UNITEDSTATESDISTRICTCOURTSOUTHERNDISTRICTOFNEWYORK----------------------------------------------------------------------BARCROFTMEDIA,,Plaintiffs,-v-COEDMEDIAGROUP,LLC,Defendant.----------------------------------------------------------------------16-CV-7634(JMF),UnitedStatesDistrictJudge:Plaintiffs,providersofentertainment-relatedphotojournalismandownersofcelebrityphotographs,bringintellectualpropertyclaimsagainstDefendantCoedMediaGroup,LLC(¡°CMG¡±)relatingtotheallegedlyinfringinguseofcertaincelebrityphotographs(the¡°Images¡±)onCMG¡¯¡¯filingoftheirproposedJointPretrialOrder,Plaintiffsfiledtwomotions:amotion,pursuanttoRule37oftheFederalRulesofCivilProcedure,forspoliationsanctions,();andamotioninliminetoprecludethetrialtestimonyofRobertCoakley,().Plaintiffs¡¯,theymoveforspoliationsanctionsonthegroundthatCMGfailedtopreservethewebpagesonwhichithaddisplayedtheImages(the¡°Webpages¡±).().AlthoughunmentionedbyPlaintiff,therelevantprovisionofRule37wasamendedin2015tostatethatacourtmayimposesanctions¡°[i]felectronicallystoredinformationthatshouldhavebeenpreservedintheanticipationorconductoflitigationislostbecauseapartyfailedtotakereasonablestepstopreserveit,anditcannotberestoredorreplacedthroughadditionaldiscovery.¡±(e).Ifthecourtfindsprejudicetotheotherpartyfromsuch¡°loss,¡±itmay¡°ordermeasuresnogreaterthannecessarytocuretheprejudice.¡±(e)(1).Acourtmayimposemoreseveresanctions¡°onlyuponfindingthatthepartyactedwiththeintenttodepriveanotherpartyoftheinformation¡¯suseinthelitigation.¡±(e)(2);seegenerallyCAT3,,Inc.,,495-96()(discussingtheamendedRule37(e)).GiventheplainlanguageoftheRule,Plaintiffs¡¯motionbordersonfrivolous,forthesimplereasonthattheycannotevenshowthattheevidenceatissuewas¡°lost.¡±SeveraloftheImagesarestillhostedonCMG¡¯swebsites.((¡°Def.¡¯sMem.¡±),at19).AndtherecordmakesclearthatPlaintiffsthemselvespossesscopiesoftheotherWebpages¡ªintheformofscreencapturestakenwhentheydisplayedtheImages(the¡°Screenshots¡±).(,;,at2).Infact,PlaintiffsthemselveslisttheScreenshotsastrialexhibits.(,at15).Giventhat(plusthefactthatDefendantdoesnotdisputetheauthenticityoftheScreenshots(seeid.)ordenythatithostedanddisplayedtheImages(seeDef.¡¯)),thereisnofoundationtoimposesanctionsunderRule37(e).Andtotheextentthattherewereafoundation,sanctionswouldbeinappropriatebecausethereisnoevidencewhatsoeverthatDefendant¡°actedwiththeintenttodepriveanotherpartyoftheinformation¡¯suseinthelitigation,¡±(e)(2),andPlaintiffsobviouslycannotshowprejudice¡°as[they]actuallypossess[]copies¡±oftherelevantevidence,¡¯tofEduc.,(CBA)(VMS),2016WL8677285,at*5(,2016),reconsiderationdenied,2016WL756566(,2016).Plaintiffs¡¯motiontoprecludethetestimonyofRobertCoakleyiswithoutmerit,substantiallyforthereasonsstatedinDefendant¡¯smemorandumoflawinoppositiontothemotion.().ItistruethatDefendantfailedtolistCoakleyinitsinitialdisclosuresandtosupplementitsdisclosureswithhisname,intechnicalviolationofRule26(a)and(e),(c)(1)(allowingforpreclusionofawitnesswhowasnotproperlyidentified¡°unlessthefailure[todisclose]...isharmless¡±),asPlaintiffshaveindisputablyknownaboutCoakleyformonths(and,ontopofthat,havebeenprivytoCoakley¡¯sdirecttestimonysinceJuly,whenitwassubmittedinaffidavitforminaccordancewiththeCourt¡¯sprocedures).See,,,LLC,(JMF),2017WL4155402,at*(,2017)(decliningtoprecludeawitnessbecausethewitness¡¯stestimonywasdisclosedtothemovingparty¡°overamonthandahalfbeforeheactuallytestified¡±);,Inc.,,445()(findingthatthefailuretoformallydisclosewitnesseswasharmlessbecausethemovingparty¡°wasawareoftheirexistenceandrelevance,¡±asthewitnesseshadbeenmentionedindiscoveryresponsesandtheirnameshadappearedindocumentsproducedthroughdiscovery);,(HB),2009WL3790191,at*5(,2009)(decliningtoprecludewitnesstestimonywhere¡°allofthechallengedwitnesseswerereferredtoindocumentsproducedindiscovery¡±).Further,uponreviewofCoakley¡¯sdirecttestimony,thereisnomerittoPlaintiffs¡¯contentionsthatCoakley¡¯,theCourthasaseparateconcernwithrespecttotheGoogleAnalyticsdata(markedasDefenseExhibit17)andCoakley¡¯stestimonyconcerningthosedata¡ªnamely,onferenceonOctober10,,Plaintiffs¡¯:September28,2017NewYork,NewYork

Ê×Ò³ > ±¸¿¼×ÊÁÏ > Ìâ¿âÐÅÏ¢ > ±ÊÊÔÄ£ÄâÌâ >

2022Äêɽ¶«Ò½ÁÆÎÀÉú¿¼ÊÔרҵ֪ʶģÄâÊÔÌ⣨ÁÙ´²Ò½Ñ§£©

À´Ô´£ºÉ½¶«Öй«Ò½ÁÆÎÀÉúÍø     ʱ¼ä£º2022-02-14 09:15:55

µ¼¶Á£º±¸¿¼Ò½ÁÆÎÀÉú¿¼ÊÔ£¬³ýÁËÐèÒªÕÆÎÕºÃרҵ֪ʶÍ⣬»¹ÓÐ×îÖØÒªµÄÒ»µã¾ÍÊÇË¢Ì⣬ͨ¹ýË¢Ìâ¶ÔËù¸´Ï°ÖªÊ¶²éȱ²¹Â©£¬Í¬Ê±ÑµÁ·×Ô¼ºµÄ´ðÌâÄÜÁ¦£¬ÃþË÷´ðÌâ¼¼ÇÉ£¬É½¶«Ò½ÁÆÎÀÉú¿¼ÊÔÍøÎª´ó¼Ò×¼±¸ÁËÁÙ´²Ò½Ñ§Ä£ÄâÊÔÌ⣬¿ìÀ´×öÌâÁ·Ï°Ò»Ï°É~

º²ÁÖÓÅÉÌÍø,¡¡7ÖÊÁ¿ÎÞ±£ÕÏ£¬ÔöÌíÈËÇéÕ®¡£

ÄãÊÇ·ñ¼û¹ýÒ»Ìõ¿íÀ«µÄÂí·ÒòΪΥͣ±ä³ÉÁË¡°µ¥ÐеÀ¡±¼ÒÃſڽüÔÚåë³ßÈ´±»Î¥Í£³µ¶Â×Å¿ª²»½øÈ¥.....Υͣ¿´ËÆÐ¡Ê£¬ÊµÔòÒþ»¼ÖØÖØÇáÔòÔì³É½»Í¨Óµ¶Â£¬ÖØÔòÔì³É½»Í¨Ê¹ʱ¾ÆÚÆØ¹â²¿·ÖΥͣ³µÁ¾£¬Çë¹ã´óÊÐÃñ×öµ½ÎÄÃ÷Í£³µ¡¢¹æ·¶Í£³µÎ¥·¨ÐÐΪ£ºÎ¥¹æÍ£³µ¡¶ÖлªÈËÃñ¹²ºÍ¹úµÀ·½»Í¨°²È«·¨¡·µÚÎåÊ®ÁùÌõ»ú¶¯³µÓ¦µ±Ôڹ涨µØµãÍ£·Å¡£83lsIncase(2021£©×î¸ß·¨ÖªÃñÖÕ1298ºÅrecentlyhighlightedbytheIntellectualPropertyTribunaloftheSupremePeople¡¯sCourtofChina(SPC),theSPCruledthatasettlementagreementtoapatentinfringementlawsuitconstitutedahorizontalmonopolyagreementasthescopetheagreementwasnot,WuhanTaipuTransformerSwitchCo.,Ltd.(TaipuCompany)suedShanghaiHuamingPowerEquipmentManufacturingCo.,Ltd.(HuamingCompany)forinfringingitsinventionpatententitled¡°Off-circuittap-changerwithshieldingdevice.¡±InJanuary2016,thetwopartiesre:HuamingCompanycanonlyproducecertainkindsofnon-excitationtap-changers,andotherkindsofnon-excitationtap-changerscouldonlyberesoldtodownstreamcustomersthroughTaipuCompany,andthesale,HuamingCompanyactsasamarketagentforTaipurelatedentities,andshallnotproduceoractasanagentfortheproductsofthesamecategoryofotherenterprisesonitsown,an,,HuamingCompanyfiledalawsuitinthiscasewiththeIntermediatePeople¡¯sCourtofWuhanCity,HubeiProvince,claimingthatthesettlementagreenotamonopolyagreement,¡¯sCourt,,theSupremePeople¡¯sCourtheldthattodeterminewhethertheagreementinvolvedinthecaseisinvalidduetoviolationofthemandatoryprovisionsoftheAnti-MonopolyLaw,itmustfirstdeterminewhethertheagreementinvolvedinthecaseconstitutesahorizontalmonopolyagreementexpresslyprohibitedbytheAnti-MonopolyLaw,andthende,astowhethertheagreementinvolvedinthecaseconstitutesahorizontalmonopolyagreementexpresslyprohibitedbyArticle13,paragraph1oftheAnti-MonopolyLaw,theSupremePeople¡¯sCourtheldthatHuamingC,bothpartieshavecertainmarketinfluence,andthereisacompetit,withArticles1,5and10asthecore,agreedtostoptheproductionofspecificvarietiesofcommodities,restrictthesalesofspecificvarietiesofcommodities,coordinateandfixprices,andsupplem,restrictingtheproductionandsalesvolumeofcommodities,andfixingcommoditypriceshasbeenstrengthened,anditmeetstheformalrequirementsstfArticle13oftheAnti-MonopolyLawarecommontypesoftypicalhorizontalmonopolyagreementswiththeeffectofeliminatingandrestrictingcompetition,onceagreedupon,willgenerallyeliminateandrestrictcompetitionanditca,Taipushouldbeartheburdenofproofthattheagreementinvolvedi,theevidenceinthecasealsoshowsthataftertheagreementinvolvedinthecasewassigned,theunitpriceoftheoff-circuittap-changerinthepriceguidesentbyTaiputoHuamingwasmuchhigherthanHuaming¡¯sownexternalsalespriceandthelegalrepresentativesofbothpartiesWeChatchatrecordsalsowillleadtoanincreaseinthepriceofrelatedproducts,,regardingtherelationshipbetweentheagreementinvolvedandthepatentinfringementdispute,theSupremePeople¡¯sCourtheldthatinthiscase,thetechnicaleffectofthepatentinvolvedwasmainlytoreducethecostofswitchmanufacturing,toenhancethestabilityandreliabili,Huaming¡¯srestrictedproductionandsalesofcertaintypesofoff-circuittap-changersarenot,HuamingCompanyandTaipuComparket,andusesthistodetermi,salesvolume,salestype,salesarea,,wh,buttousetheexerciseofthepatentrightasacover,infact,itpursuesdividingthesalesmarketandrestrictingtheproductionandsalesofgoodswiththeeffectoffixingprices,whichisanabuseofpatentrights,constitutesanactofexcludingandrestrictingcompetition,,thefactthatTaipuownsandexercisesthepatentrightinth,regardingthelegaleffectoftheagreement,theSupremePeople¡¯sCourtheldthatArticles1,5and10oftheagreementinvolvedviolatedtheprovisionsofArticle13oftheAnti-Mono,Taipudidnotclaimthattheagre,Articles1,nthecase,andtheotherclausesrelatetoth,theagreementcannotsurviveseverabilityafterstrippingoutthethreeclauses,,2022isavailablehere(Chineseonly).

