Search for: "Lexmark"
Results 121 - 140
of 688
Sort by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
3 Feb 2020, 11:56 am
Leah Litman is an assistant professor of law at the University of Michigan Law School. [read post]
27 Dec 2019, 9:54 am
Authorship, like licensing status, is not a “characteristic” of a good.Nor could Sandhu state a claim based on alleged injury to her reputation under Lexmark. [read post]
27 Dec 2019, 9:52 am
First, proximate harm is a 12(b)(6) issue and not a subject matter jurisdiction issue, per Lexmark. [read post]
5 Dec 2019, 10:43 am
Session 3: Shaping an Overall Approach to ProtectionIntroductions: Jerry Reichman and Estelle Derclaye In what ways should different forms of protection be tailored to various types of subject matter (construed legally as forms of intellectual property, but also subject matter construed socially or commercially)? [read post]
22 Nov 2019, 6:20 am
’” This has the historical sequence backwards; most courts to consider the issue have recognized that Lexmark’s logic eliminated the competition requirement. [read post]
18 Nov 2019, 1:24 pm
Under Lexmark, “allegations of lost sales and damage to...business reputation” are sufficient to “give [a plaintiff] standing under Article III to press [a] false-advertising claim. [read post]
17 Nov 2019, 6:00 pm
Lexmark International (Source: SSRN) Prof. [read post]
29 Oct 2019, 12:34 pm
It allegedly falsely marked and advertised VASO6 as patented, because the patent with which VASO6 is marked is not being practiced, according to independent testing.The court dismissed the complaint: the false patent marking claim didn’t properly allege competitive injury, and the false advertising claims failed Lexmark. [read post]
23 Oct 2019, 3:52 am
In short: no trade, no trademark.Two US Court of Appeals opinions have created the possibility that a plaintiff could bring a passing-off action based on use of its trademark outside of the United States only – a powerful new tool for challenging infringers that are first to use the trademark in the United StatesFollowing the Supreme Court’s 2014 decision in Lexmark International, Inc v Static Control Components, Inc (572 US ___, 134 S Ct 1377 (2014)), interpreting the Lanham… [read post]
4 Oct 2019, 6:15 am
Sept. 30, 2019)Brief but very clear statement: after Lexmark, business customers can’t bring Lanham Act claims. [read post]
2 Oct 2019, 5:04 pm
Felony Contempt of Business Model: Lexmark’s Anti-Competitive Legacy: Printer companies are notorious for abusive practices, but Lexmark reached a new low in 2002, when it argued that copyright gave it the right to decide who could put carbon powder into empty toner cartridges. [read post]
23 Sep 2019, 10:43 am
Commercial advertising or promotion: Obligatory note that Gordon & Breach probably doesn’t survive Lexmark untouched, but the key prongs here are whether the claims were (1) commercial speech and (4) disseminated sufficiently to the relevant purchasing public to constitute advertising or promotion within that industry. [read post]
15 Sep 2019, 9:15 am
Lexmark International, Inc. [read post]
15 Sep 2019, 9:15 am
Lexmark International, Inc. [read post]
9 Sep 2019, 9:15 am
[Is this correct where the issue is statutory “standing,” a la Lexmark, rather than Article III standing?] [read post]
4 Sep 2019, 9:09 am
And many of the statements Dickinson cited were outside of defendants’ control.False advertising: Under Lexmark, Dickinson needed to “allege an injury to a commercial interest in reputation or sales. [read post]
3 Sep 2019, 9:36 am
Arguably, those theories would be reconcilable with the Lexmark approach and the fact that courts believe a covenant not to sue is a license by any other name for the purposes of an exhaustion analysis.Courts around the globe have struggled with SEP injunctions for a long time. [read post]
25 Aug 2019, 2:28 pm
” Lexmark Int’l, Inc v. [read post]
23 Aug 2019, 1:28 pm
Lexmark abrogated that prong of the test for advertising or promotion.Next, TET argued that its statements were nonactionable opinion. [read post]
19 Aug 2019, 8:20 am
Aug. 15, 2019)Courts really, really like to call the Lexmark issue “standing. [read post]
