AIPLA filed an amicus brief with the Supreme Court in United States Patent and Trademark Office et al. v. Booking.com B.V., No. 19-46, a case addressing whether the addition by an online business of a generic top-level domain (such as “.com”) to an otherwise generic term can create a protectable trademark. In part two of a two-part series, we hear from Craig B. Whitney, a partner in the Frankfurt Kurnit litigation group and the author of AIPLA's recent amicus brief in this case. In part 1, we heard from Rebeccah Gan, a Partner at Wenderoth, on why she disagreed with AIPLA's adopted position.Hosted and produced by Kemahl Franklyn.Support the show (http://www.aipla.org)

IP Casebriefs

Discussing the Booking.com Case, Part 2

AIPLA filed an amicus brief with the Supreme Court in United States Patent and Trademark Office et al. v. Booking.com B.V., No. 19-46, a case addressing whether the addition by an online business of a generic top-level domain (such as “.com”) to an otherwise generic term can create a protectable trademark. In part one of a two-part series, we hear from Rebeccah Gan, a Partner at Wenderoth, on why she disagrees with AIPLA's adopted position. In part two, we'll hear from Craig B. Whitney, a partner in the Frankfurt Kurnit litigation group and the author of AIPLA's recent amicus brief in this case.Hosted and produced by Kemahl Franklyn.Support the show (http://www.aipla.org)

Discussing the Booking.com Case, Part 1

Anthony Levandowski, the former Google engineer who was at the center of a trade secrets lawsuit between Uber and Waymo, has been indicted by a federal grand jury on theft of trade secrets. This criminal indictment is the latest twist in a years-long dispute over intellectual property between Google, where Levandowski worked on autonomous vehicles for nearly a decade, and Uber, which purchased a self-driving startup from Levandowski for a reported $680m in August 2016.Here to talk to us about the Waymo v. Uber case is Diane Siegel Danoff. Diane is a nationally recognized litigator and heads Dechert LLP global trade secret litigation practice. Hosted and produced by Kemahl Franklyn. Support the show (http://www.aipla.org)

Waymo v. Uber

As the IP community digests the USPTO's proposal to adjust patent-related fees, we met with two experts, Kenneth Nigon and Angela Sebor, to discuss their reactions to the proposed changes. Hosted by Gary Lee, produced by Kemahl Franklyn. Support the show (http://www.aipla.org)

9/13: USPTO Fee Setting Proposal Reactions

AIPLA Podcast Network's Mike Cushman is joined by Ted Davis, partner at Kilpatrick Townsend & Stockton LLP, to discuss the Iancu v. Brunetti case. The US Supreme Court, on April 15, heard arguments over whether it should permit the registration of “scandalous” or profane trademarks, a move which critics say would be unconstitutional. The case is an appeal from the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit which in 2017 overturned a decision of the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board (TTAB) and approved registration for the ‘Fuct’ mark.The USPTO refused registration for the mark on the grounds that it was immoral or scandalous under section 2(a) of the Lanham Act. This provision, also known as the disparagement clause, prohibits registration of trademarks covering “immoral, deceptive, or scandalous matter”. The Supreme Court will now rule on whether this clause is in breach of the First Amendment, which guarantees free speech.Support the show (http://www.aipla.org)

Iancu v. Brunetti (6/18/2019)

AIPLA Podcast Network's Gary Lee is joined by David W. Long, founder of Essential Patent LLC, to discuss the FTC v. Qualcomm case. Specifically, we discuss Qualcomm's business [3:09], who is suing whom [4:44], what makes this case unusual [5:20], technical industry standards [7:44], F.R.A.N.D [10:44], licensing [12:44], 5G[20:34], and the trial [23:37]. Support the show (http://www.aipla.org)

FTC v. Qualcomm (3/7/2019)

IP Casebriefs is an AIPLA Podcast Network podcast series that briefly covers current events in patents, trademarks, copyrights, and the rest of intellectual property.

hubhopper

IP Casebriefs

hubhopper