Theself-proclaimedinventorofBitcoin,CraigWright,haswonadefaultjudgmentinLondon¡¯sHighCourtinhisc,thewebsiteanditsownerCobramustremovetheBitcoinwhitepaperfromthewebportalandpay$¡®Satoshi¡¯¡¯,however,onFebruary24viatheIntellecigh,thereissomuchevidencecontradictingCraigWright¡¯sstoryit¡¯sbeensaidhesimply¡°thrivesonattention.¡±¡°He¡¯shadfouryearstocomeforwardwithproofthatheisSatoshi,andI,forone,amnotsatisfied,¡±¡¯soperatorCobra,theCryptoOpenPatentAlliance(COPA)¡¯sclaimstothefamouswhitepaper.¡°Today,r,¡±,arepresentativeofCraigWright,:¡°ThisisexactlywhatwehavewantedtohappenforsometimeandIamverypleasedthisbodyhasagreedtostandupincourtasIcannowhavemycredentialsjudgedlegally.¡±OnJune28andalsoupdatedthefollowingday,¡¯¡¯srequestwhichincludes:AninjunctionprohibitingtheDefendantfrominfringingDrWright¡¯scopyrightintheUnitedKingdo¡±¡°AnorderrequiringtheDefendanttopublishacopyoftheCourt¡¯¡±¡°maintaintheiranonymity.¡±OnTwitter,¡¯spseudonymousoperatorspokeabouttherulingandsaidthatitwastheperfectexampleofwhyuncensorableandpermissionlessnetworkslikeBitcoinareneeded.¡°Allyourfiat-basedassetsareultimatelysecuredbythesamelegalsystemthattodaymadeitillegalformetohosttheBitcoinwhitepaperbecauseanotoriousliarsworebeforeajudgethathe¡¯sSatoshi,¡±Cobratweeted.¡°Asystemwhere¡®justice¡¯dependsonwho¡¯sgotthebiggerwallet.¡±Theanonymousbitcoineradded:¡°Idon¡¯tthinkyoucouldgetabetteradvertisementof*why*donwhoevercanspendhundredsofthousandsofdollarsincourt.¡±

TheshapeofaLondonblackhacktaxiisnotdistinctiveenoughtobeeligiblefortrademarkprotection,otrademarksheldbyTheLondonTaxiCorporation(LTC)lywereitstrademarksvalidbutthatFrazer-NashResearchandEcotivehadinfringeditsrightsinthosemarksaxisLTCmanufactureddidnothaveinherentdistinctivecharacter,hattheywereinherentlydistinctive,suchasthesizeandslopingofthewindscreen,theshapeofthebonnet,thepositioningofthetaxilight,,thejudgesruledthatthosefeaturerademarksthatLTCwereassertingtodete,however,thattheHighCourtwasrighttodeterminethattherewasnotenoughevidencetoshowthattaxihirershadcometoperceivetheshapeoftresentedgraphicallycanqualifyfortrademarkprotectioniftheyarecapableofdistinguishingonecompany,wheremarksarenotinherentlydistinctive,theycanneverthelessberegisteredastrademarksifitcanbeshownthatthemarkhasacquiredadistinctivecharacterinarksandbrandstomerittrademarkprotectioninvolvesevaluatingwhattheaverageconsumerofatypeofproductperceiveswhentheyseeamark,,,saidthefactthattheCoucceptedthattheaverageconsumerforthepurposesofthelegaltesttodeterminewhetherthetrademarkwasvalidincludedpeoplewhohiredtaxis,uchpeoplewereaverageconsumersofataxi;whileitistruethatsuc,rightsholdersshouldconsiderallpotentialconsumerswhointeractwiththetrademarkedgoodswhentryingtoassesstheappropriateaverageconsumer.

£¨ÈÚýÌå¼ÇÕßÑîÒÝÍ¨Ñ¶Ô±ÇØÄþ½¨£©

°²ÅŸøÎÒÃǵÄÉè¼ÆÊ¦ÎÒ»¹ÊDZíʾ»Ò³£»Ò³£µÄÂúÒâµÎ£¬¼ÒÀï×ÜÌå¸ñ¾Ö¸Ä¶¯²»Ëã´ó£¬µ«ÕæµÄÊǰÑÎÒ¼ÒµÄËùÓпռ䶼ÀûÓõ½ÁË£¬·½°¸»ù±¾ÊÇÒ»´Î¾Íͨ¹ýÁË£¬°ÖÂèÒ²¾õµÃºÜ²»´í¡£

Thefundamentalfunctionofatrademarkistoidentifythesourcesofgoods/servicessothatastablecorrespondingrelationshipbetweenthetrademarkandthedesignatedgoods/,manyenterprisesandapplicantsprefershortandeasytoremembersloganforthepromotionandmarketingfort,,(3)ofTrademarkLawofthePeoplesRepublicofChina,thefollowingsignsshallnotberegisteredastrademarks:,itiscommonthatCNIPAwillbelievesuchtrademarkislikelytomisleadthepublictorecognizeitasasloganoradvertisinglanguage,(3):¡°ÃÀʱÃÀ¿Ë¾¡ÔÚÃÀ¼Ò¡±(3);¡°ÊÍ·ÅÄãµÄ»îÁ¦¡±(3);¡°ENJOYTHEDAY¡±(3);¡°HOTELSTHATDEFINETHEDESTINATION¡±(3);¡°WISHYOUWEREHERE¡±(3);¡°UNLOCKTHEFUTUREWITHTHEPOWEROFLIGHT¡±(3).TheabovetrademarkswereallforbiddenfromtrademarkapplicationsinceCNIPAbelievesthemlackingdistinctivefeaturesandarenoteasilydistinguishable,(3)ofTrademarkLawthoughtheapplicantssubmittedrelevantevi,thesignsmayberegisteredastrademarksaftertheyhave¡°Õ⣡¾ÍÊǽÖÎ衱inClass41,theCNIPAbelievesthismarkhasacquireddistinctivenessandbemortinctivefeatures,itshallbeconsideredwithrelevantevidencetodeterminew,,iftheappliedtrademarkcanbecombinedwithotherdistinctiveelements,suchaswordordesign,,¡°LOREALBECAUSEIMWORTHIT¡±;althoughitwouldbeeasiertoenhancethepublicityandreputationofthebrand,itisquitediff,thechancestillexistsiftheslogancanberecognizedasdistinctivenessanddistinguishablethatconsiderthesign,detailedgoods/servicesitems,actualuse,etc.

