affirmed; and 2) district court's determination of no successor liability in applying the South Korean law is reversed and remanded.

More...

Frequently Asked Questions

How do copyrights, patents and trademarks differ?

What are the advantages of registering a copyright?

What is "work made for hire"?

When is copying allowed under copyright law?

Who owns the patent on an invention created by an employee?

More...

Associated Press text, photo, graphic, audio and/or video material shall not be published, broadcast, rewritten for broadcast or publication or redistributed directly or indirectly in any medium. Neither these AP materials nor any portion thereof may be stored in a computer except for personal and non-commercial use. Users may not download or reproduce a substantial portion of the AP material found on this web site. AP will not be held liable for any delays, inaccuracies, errors or omissions therefrom or in the transmission or delivery of all or any part thereof or for any damages arising from any of the foregoing.

IMPORTANT NOTICE: IF YOU WISH TO CONTACT OUR FIRM BY EMAIL REGARDING ANY MATTER THAT HAS AN ACTUAL DUE DATE SET BY LAW OR REGULATION, PLEASE FORWARD YOUR EMAIL TO DOCKETING@S-N-H.COM.

Copyright © 2010 STAAS & HALSEY, LLP. All rights reserved. You may reproduce materials available at this site for your own personal use and for non-commercial distribution. All copies must include this copyright statement. Important Disclaimer