Thanks to our authors from the class of 2014 for a great summer full of analysis! We covered a wide range of legal issues in the areas of entertainment and technology. Check our blog archive for the full coverage.

  • Fox loses its appeal for an injunction to block Dish Networks’ commercial-skipping Hopper
  • Adding a negative claim limitation (i.e., “acriflavine-free”) “to a patent application invalidates the application when it wasn’t included in the original written description
  • Current players added to NCAA antitrust suit
  • Federal judge finds that Sony’s use of nine of Faulkner’s words in Midnight in Paris was fair use
  • Germany disallows new agreements for data transfers to the United States (and other countries) based on concerns over surveillance
  • Judge Posner weighs in on patent trolls, reiterating his call for action

–Brad Edmondson

Image Source

One Response to Monday Morning JETLawg

  1. Michael Silliman says:

    To clarify the negative claim limitation case, the limitation was actually added in the context of an ex parte reexamination, not an application. Meaning they were arguably seeking to expand the scope of their patent after it had issued. I applaud the PTO’s ruling here — it is even more pressing that the PTO guard against post-issuance expansion of patent rights than pre-issuance expansion, as parties must be able to rely on their freedom to operate based on their analysis of the issued patent. Allowing patentees to expand their patent rights beyond that scope of the written description would be unfair to those who have reasonably relied on the original scope of the patent.