UNITEDSTATESDISTRICTCOURTSOUTHERNDISTRICTOFNEWYORK----------------------------------------------------------------------BARCROFTMEDIA,,Plaintiffs,-v-COEDMEDIAGROUP,LLC,Defendant.----------------------------------------------------------------------16-CV-7634(JMF),UnitedStatesDistrictJudge:Plaintiffs,providersofentertainment-relatedphotojournalismandownersofcelebrityphotographs,bringintellectualpropertyclaimsagainstDefendantCoedMediaGroup,LLC(¡°CMG¡±)relatingtotheallegedlyinfringinguseofcertaincelebrityphotographs(the¡°Images¡±)onCMG¡¯¡¯filingoftheirproposedJointPretrialOrder,Plaintiffsfiledtwomotions:amotion,pursuanttoRule37oftheFederalRulesofCivilProcedure,forspoliationsanctions,();andamotioninliminetoprecludethetrialtestimonyofRobertCoakley,().Plaintiffs¡¯,theymoveforspoliationsanctionsonthegroundthatCMGfailedtopreservethewebpagesonwhichithaddisplayedtheImages(the¡°Webpages¡±).().AlthoughunmentionedbyPlaintiff,therelevantprovisionofRule37wasamendedin2015tostatethatacourtmayimposesanctions¡°[i]felectronicallystoredinformationthatshouldhavebeenpreservedintheanticipationorconductoflitigationislostbecauseapartyfailedtotakereasonablestepstopreserveit,anditcannotberestoredorreplacedthroughadditionaldiscovery.¡±(e).Ifthecourtfindsprejudicetotheotherpartyfromsuch¡°loss,¡±itmay¡°ordermeasuresnogreaterthannecessarytocuretheprejudice.¡±(e)(1).Acourtmayimposemoreseveresanctions¡°onlyuponfindingthatthepartyactedwiththeintenttodepriveanotherpartyoftheinformation¡¯suseinthelitigation.¡±(e)(2);seegenerallyCAT3,,Inc.,,495-96()(discussingtheamendedRule37(e)).GiventheplainlanguageoftheRule,Plaintiffs¡¯motionbordersonfrivolous,forthesimplereasonthattheycannotevenshowthattheevidenceatissuewas¡°lost.¡±SeveraloftheImagesarestillhostedonCMG¡¯swebsites.((¡°Def.¡¯sMem.¡±),at19).AndtherecordmakesclearthatPlaintiffsthemselvespossesscopiesoftheotherWebpages¡ªintheformofscreencapturestakenwhentheydisplayedtheImages(the¡°Screenshots¡±).(,;,at2).Infact,PlaintiffsthemselveslisttheScreenshotsastrialexhibits.(,at15).Giventhat(plusthefactthatDefendantdoesnotdisputetheauthenticityoftheScreenshots(seeid.)ordenythatithostedanddisplayedtheImages(seeDef.¡¯)),thereisnofoundationtoimposesanctionsunderRule37(e).Andtotheextentthattherewereafoundation,sanctionswouldbeinappropriatebecausethereisnoevidencewhatsoeverthatDefendant¡°actedwiththeintenttodepriveanotherpartyoftheinformation¡¯suseinthelitigation,¡±(e)(2),andPlaintiffsobviouslycannotshowprejudice¡°as[they]actuallypossess[]copies¡±oftherelevantevidence,¡¯tofEduc.,(CBA)(VMS),2016WL8677285,at*5(,2016),reconsiderationdenied,2016WL756566(,2016).Plaintiffs¡¯motiontoprecludethetestimonyofRobertCoakleyiswithoutmerit,substantiallyforthereasonsstatedinDefendant¡¯smemorandumoflawinoppositiontothemotion.().ItistruethatDefendantfailedtolistCoakleyinitsinitialdisclosuresandtosupplementitsdisclosureswithhisname,intechnicalviolationofRule26(a)and(e),(c)(1)(allowingforpreclusionofawitnesswhowasnotproperlyidentified¡°unlessthefailure[todisclose]...isharmless¡±),asPlaintiffshaveindisputablyknownaboutCoakleyformonths(and,ontopofthat,havebeenprivytoCoakley¡¯sdirecttestimonysinceJuly,whenitwassubmittedinaffidavitforminaccordancewiththeCourt¡¯sprocedures).See,,,LLC,(JMF),2017WL4155402,at*(,2017)(decliningtoprecludeawitnessbecausethewitness¡¯stestimonywasdisclosedtothemovingparty¡°overamonthandahalfbeforeheactuallytestified¡±);,Inc.,,445()(findingthatthefailuretoformallydisclosewitnesseswasharmlessbecausethemovingparty¡°wasawareoftheirexistenceandrelevance,¡±asthewitnesseshadbeenmentionedindiscoveryresponsesandtheirnameshadappearedindocumentsproducedthroughdiscovery);,(HB),2009WL3790191,at*5(,2009)(decliningtoprecludewitnesstestimonywhere¡°allofthechallengedwitnesseswerereferredtoindocumentsproducedindiscovery¡±).Further,uponreviewofCoakley¡¯sdirecttestimony,thereisnomerittoPlaintiffs¡¯contentionsthatCoakley¡¯,theCourthasaseparateconcernwithrespecttotheGoogleAnalyticsdata(markedasDefenseExhibit17)andCoakley¡¯stestimonyconcerningthosedata¡ªnamely,onferenceonOctober10,,Plaintiffs¡¯:September28,2017NewYork,NewYork

ASouthAfricanjudgmentdealin,,however,(Pty)(the¡°organiser¡±)inthiscaseorganisesacharitableeventthattakestheformofasleep-out¨Cbusinessleadersareaskedfordonationsandthey¡¯rerequestedtosleepoutdoorsonawinter¡¯st(the¡°charity¡±).Intheprocessoforganisingthefirstsleep-out,theorganiserestablishedanelectronicdatabase,whichcameaboutbecauseeverydonorhadtoregisterontheorganiser¡¯¡¯tforeseenwasthatcertaincompanieswouldwanttopaybyelectronicfundstransfer(¡°EFT¡±).Toaccommodatethesecompanies,,,infact,createdbyanemployeeofthecharity,andthisemployeewasalsoresponsibleforinputtingthedonors¡¯rdidn¡¯ved,theorganiserandthecharityagreedthatalldonationswouldbepaiddirectlyintothebankaccountofthecharity,whichhadthenece,thecharitymadeuseoftheelectronicdatabase,,theorganiserarrangedfurthersleep-outs,butontheseoccasions,,thecharitystart,,erSouthAfricancopyrightlawasa¡°literarywork¡±.Thissomewhatmisleadingtermisdefinedtoinclude¡±tablesandcompilationsofdatastoredorembodiedinacomputer¡±.Thejudgewentontosaythatinordertoenjoycopyrightprotection,aliteraryworkmustbe¡°original¡±.(Pty)LtdvSaundersValveCompanyLtd,thecourtsaidthatforthepurposesofcopyright,¡°allthatisrequiredisthattheworkshouldemanatefromtheauthorhimselfandnotbecopied.¡±InHauptt/aSoftcopyvBrewersMarketingIntelligence(Pty)LtdandOthers,thecourtheldthataworkisoriginalifithasnotbeencopiedfromanexistingsource,andifitsproductionrequiredasubstantialdegreeofskill,,1978,theauthoroftheliteraryworkistheownerofthecopyrightunlessthecopyrighthasbeenassignedand,ifgeneratedbyacomputer,theauthoristhepe,,thecontributionofthecharity¡¯semployeedidnotmeettheoriginalitytest,astheformthatitsemployeehadcreatedforEFTpayerswassubstantial¡°nosubstantialdegreeofskill,judgementorlabour¡±.Thejudgewentontomakeanumberoffurtherpoints:theformforEFTpaymentswas¡°ancillary¡±tothedatabase:¡°butforitsincorporationonthewebsitetherespondentwouldnothavehadthemeanstocollectthedataitclaimstohavecollectedinthemanneritcollectedit...forthatreasonitwouldbeabsurdtoseparatethemanualformfromthewebsite.¡±eveniftheemployeehadinnovatedtheideaofEFTpayments,thisdidnotelevatethecharity¡°tothestatusofapersonwhomadearrangementsnecessaryforthecreationofthewebsite¡±.Thecharityneeded¡°theconcurrenceoftheapplicant¡±,andwithoutthisit¡°wouldnothavebeenabletocollectthedataitclaimstoown¡±.thepurposeoftheEFTinnovationwassimplytomakeitpossiblefordonorstopaybyEFTandgettaxexemptioncertificates,,soitsclaimtobeingapartnerwas¡°absurd¡±.Thejudgeconcludedthatgivingthecharitythestatusofanauthorofthedatabaseonthebasisofdatamanuallyaddedtothedatabasethatisautomaticallygeneratedfromthewebsitewouldbean¡°overbroadinterpretation¡±.Theorganiserwast(injunction).Ifthere¡¯salessontobelearnedfromthiscase,it¡¯sthis:copyrightissuesneedtobeconsideredandclarifiedrightfromthestart.

TheMannheimRegion,NokiasuedOPPOinfourdifferentcountri,,thisisthefirstrulingregardingthedisputedpatentsrelatedto4G(LTE)and5GStandardEssentialPatents(SEPs).NokiasuedOPPOovernineSEPsandfiveimplementationpatentsinthreeGermanregionalcourtsincludingMunichandD¡§,beingaleaderin5GSEPs,hasinvestedatotalof€umerproducts,itsprev,luxurycarmanufacturer,Daimler,hassettleditshigh-profilepatentlitigationwithNokia,follow,NokiawasgrantedaceaseanddesistorderbytheMannheimRegionalCourt,,whileBirdBirdstandforthecompanyduringitsLenovolawsuit.

2¡¢ÈâÆ¤ÖеĽºÔ­µ°°×ÄÜÉøÍ¸½øÌÀÖУ¬Á¹ºóÄý¹ÌµÃºÜ½áʵ£¬Ï²»¶³Ô¡°¶³¶ù¡±¿ÉÊÊÁ¿¶à·ÅÌÀË®¡£

,aChinesesmartwatchmaker¨CPutianDoumaofirmhastriedofusingtheHuaweilogoanditsnamewithsomesmartwatchestoselltheminitsstoreduetowhichthelegallawsuitshaveorderedthecompanytocompensate2millionyuan(),,,bracelets,andmoresold,,suchtypeofbehav,thedefendantbeginsarguingthatsuchterm,:Theevalua,thedefendantsdefensethatthewordHuaweiusesinadescriptivemannercannotestablish,,thedefendantsuseofofficialwebsitemoneyandofficialupgrademoneyintheproductintrodu,thecourthascommandedthedefendanttocompensateforthelossofHuaweiassoonaspossible.

InresponsetoacomplaintfiledbytheleadingSpanishfootballleagueLaLiga,thecountrysNationalPolicehascarriedoutalarge-scaleope,leadingtothedismantlin,top-tierSpanishfootballleagueLaL,LaLiga¡¯spremiumcontentiswidely¡¯thopetovisitthemall,¡¯phoneseffectivelybecamespyingdevicesthatcouldlistentotheirsurroundingsand,whenLaLigamatcheswereidentified,,LaLigawashitwitha250,000eurofinebySpain¡¯sdataprotectionagencyAEPDbutthecompanyvowedtocontinuefighting¡°thisveryseriousscourgethatispiracy¡±.LaLigakeptitswordandanoperationjustannouncedbylocalpolicerevealsthatcommLigainJanuary2022,Spain¡¯sNationalPolicelaunchedaninvestigationintoapsSpainincludingSeville,Malaga,Cordoba,Zaragoza,Valladolid,Murcia,PalmadeMallorca,Gij¨®n,Madrid,Vigo,LasPalmas,tandermatcheswerebeingplayed,and166barswereidentifiedasbeinginvolvedinthefraudulentdisplayofcopyrightedcontent.¡°Asaresultof[theoperation],theentireinfrastructurethatallowedtheillegalviewingofpaidmultimediacontentwasdismantled,withtheidentificationofthoseresponsibleandthecessationoftheillegalservicetheyprovided,¡±alargenumberofpiracy-configureddevicesincludingAmazonFiresticks,genericAndroidboxes,ntellectualpropertyinfringementcrimes.

»ú¶¯³µ¾­¹«°²»ú¹Ø½»Í¨¹ÜÀí²¿ÃŵǼǺ󣬷½¿ÉÉϵÀ·ÐÐÊ»¡£

Ϊ¹æ·¶¹ÜÀí£¬±ÜÃâ·¿Ô´ÐÅÏ¢²»¼°Ê±£¬ËùÓз¢ÌûÒ»Öܺó¾ùµ÷Õû״̬Ϊ(ÒÑ×â)(ÒÑÊÛ)£¬Çë֪Ϥ¡¾¶þÊÖ·¿¡¿ÊǹàÄϰÙÐÕÍø£¨¹àÄÏÂÛ̳£©·¢²¼³öÊÛ·¿ÎÝ¡¢ÉÌÆÌ¡¢×ÉѯÌÖÂÛµÄÏà¹ØÐÅÏ¢µÄר°æ¡£

TheSupremeCourtwillhearanongoingcopyrightcasebetweenSwedishfastfashiongiantHMandpattern-makingcompanyUnicolors,ent,aswellasthefindingsofothercircuitsandtheCopyrightOfficeinholdingthattheCopyrightActrequiresadistrictcourttoseekguidancefromtheCopyrightOfficewhentherearequestionsaboutthevalidityofacopyrightregistrationbutnoevid,accusingthefastfashionbehemothofinfringingoneofitsgeometricpatterns¨Cbywayofa¡°remarkablysimilar¡±print¨C,inwhichajuryfoundthatHMhadwillfullyinfringedUnicolors¡¯scopyright-protectedpattern,andawardedthepatterncompany$846,720indamages,attorney¡¯sfees,andcosts,¡¯sappealwasitsclaimthatUnicolorslacksavalidcopyrightregistrationforthefabricpatternatthecenterofthecasebecauseUnicolorshadimpher,makingthemanappropriate¡°singleunit¡±foronecollectivecopyrightapplicationandregistration,HMclaimedthatUnicolorsactuallysoldsomeofthepatternsseparatelytodifferentcustomers¨Catdifferenttimes,thereby,makingthecompany¡¯,2020,theNinthCircuitreversedthejuryverdictandsidedwithHMonthebasisthatthereisnointent-to-defraudrequirementforreg¡ì411(b)(2)¨CwhichrequiresdistrictcourtstoasktheRegisterofCopyrightswhetherregistrationwouldhavebeenrefusediftheCopyrightOfficehadknowntheinformationwasinaccurate¨CwhenitdidnotreferthemattertotheCopyrightOfficeafterHMallegedthattheregistrationcontainsinac,andUnicolorsfiledapetitionforawritofcertiorari,¡¯spetition,theNinthCircuitgotthecasewrong,asthejudges¡¯rulingconcerningthetimelineofthepublicationoftheworkscoveredbythesingle-unitcopyrightregistrationwas¡°flawedbecausetherewasnoevidencesupporting[their]conclusionthatthedesignswereseparatelypublishedbeforecertaindesignswerecategorizedasconfinedinUnicolors¡¯registrationcertificate.¡±Withthatinmind,Unicolorsclaimedthattherewas¡°insufficientevidencetodeduceany¡ì411(b).¡±¡°Thepanel¡¯¡ì411(b)wasalsoflawed,¡±accordingtoUnicolorsbecause¡°manycourts,legislativeandadministrativeauthorities,andtheleadingcopyrighttreatisehaveuniformlyinterpretedthePrioritizingResourcesandOrganizationforIntellectualPropertyActof2008¡­tocodifythedoctrineoffraudontheCopyrightOfficeandthus,toallowinvalidationundersection411(b)onlywhentheregistrantisshowntohaveactedinbadfaithorintendedtodefraudtheCopyrightOffice.¡±LookingaheadtotheSupremeCourt¡¯sconsiderationofthecase,ractitionersthatthesection411(b)issueis¡°ripeforreview,¡±particularlygiventhatdisputesaboutcopyrightregistrationerrors¨Cwhichcanstemfrom¡°anumberoffactors,includingunclearguidanceaboutregistrationrules,asimplemisunderstandingofwhattheapplicationrequiresand,mostrelevanttotheissueathand,purposefulorknowinginaccuracies¡±¨Care¡°commoninlitigation.¡±MeanwhileFinneganattorneysSamuelEichnerandMargaretEsquenethavenotedthatingrantingcertiorari,theSupremeCourtmaybelookingto¡°resolveanapparentcircuitsplitontheissueofwhetherthereisanintent-to-defraudrequirementbeforeareferralismadetotheCopyrightOfficeunderSection411(b).¡±Atthesametime,theCourtmayalsobeaiming¡°toclarifythestrengthofacopyrightregistration¡¯spresumptivevalidityand/ortheextenttowhichtheCopyrightActrequirescourtstodefertoCopyrightOfficedeterminationsundersection411(b)(2)astowhetherinaccuracies,ifknown,wouldhavecausedtheCopyrightOfficetorefuseregistration.¡±Ultimately,EichnerandEsquenetassertthatbecauseintenttodefraudisgenerallydifficulttoprove,¡°theSupremeCourt¡¯sdecisionshouldhaveasignificantimpactonthestrengthofcopyrightregistrations¡±¨Cwhicharenowprerequisitestofilingcopyrightinfringementactions¨C¡°andtheirsusceptibilitytovalidityattacksbasedonperceivedinaccuraciesinregistrations.¡±Assuch,thedecisionhasthepotentialtoimpactcopyrightapplicationpractices.

Ëû˵£º¡°ÎÒÄêÇᣬÉíÌåËØÖʺã¬ÔÛÃÇÇàÄêÈ˶àÖµÒ»µãÒ¹°àÊÇÓ¦¸ÃµÄ£¬ÕâÑù»¹Äܱ£Ö¤ÀÏͬ־Óгä×ãµÄÐÝϢʱ¼ä¡£

ÎÒÃǽ«¼°Ê±½«Ê¼þÏà¹ØÇé¿öÒÔÓʼþ¡¢Ðꝡ¢µç»°¡¢ÍÆËÍ֪ͨµÈ·½Ê½¸æÖªÄú£¬ÄÑÒÔÖðÒ»¸æÖª¸öÈËÐÅÏ¢Ö÷Ìåʱ£¬ÎÒÃÇ»á²ÉÈ¡ºÏÀí¡¢ÓÐЧµÄ·½Ê½·¢²¼¹«¸æ¡£

ChinaonTuesdaykickedoffafive-monthcampaignagainstunlicense,e-commercewebsites,onlineadvertisements,musicandvideostreamingwebsites,cloudstorageservicesandonlinenewsproviders,accordingtoastatementreleasedbytheNationalCopyrightAdministration(NCA).Iturgedlocalpoliceandcopyright,internetandtelecomdepartmentstostrengthensupervisionandseverelycrackdownonintellectualproper,a,StateInternetInformationOffice,theMinistryofIndustryandInformationTechnologyandtheMinistryofPublicSecurity.

2:²æ³µË¾»ú£¨Ñ§Í½Ò²ÕУ©£¬ÒªÇóÄÜÀ´ÁÙÒʹ¤×÷£¬ÓÐûÓв泵֤ûÓйØÏµ£¬Ö÷ÒªÊìϤ²æ³µ²Ù×÷¾Í¿ÉÒÔ¡£

UNITEDSTATESDISTRICTCOURTSOUTHERNDISTRICTOFNEWYORK----------------------------------------------------------------------BARCROFTMEDIA,,Plaintiffs,-v-COEDMEDIAGROUP,LLC,Defendant.----------------------------------------------------------------------16-CV-7634(JMF),UnitedStatesDistrictJudge:Plaintiffs,providersofentertainment-relatedphotojournalismandownersofcelebrityphotographs,bringintellectualpropertyclaimsagainstDefendantCoedMediaGroup,LLC(¡°CMG¡±)relatingtotheallegedlyinfringinguseofcertaincelebrityphotographs(the¡°Images¡±)onCMG¡¯¡¯filingoftheirproposedJointPretrialOrder,Plaintiffsfiledtwomotions:amotion,pursuanttoRule37oftheFederalRulesofCivilProcedure,forspoliationsanctions,();andamotioninliminetoprecludethetrialtestimonyofRobertCoakley,().Plaintiffs¡¯,theymoveforspoliationsanctionsonthegroundthatCMGfailedtopreservethewebpagesonwhichithaddisplayedtheImages(the¡°Webpages¡±).().AlthoughunmentionedbyPlaintiff,therelevantprovisionofRule37wasamendedin2015tostatethatacourtmayimposesanctions¡°[i]felectronicallystoredinformationthatshouldhavebeenpreservedintheanticipationorconductoflitigationislostbecauseapartyfailedtotakereasonablestepstopreserveit,anditcannotberestoredorreplacedthroughadditionaldiscovery.¡±(e).Ifthecourtfindsprejudicetotheotherpartyfromsuch¡°loss,¡±itmay¡°ordermeasuresnogreaterthannecessarytocuretheprejudice.¡±(e)(1).Acourtmayimposemoreseveresanctions¡°onlyuponfindingthatthepartyactedwiththeintenttodepriveanotherpartyoftheinformation¡¯suseinthelitigation.¡±(e)(2);seegenerallyCAT3,,Inc.,,495-96()(discussingtheamendedRule37(e)).GiventheplainlanguageoftheRule,Plaintiffs¡¯motionbordersonfrivolous,forthesimplereasonthattheycannotevenshowthattheevidenceatissuewas¡°lost.¡±SeveraloftheImagesarestillhostedonCMG¡¯swebsites.((¡°Def.¡¯sMem.¡±),at19).AndtherecordmakesclearthatPlaintiffsthemselvespossesscopiesoftheotherWebpages¡ªintheformofscreencapturestakenwhentheydisplayedtheImages(the¡°Screenshots¡±).(,;,at2).Infact,PlaintiffsthemselveslisttheScreenshotsastrialexhibits.(,at15).Giventhat(plusthefactthatDefendantdoesnotdisputetheauthenticityoftheScreenshots(seeid.)ordenythatithostedanddisplayedtheImages(seeDef.¡¯)),thereisnofoundationtoimposesanctionsunderRule37(e).Andtotheextentthattherewereafoundation,sanctionswouldbeinappropriatebecausethereisnoevidencewhatsoeverthatDefendant¡°actedwiththeintenttodepriveanotherpartyoftheinformation¡¯suseinthelitigation,¡±(e)(2),andPlaintiffsobviouslycannotshowprejudice¡°as[they]actuallypossess[]copies¡±oftherelevantevidence,¡¯tofEduc.,(CBA)(VMS),2016WL8677285,at*5(,2016),reconsiderationdenied,2016WL756566(,2016).Plaintiffs¡¯motiontoprecludethetestimonyofRobertCoakleyiswithoutmerit,substantiallyforthereasonsstatedinDefendant¡¯smemorandumoflawinoppositiontothemotion.().ItistruethatDefendantfailedtolistCoakleyinitsinitialdisclosuresandtosupplementitsdisclosureswithhisname,intechnicalviolationofRule26(a)and(e),(c)(1)(allowingforpreclusionofawitnesswhowasnotproperlyidentified¡°unlessthefailure[todisclose]...isharmless¡±),asPlaintiffshaveindisputablyknownaboutCoakleyformonths(and,ontopofthat,havebeenprivytoCoakley¡¯sdirecttestimonysinceJuly,whenitwassubmittedinaffidavitforminaccordancewiththeCourt¡¯sprocedures).See,,,LLC,(JMF),2017WL4155402,at*(,2017)(decliningtoprecludeawitnessbecausethewitness¡¯stestimonywasdisclosedtothemovingparty¡°overamonthandahalfbeforeheactuallytestified¡±);,Inc.,,445()(findingthatthefailuretoformallydisclosewitnesseswasharmlessbecausethemovingparty¡°wasawareoftheirexistenceandrelevance,¡±asthewitnesseshadbeenmentionedindiscoveryresponsesandtheirnameshadappearedindocumentsproducedthroughdiscovery);,(HB),2009WL3790191,at*5(,2009)(decliningtoprecludewitnesstestimonywhere¡°allofthechallengedwitnesseswerereferredtoindocumentsproducedindiscovery¡±).Further,uponreviewofCoakley¡¯sdirecttestimony,thereisnomerittoPlaintiffs¡¯contentionsthatCoakley¡¯,theCourthasaseparateconcernwithrespecttotheGoogleAnalyticsdata(markedasDefenseExhibit17)andCoakley¡¯stestimonyconcerningthosedata¡ªnamely,onferenceonOctober10,,Plaintiffs¡¯:September28,2017NewYork,NewYork

Withanincreaseinpopulationsothebasicneedoffood,theuseofchemica,13June2021:Withanincreaseinpopulationsothebasicneedoffood,theuseofchemicasandimplementationofdifferentkindsofsustainableagriculturalpracticesamongfarmersIndia¡¯d500LakhMetricTonnes(LMT),(FAO),theconsumptionoffertilizerssuchasnitrogenous,potash,andphosphatefertilizerstoucheda,theGreenrevolutionwasam,thereisnospecifictrendinfertilizersconsumption(UreaPhosphaticandPotassic(PK),India¡¯sfertilizerconsumptionwascloseto500LakhMetricTonnes,roblemsExcessiveuseofchemicalfertilizerswillresultinsoilacidification,heavymetalspollution,soilcompaction,,theplantsandsoilwillbedegradediffertilizersarenotusedjudiciously.

AnationwidecultureandcreativeindustryalliancewasestablishedTuesdayinGuangzhou,thecapitalofGuangdongprovince,,wassetupduringtheTianheSummitoftheChinaCultureandCreativeIndustryConference,willhelpbuildanationwideplatformforcompaniesandorganizationsinthecultu,aleadingwriterandstrategistonthecreativeeconomy,sharedhisviewsduerthepast40years¡ªespeciallyintheareasofdesign,fashionandmodernart,eindustry,,Howkinshasworkedwithawiderangeofpeopleandorganizationsinover30countriesandregionstoincre:HowPeopleMakeMoneyfromIdeashasuralIndustryFair,,acopyrightexpoofinternationalculturalheritagemuseums,aforumfocusingonadvertisement,aninternationalartexpoandaninternationalentertainmenttradefair,accordingtotheorganizers.

Manysoftware-relatedandbusinessmethod-relatedpatentshavebeeninvalidatedforbeingdirectedto¡°abstractideas.¡±OnJanuary10,2018,inFinjan,Inc.,,Inc.,theFederalCircuitaffirmedthedistrictcourt¡¯sholdingthatFinjan¡¯,154,844(¡°the¡¯844patent¡±)[1]wasnotdirectedtoa¡ì¡¯sthresholdtestforpatenteligibilityunder¡ì101is¡°whethertheclaimsfocusonthespecificassertedimprovementincomputercapabilities...or,insteadonaprocessthatqualifiesasan¡®abstractidea¡¯forwhichcomputersareinvokedmerelyasatool.¡±[2]Thecourt¡¯srecentdecisionprovidesadditionalguidanceregardingthetypesofclaimsthatconstitutespecifiofCaliforniaonAugust28,2013,forinfringementofmultiplepatentsbyBlueCoat¡¯¡¯844patentscansfilesforpotentialsecuritythreats(,viruses),createsrespectivesecurityprofileslinkedtothescannedfiles,andthenmakesthescannedfilesavailabletousers.[3]Thejudgefoundthatthe¡¯¡ì101,,amongotherrulings,thedistrictcourt¡¯¡ì101asappliedtothe¡¯,inpart,thattheassertedclaimsofthe¡¯844patentshouldbeinvalidatedbecausetheclaimswereanalogoustothoseinApple,,Inc.;[4]AffinityLabsofTex.,,LLC;[5],[6],theFederalCircuitdistinguisheditspreviousdecisionsinvalidatingclaims,inpart,bycitingbacktoacoreconceptofpatentetandingforthe¡°foundationalpatentlawprinciple:thataresult,evenaninnovativeresult,isnotitselfpatentable.¡±[7]Rather,patents¡°aregranted¡®forthediscoveryorinventionofsomepracticablemethodormeansofproducingabeneficialresultoreffect...andnotfortheresultoreffectitself.¡¯¡±[8]Akeydistinguishingfeaturethatthecourtfoundwasthattheclaimsinthe¡¯844patent¡°recitespecificsteps...thataccomplishthedesiredresult.¡±[9]Notably,the¡¯844patentdoesnotclaimeithertheresultofperformingtheclaimedmethodstepsortheimprovementsoftheclaimedmethodoverthepriorart.[10]However,thecourtstilldistinguishedtheclaimsinthe¡¯844patentfromtheinvalidatedclaimsinApple,AffinityLabs,andIntellectualVentures[11]becausethoseclaimsgenerallyreciteddesirableresultsthatwereimplementedbygenericcomputercomponentsperformingkn¡¯844patent,theFederalCircuitfoundthatthepatent¡°enablesacomputersecuritysystemtodothingsitcouldnotdobefore...allow[ing]accesstobetailoredfordifferentusersandensur[ing]thatthreatsareidentifiedbeforeafilereachesauser¡¯scomputer.¡±[12]Thisnewfunctionalitywasfoundtobesufficientlyenabledbasedonthespecificationofthe¡¯844patent,whichdistinguishedtheadvantagesof¡°behavior-based¡±virusscanningtopriorart¡°code-matching¡±¡¯844patentrecitespecificstepstoaccomplishanadvantageousresultbasedontheenablingdescriptioninthespecification.[13]Thus,thepatenteligibilityinquiryunder¡ì101endedwithdeterminingthattheclaimsweredirectedt,theFederalCircuitprovidesnewguidanceforpatenteligibilityunder¡ì,thecourtbaseditsanalysisonanovelapproachinoneembodimentfoundinthespecificationofthe¡¯844patent,eventhoughtheclaimsarenotlimitedtothatspecificembodiment.[14]Thus,thecourtfoundthattheclaimsarenotrequiredtoexplicitlyrecitearesultorimprovementwherethespecificationadequatelydescr¡ì101maythereforebebasedonacombinationofthestepsrecitedinaclaimforaccomplishingaresultandthespecification¡¯sdescription,whenassessingthepatenteligibilityofcomputer-relatedpatentclaims,emphasisshouldbeplacedonthespecification¡¯sdescriptionofthestateoftheartascomparedtohowanimprovementincom(eg,tables,footnotes),pleaseaccesstheoriginalhere.

Recently,TianjinIntellectualPropertyCourtsolvedacaseinvolvingtrademarkinfringementandunfaircompetitionbymediation,inwhichthefamousautomobilecompanyMaseratiChinaCarsTradingCo.,,thedefendantofthecasehasusedMaserati¡¯sbrandname¡°,theChinesesubsidiary¡¯snameandregisteredtrademarks¡°ÂêɯÀ­µÙ¡±¡°MASERATI¡±¡°¡±onitseyeglassesmanufacturedorforsale,dtrademarksinthecategoryof¡°eyeglassesandotherrelatedtrademarks¡±.Asthecasewassettled,theplaintiff¡¯swell-knowntrademarkshavesuccessfullygainedadditionalprotectionbeyondclass.

Lastweek,theItalianSocietyofAuthorsandEditors(SIAE)saiditpartnered,forexample,asimilarprojectincollaborationwiththeLaSapienzaUniversityofRomeandthestartupBlockchainCore,,SIAEisworkingwithAlgorandtoleveragethelatter¡¯bysomeone,andtheplatformwillkeeptrackoftheroyaltiestheywouldreceive.¡°Theworldisevolving,butthefoundingmissionoftheItalianSocietyofAuthorsandPublishers,theprotectionofcreativity,doesnotchange,¡±saidSIAEGeneralManagerGaetanoBlandini.¡°OurcollaborationwithAlgorandispartofaprocessalreadystartedandisalignedwithresearchandinnovationonanationalandglobalscale.¡±CommentingonthepartnershipwithSIAE,SilvioMicali,thefounderofAlgorand,said,¡°Collaborationbetweentechnologyprovidersandforward-thinkingorganizationssuchasSIAEopensupvastopportunitiesforprogressiontowardsneweconomicmodelsthatpromoteinclusivity,transparency,andfrictionlesstransactions.¡±Blockchainisbeingseenastheperfectmat,ab,,potentially,eachpieceofcopyrightedworkcanbeassigneduniqueidentifiers,androyaltypaymentscouldbedirectlysenttotheowner¡¯,,,Ba,HTCandafewotherfirmshaveinvestedinTaiwan-basedpropertyrightsstartupBitmarkInc,,SouthKorea¡¯sCJOliveNetworks,theITdivisionofCJGroup,launchedablockchaindigitalcopyrightssystemwhichfocusesonmusicalworks.

OnMay3,2022,theAdministrativeConferenceoftheUnitedStates(ACUS)announcedthattheUnitedStatesPatentandTrademarkOffice(USPTO)hadengagedACUStoconductanindependentstudyintotheissuesassociatedwith,andthedesignof,(May3,2022)TheACUSinvitespubliccommentsonthestudy,whichareduebyJuly5,,however,,concernshavebeenraisedthatthecostofpatentlitigationinfederalcourtdeterssmall-andmedium-sizedenterprises,includingthoseownedbytraditionallyunderrepresentedgroups,,theDepartmentofCommerceinvestigate,thenDirectoroftheUSPTODavidKapposissuedaFederalRegisternoticeseekingpubliccommentsonwhethertheUnit(,2012)ThenoticeofthisnewstudycomesnearlyayearafterabipartisangroupofsixsenatorssentalettertotheCommissionerforPatents,,2021letter,SenatorsChristopherCoons(D-DE)JohnCornynIII(R-TX)ThomasCotton(R-AR)MazieHirono(D-HI)PatrickLeahy(D-VT)andThomasTillis(R-NC)referencedthe2012FederalRegisternoticeandstatedthattheUSPTOhadnotfolloweduponthatdthatthestudybeprovidedtotheSenateJudiciaryCommitteenolaterthanDecember31,ctanindependentsurveyandanalysisofissuesassoc:;tentcourt;,structure,andinternalorganizationofapotentialsmallclaimspatentcourt,includingwhetheritshouldbeestablishedwithintheArticleIIIfederalcourts,asorwithinanArticleIcourt,orasanadministrativetribunal;,appointment,management,andoversightofofficialswhopresideoverproceedingsinapotentialsmallclaimspatentcourt;,whetherparticipationinsuchproceedingswouldbemandatoryorvoluntary,andwhetherpartiescanremovecasestoanotheradministrativetribunalorfederalcourt;urt,including,asrelevant,pleadings,discovery,andalternativedisputeresolution;vide;;/,thereisabroadrangeofpossibilit,andhowitisstructured,willimpactpatentholdersandaccusedinfringersalike.

ɽ¶«ÁºÉ½Õýµã¶þÊÖÉ豸רҵ¹ºÏú»¯¹¤³§¡¢ÖÆÒ©³§¡¢Ê³Æ·³§¡¢ËÇÁϳ§¡¢ÒûÁϳ§¡¢Æ¡¾Æ³§É豸¡£

InthewakeoftheCOVID-19outbreak,($)in2020,,legalcounseloftutoringserviceproviderTALEducationGroup,spokeatarecent,hadmorethan14,000linkscarryingunauthoriz,infringementsarecontinuing,ofonlineplatforms,os,anyhs,,ajudgefromtheBeijingInternetCourt,saidthatinjudicialpractices,onlinecoursescanbeprots,,offenderstrytogetaroundthelegalissuebyinsistingtheyareforschooling,,asmallnumberofcopiesofpublishedworksisallowedforschooling,scientificresearchortranslation,,statutorylicen,alawprofessoratEastChinaUniversityofPoliticalScienceandLaw,saidthattheuseoftheworksa£­includingschooltextbooks£­basedontheprincipleofrationaluse,,worksareban,whichconstitutesarationaluse,theyaresubjecttostringentrequirements,,thejudgenoted,thetranslation,reproductionandnetworkdistributionhorizationfromauthorsonebyone,saidQiLei,authorizationandbrands.

UtahscookiecompetitioncontinuedonJuly13whenDirtyDoughandCraveCo,foundedinLoganbySawyerHemsleyandJasonMcGowan,filedalawsuitagainstDirtyDough,acookiebusinessthatstartedinTempe,Arizona,,aCrumblinsiderleftCrumbltofoundDirtyDough,whichsellsandpromotescookiesusingpackaging,decor,andpresentationthatisconfusinglysim,whosbrotherwasaCrumblemployee,toldTheHerald,youguysknowthatDirtyDoughwasalreadystartedin2018,,Ithinkwerethemostdifferent,..,,bigsupporter,Maxwellsaid,expla,allofasuddenoutofnowhere¡­wegethitwithalawsuit,,,,wellseeiftheywanttotalk¡­whatsthesolutionhereMaxwellsaid,,wereachedouttothem¡ªtoldthemweacceptedcounsel,,,anothercookiecompanythathascometoUtah,,afterCrumbldeniedanapplicationbyCravesfoundertobecomeaCrumblfranchisee,Cravebegansellingandpromotingitscopycatgourmetcookies,Crumblscomplaintreadsbeforealletailsofthevaluablegoodwill,reputation,ontobecomeaCrumblefranchiseeorthatCraveisinviolationofanyofCrumblsallegedtrademarks,tradedress,orotherintellectualpropertyrights,rattemptbyathreatenedcompetitortousealawsuittostiflefairandfreecompetitionanddenyconsumersachoiceofproducts,Englishsaidinastatementto,,orelsewhywouldnttheytalkwithusorsendacease-and-desistletter,,,Maxwellsaid,,hesaid,,Crumblsaidtheyareprotectingtheirsuccess:Asafranchisorof30,000+CrumblCrewmembers,1,000+FranchisePartners,andhundredsofCrumblHQemployees,wewillalwaystakeseriouslyourroleinbuildingandprotectingthecompanyanditstrademarksthatweveallworkedsohardtocreatetogether.

,foundintheFirstAmendment,maypresentalegalrecourseforcanna,afreespeechargumentwillnotbeofhelptothosewhosimplycopyafamoustrademark,,however,,brandstakethatinspirationtoofar,,,allegingthatitwassellingTHC-containingproductsbearingsomeofFerrarasregisteredtrademarks,,AkimovwasnotusingmarksinspiredbyFerraras,provenance,,itsreputationcouldsufferincaseofanyproblemswithAkimovsproducts,astheproblemscouldbeassociatedwithFerrarastrademarks,,salesofunauthorizedNerdsandTrolliproductstomisledconsumers,whoinfactwantedthegenuinearticle,,theinspirationdrawnfromafamoustrademarkmightbeobvious,,,TerphogzLLC,,,butwhethertheuseofZk,ratingthewordZkittlez,notf,,theConstitutionanditsfreespeechprotectionsmightconstituteanotherarrowinthequiverofbrandsthatseekinspirationfromfamoustrademarks,,theFirstAmendmenttotheConstitutionprovidesthatCongressshallmakenolaw...soffreedomofspeech,ontheonehand,andfederaltrademarkrightsprovidedforunderlawsmadebyCongress,,theLanhamActprohibitstheregistrationofatrademarkthatsocloselyresemblesaregisteredmarkoramarkthatwaspreviouslyusedbyanotherastobelikely,whenusedonorinconnectionwiththegoodsoftheapplication,tocauseconfusion,ortocausemistake,,brandownersfreedomofspeechislimitedbythisprohibition,asitmeanstheycannotusecertainwords,,,eregistra,,theSupremeCourtin2017reache,courtshavegenerallyconsideredthatthecurtailmentofFirstAmendmentprotectionsisacceptablewhendenyingprotectiontoat,theSupremeCourtrecognizedthatthesuppressionofcertainwordsintheinterestoftrademarkprotectionc,thecourtconsideredthatthisriskhadtobeweighedagainsttheimportanceofprotectingthevalueadd,,iffreespeechinterestsareimplicated,aplaintiffcl,key,,,,theNinthCircuitmadeclearth,thekeyiswhethertheu,theuseofelementsassociatedwithJackDanielsbrandimageoksusedbysomecannabisbrandsthatparody,orareinspiredby,,,notallcannabistrademarksbeingchallengedbytheownersoffamoustrademarkswillcrossthethresholdofartisticexpression,,undertheRogerstest,theuseofthesecannabistrademarkswillonlyconstitutei,itsusehasartisticrelevance¡ª,itishardt,theysendanimmediatesignaltoconsumers,totheeffectthatthesetr,itcanbeargunRothschild,,withmanyestablishedbrandsenteringthemetaverse,consumerswouldexpectthatNFTsbearingfamou,itwouldbefarhardertomakethatargumentifthechosennameforthecollectionwasMetaVirkins,orsomecannabisbrandsininfringementhotwater,dlyinfringedtrademarksareusedonproductsthatareunlawfulatthefederallevel,suchasmarijuana,asdefinedintheControlledSubstancesAct,orCBDproductswhoseintroductionintointerstatecommerceviolatestheFederalFood,rkss,phraseorlogoathandisaFirstAmendment-protectedexpressionfirst,,however,itsufficestohighlightthispotentialopeningforacourtlookingforalegaldistinc;,itisworthstressingthattheFirstAmendmentwillnotcometotherescueofthosecannabisbrandsthatcannotregistertheirtrademarksatth,though,theConstitutionmightofferdeliverance.

Withanincreaseinpopulationsothebasicneedoffood,theuseofchemica,13June2021:Withanincreaseinpopulationsothebasicneedoffood,theuseofchemicasandimplementationofdifferentkindsofsustainableagriculturalpracticesamongfarmersIndia¡¯d500LakhMetricTonnes(LMT),(FAO),theconsumptionoffertilizerssuchasnitrogenous,potash,andphosphatefertilizerstoucheda,theGreenrevolutionwasam,thereisnospecifictrendinfertilizersconsumption(UreaPhosphaticandPotassic(PK),India¡¯sfertilizerconsumptionwascloseto500LakhMetricTonnes,roblemsExcessiveuseofchemicalfertilizerswillresultinsoilacidification,heavymetalspollution,soilcompaction,,theplantsandsoilwillbedegradediffertilizersarenotusedjudiciously.

AmptLLC,theworldsleadingproviderofpoweroptimizersforlarge-scalephotovoltaic(PV)systems,(ITC)againstSolarEdgeTechnologies,Inc.(NASDAQ:SEDG),requestingthattheITCbantheimp,rplantstolowerthecostofenergyproductionandimproveperformanceinnewsystems;upgradeexistingsystems;enablelow-costsolarenergystoragesystems;asels,inIsrael,China,,itwouldnotbepossibleforSolarEdgetocontinuesellingthoseinfringingproductsintheUnitedStates,howevertherearenumerousothernon-infringingcomeroptimizersandrelatedproductsatitsfacilityinFortCollins,Colorado,whichispri0issuedpatents,adingproductsionandplaysafundamentalroleinloweringthecostsoflarge-scalesolarenergyproduction,saidLeventGun,llyusingour,wearestandingupforouremployees,customersandpartners,aswellastheprinciplesoffaircompetitionandr,ThiscomplaintseekstoblockSolarrEdgeisviolatingourintellectualpropertyandthat,,673,630and11,289,,Amptass,,605,498,7,719,140,10,608,437,10,886,746,11,070,062and11,070,063.

Ifyouinvestincreativity,youllendupwithamuchstrongerb,whatanawfulnameIfyoudid,,,yourlocation,,thegreaterthechancet,distinctivename,,youllendupwithamuchstrongerb,doyourresearchandmakesureyourcho,youmightnotwanttonameyourproductafteratermthatisassociatedwithaglobaldisease.[Sorry,ifIdashedyourhopesofnamingyournewwidgetEBOLA.]TataMotors,thelargestautomobilecompanyinIndia,rofessionalsportsfigures,,protectabletrademark:,anexperiencedtrademarkattorneycanassistyouwithamorethoroughsearch,includingsourcesfromfederalregistrations,statetrademarkregistrations,tradepublications,onlineresources,redcancreatewh,makesu,,however,rmatradem,forbestclearanceresults,tthatsomeyahoohasthedomainyouwantandissuddenlywillingtosellitfor$50,,makesureyourmarkdoesntstinkbecauseithasanotherun,andmakesureyourmarkisnotgoingtobeassociatedwiths,,C,andisevenratedbyIFCasoneofTheTenCoolestCarsinMovieHistoryforitsappearanceintheaction-horrormovieDeathProof(2007),andmanyconsumerscouldassociatethenewZICAcarwiththosenegativeconnotationsinvastcontrastirstnameofPortugueseoriginthattranslatestoJamesinEnglish.

Thefundamentalfunctionofatrademarkistoidentifythesourcesofgoods/servicessothatastablecorrespondingrelationshipbetweenthetrademarkandthedesignatedgoods/,manyenterprisesandapplicantsprefershortandeasytoremembersloganforthepromotionandmarketingfort,,(3)ofTrademarkLawofthePeoplesRepublicofChina,thefollowingsignsshallnotberegisteredastrademarks:,itiscommonthatCNIPAwillbelievesuchtrademarkislikelytomisleadthepublictorecognizeitasasloganoradvertisinglanguage,(3):¡°ÃÀʱÃÀ¿Ë¾¡ÔÚÃÀ¼Ò¡±(3);¡°ÊÍ·ÅÄãµÄ»îÁ¦¡±(3);¡°ENJOYTHEDAY¡±(3);¡°HOTELSTHATDEFINETHEDESTINATION¡±(3);¡°WISHYOUWEREHERE¡±(3);¡°UNLOCKTHEFUTUREWITHTHEPOWEROFLIGHT¡±(3).TheabovetrademarkswereallforbiddenfromtrademarkapplicationsinceCNIPAbelievesthemlackingdistinctivefeaturesandarenoteasilydistinguishable,(3)ofTrademarkLawthoughtheapplicantssubmittedrelevantevi,thesignsmayberegisteredastrademarksaftertheyhave¡°Õ⣡¾ÍÊǽÖÎ衱inClass41,theCNIPAbelievesthismarkhasacquireddistinctivenessandbemortinctivefeatures,itshallbeconsideredwithrelevantevidencetodeterminew,,iftheappliedtrademarkcanbecombinedwithotherdistinctiveelements,suchaswordordesign,,¡°LOREALBECAUSEIMWORTHIT¡±;althoughitwouldbeeasiertoenhancethepublicityandreputationofthebrand,itisquitediff,thechancestillexistsiftheslogancanberecognizedasdistinctivenessanddistinguishablethatconsiderthesign,detailedgoods/servicesitems,actualuse,etc.

June14,2022announcedthat,theUnitedStatesDistrictCourtfortheCentralDistrictofCalifornia(theCourt)issuedanordergr¡¯smaterialbreachesofthepartiesJointDevelopmentandLicenseAgreement,whereonFebruary15,2022,,NetlistsDirectorofIPStrategy,said,WearepleasedthattheCourtrecognizedSamsungsfailuretoadmitrequestsforadmissions,,2022,withatrialbeginningnextyearonMay1,fcustomandspecialtymemoryproductsbringindustry-leadingperformats,inservermemory,hybridmemoryandstorageclassmemory,tocompaniesthatimplementNetlist¡¯,entsndoftenaddressfutureeventsorNetlist¡¯nsregardingfutureeventsandaresubjecttoknownandunknownrisks,uncertaintiesandotherfactorsthatcouldcauseactualresultstodiffermateri,uncertaintiesandotherfactorsinclude,amongothers:risksrelatedtoNetlistsplansforitsintellectualproperty,includingitsstrategiesformonetizing,licensing,expanding,anddefendingitspatentportfolio;risksassociatedwithpatentinfringementlitigationinitiatedbyNetlist,orbyothersagainstNetlist,aswellasthecostsandunpredictabilityofanysuchlitigation;risksassociatedwithNetlistsproductsales,includingthemarketanddemandforproductssoldbyNetlistanditsabilitytosuccessfullydevelopandlaunchnewproductsthatareattractivetothemarket;thesuccessofproduct,jointdevelopmentandlicensingpartnerships;thecompetitivelandscapeofNetlistsindustry;andgeneraleconomic,politicalandmarketconditions,includingquarantines,factoryslowdownsorshutdowns,s,expectationsandbeliefsregardingfutureeventsandaresubjecttoknownandunknownrisks,uncertaintiesandotherfactorsthatcouldcauseactualresultstodiffermateri¡¯sannualreportonForm10-KforitsmostrecentlycompletedfiscalyearfiledonMarch1,2022,,,uncertaintiesandotherfactors,theseforward-¡¯sassumptions,expectationsandbeliefsonlyasofthedatetheyaremade,andexceptasrequiredbylaw,Netlistundertakesnoobligationtoreviseorupdateanyforward-lookingstatementsforanyreason.

InresponsetoacomplaintfiledbytheleadingSpanishfootballleagueLaLiga,thecountrysNationalPolicehascarriedoutalarge-scaleope,leadingtothedismantlin,top-tierSpanishfootballleagueLaL,LaLiga¡¯spremiumcontentiswidely¡¯thopetovisitthemall,¡¯phoneseffectivelybecamespyingdevicesthatcouldlistentotheirsurroundingsand,whenLaLigamatcheswereidentified,,LaLigawashitwitha250,000eurofinebySpain¡¯sdataprotectionagencyAEPDbutthecompanyvowedtocontinuefighting¡°thisveryseriousscourgethatispiracy¡±.LaLigakeptitswordandanoperationjustannouncedbylocalpolicerevealsthatcommLigainJanuary2022,Spain¡¯sNationalPolicelaunchedaninvestigationintoapsSpainincludingSeville,Malaga,Cordoba,Zaragoza,Valladolid,Murcia,PalmadeMallorca,Gij¨®n,Madrid,Vigo,LasPalmas,tandermatcheswerebeingplayed,and166barswereidentifiedasbeinginvolvedinthefraudulentdisplayofcopyrightedcontent.¡°Asaresultof[theoperation],theentireinfrastructurethatallowedtheillegalviewingofpaidmultimediacontentwasdismantled,withtheidentificationofthoseresponsibleandthecessationoftheillegalservicetheyprovided,¡±alargenumberofpiracy-configureddevicesincludingAmazonFiresticks,genericAndroidboxes,ntellectualpropertyinfringementcrimes.

NFT(non-fungibletoken)i,musicians,collectorsandinvestors,withthesalesofNFTsresultinginabillion-dollarsizedmarket;yetthelawsandregulationsaroundthisspecificassetclassarefailingtokeepupwiththefastpaceofdevelopmentandfallshortinaddressingmanykeylegalissuesandcontroversiessurroundingNFTsintraditionallegalareas,,similartomarketselsewhere,,asidefromtheregulationsandrestrictionsfromafinancialperspective,untilnow,neithertheChineseauthoritiesnortheChinesecourtshadeverformallyrespondedtoanyotherkeylegalissuespertainingtoNFTs,InternetCourtonacopyrightinfringementcaserelatingtoanNFT,,thecourtshareditsviewsonseveralcopyrightissuesinrelationtoNFTs,:pertyoftheunderlyingartwork(unlessthesalesagreementprovidesotherwise).ThesaleofanunauthorizedNFTdoesnotinfringeuponthecopyrightowner¡¯srightofdistributionintheunderlyingworkwhichislimitedbythefirst-saledoctrine,butinstead,infringesupontherightofcommunicationbyinformationnetworks(whichisahighlycontroversialissueinrelationtocopyrightinfringementofanNFT).ThelegitimatecreatorofanNFTshouldnotbethepersonwhosimplypossessesacopyoftheunderlyingwork,butthepersonwhoownsthecopyrightin,orobtainsaduelicensefor,,thevettingobligationsofanNFTplatformshouldberelativelyhigher,because:TheNFTbusiness,,theunderlyingtechnologyofNFTswasbuilttocreateatrustworthyecosystemforallpartiestoatransaction,henceitiscriticallyimportantforanNFTplatformtoensuretherearenoobviousflawsinthecopyrightownershipoftheunderlyingworkofanNFT(whichistheverybasisandstartofallsubsequenttransactionsoftheNFT);otherwise,theentireNFTtransactionchainwouldbecomeveryunstableandallrelatedparties¡¯(profits)directlyfromsalesofNFTsonitsplatform,mechanismandusereasonableeffortstoverifythecopyrightownershipofeachunderlyingwork,(suchasmanuscripts,originalwork,publicpublications,copyrightregistrationcertificate,certificateissuedbycertificationagency,etc.)toprovecopyrightownership,andtoprovideguaranteesifnecessary,,thecourtacceptsthefactthatNFTscannotbedeletedduetotheirspecialtechnicalfeatures,butstipulatesthatplatformscansendinfringingNFTstoaneateraddress(wheretheNFTisburnedandremovedfromcirculation),dthelegalnatureofanNFT,aswellastheobligationsofanNFTplatform,,asthecourtisonlyadistrict-levelcourt,itremainsunclearastowhetheritsrulingwillbewidelyfollow,astheauthoritieshavenotyetenactedanyformalNFTlawsorregulations,thecourt¡¯sinsightsinthejudgmentaremeaningful,andNFTplayersinChinashouldwithoutdoubtcarefullyconsidertheimplicationsoftheruling.

µ½µÚÎåÄê°´Ô­×ܼÛ120%ÓÅÏȻعº¡£

OnMay3,2022,theAdministrativeConferenceoftheUnitedStates(ACUS)announcedthattheUnitedStatesPatentandTrademarkOffice(USPTO)hadengagedACUStoconductanindependentstudyintotheissuesassociatedwith,andthedesignof,(May3,2022)TheACUSinvitespubliccommentsonthestudy,whichareduebyJuly5,,however,,concernshavebeenraisedthatthecostofpatentlitigationinfederalcourtdeterssmall-andmedium-sizedenterprises,includingthoseownedbytraditionallyunderrepresentedgroups,,theDepartmentofCommerceinvestigate,thenDirectoroftheUSPTODavidKapposissuedaFederalRegisternoticeseekingpubliccommentsonwhethertheUnit(,2012)ThenoticeofthisnewstudycomesnearlyayearafterabipartisangroupofsixsenatorssentalettertotheCommissionerforPatents,,2021letter,SenatorsChristopherCoons(D-DE)JohnCornynIII(R-TX)ThomasCotton(R-AR)MazieHirono(D-HI)PatrickLeahy(D-VT)andThomasTillis(R-NC)referencedthe2012FederalRegisternoticeandstatedthattheUSPTOhadnotfolloweduponthatdthatthestudybeprovidedtotheSenateJudiciaryCommitteenolaterthanDecember31,ctanindependentsurveyandanalysisofissuesassoc:;tentcourt;,structure,andinternalorganizationofapotentialsmallclaimspatentcourt,includingwhetheritshouldbeestablishedwithintheArticleIIIfederalcourts,asorwithinanArticleIcourt,orasanadministrativetribunal;,appointment,management,andoversightofofficialswhopresideoverproceedingsinapotentialsmallclaimspatentcourt;,whetherparticipationinsuchproceedingswouldbemandatoryorvoluntary,andwhetherpartiescanremovecasestoanotheradministrativetribunalorfederalcourt;urt,including,asrelevant,pleadings,discovery,andalternativedisputeresolution;vide;;/,thereisabroadrangeofpossibilit,andhowitisstructured,willimpactpatentholdersandaccusedinfringersalike.

ChinesevideoplatformKuaishouhasfileda5millionyuan($705,000)lawsuitagainstDouyin,accusingitsrivalof¡°piggybacking¡±onthecompany¡¯,whichhasbeenacceptedbyBeijing¡¯sHaidianDistrictcourt,KuaishouclaimsDouyinusedKuaishou¡¯snametolinktoitsownproductpageon360MobileAssistant,¡ªknowninternationallyasTikTok¡ªofinfringingKuaishou¡¯strademarktodisplayitsownproduct,pro,KuaishouisChina¡¯,Kuaishouclaimedithadsurpassed300milliondailyactiveusersonitsChineseapp,,Douyin¡¯sparentcompany,tolddomesticmediaonWednesdaythatithadfileditsownlawsuitagainstKuaishouinMarchoversimilarissue,andislookingintoitsrival¡¯rchenginesandothersimilarplatforms,onalinformation,raisingconcernsaboutcontentqualityandimpairedfunctionality.¡°IthinkwhatDouyinhasdonecouldconstituteinfringementofKuaishoustrademarkrights,¡±,anintellectualpropertylawyeratBeijingMingtaiLawFirm,toldSixthTone.¡°IfDouyinlinksKuaishouasitskeypaidsearchterminitsadrankings,itbasicallyweakensKuaishou¡¯sconnectiontoitsusers,justasKuaishouarguesinitslawsuit.¡±Usually,third-partyserviceprovidersdon¡¯thavealegalobligationtoreviewkeywords,andit¡¯salsoimpracticaltoanalyzeeverywordinthesearchenginealgorithm,comestodisplayingsearchresults.¡°Iftherightsownerdiscoversinfringementorunfaircompetition,theycannotifytheserviceproviderandaskthemtotakenecessarymeasures,suchasdeleting,blocking,disconnectinglinks,andmore,¡±,Kuaishou,and360MobileAssistantdidnotrespondtoSixthTone¡¯,,short-v,aBeijing-basedconsultancy,averagescreentimeonshort-videoappsduringthisyear¡¯sextendedLunarNewYearholidayincreasedby27minutescomparedwiththesameperiodlastyear,withDo¡¯sovercrowdedvideo,DouyinsuedTencentfordefamationoveranarticlepublishedonthecompany¡¯,TencentandByteDance,suedeachotheroverunfaircompetition.

AUScourthasruledthatrecipescannotbeprotectedbycopyright,,EasternDivisionruledthatalthoughcopyrightcan,insomecircumstances,protectthelayoutofarecipebook,,¡ªKetchuptoUsandTomaydo-Tomadhho¡ª,CarrollpurchasedMoore¡¯,accordingtothejudgment,wassubjecttoasharepurchaseagreementthatcontainedcertaincovenants,MooreandGeorgeVozary,oneofthenameddefendantsinthecaseandaformerTomaydo-Tomadhhoemployee,openedanotherrestaurantinCleveland,,,,thecourtsaid:¡°Theidentificationo,recipesarefunctionaldirectionsforachievingaresultandareexcludedfromcopyrightprotection.¡±Whilethecourtaddedthatalthoughcopyrightprotection¡°mayextendtoarecipebookorcookbooktotheextentitisacompilation¡±,itaddedthatinthiscasethereis¡°simplynoallegationthatdefendantsinfringedonthelayoutorothercreativeexpressioncontainedintherecipebook¡±.:¡°Assetforthabove...therecipesthemselvesarenotcopyrightableand,thus,anyuseoftherecipesisnotinfringement.¡±

AmptLLC,theworldsleadingproviderofpoweroptimizersforlarge-scalephotovoltaic(PV)systems,(ITC)againstSolarEdgeTechnologies,Inc.(NASDAQ:SEDG),requestingthattheITCbantheimp,rplantstolowerthecostofenergyproductionandimproveperformanceinnewsystems;upgradeexistingsystems;enablelow-costsolarenergystoragesystems;asels,inIsrael,China,,itwouldnotbepossibleforSolarEdgetocontinuesellingthoseinfringingproductsintheUnitedStates,howevertherearenumerousothernon-infringingcomeroptimizersandrelatedproductsatitsfacilityinFortCollins,Colorado,whichispri0issuedpatents,adingproductsionandplaysafundamentalroleinloweringthecostsoflarge-scalesolarenergyproduction,saidLeventGun,llyusingour,wearestandingupforouremployees,customersandpartners,aswellastheprinciplesoffaircompetitionandr,ThiscomplaintseekstoblockSolarrEdgeisviolatingourintellectualpropertyandthat,,673,630and11,289,,Amptass,,605,498,7,719,140,10,608,437,10,886,746,11,070,062and11,070,063.

OnFebruary4,(CAFC)affirmedtwodecisionsofthePatentTrialandAppealBoard(PTAB)onrelatedinterpartesreviews(IPRs)broughtbyQuanergyagainstVelodyne,explainingthattheBoard¡¯sdecisiontoupholdthevalidityofthedisputedcl,969,558,coveringalidar-based3-Dpointcloudmeasuri,thePTABheldthatseveralclaimsofthe¡¯,(¡°Mizuno¡±)describingadevicethatemitslighttowardano,theCAFCaddressedBerkovic,anarticlepublishedin2012whichreviewsvarioustechniquesformeasuringdistancetoobjects,including¡°triangulationandtime-of-flightsensing.¡±Notably,Berkovicpointsoutthat¡°problemsarisewhenusinglasertime-of-flightsensorstoobtainaccuratemeasurementsatshorterdistances.¡±TheUnderlyingDisputeQuanergypetitionedthePTABtoreviewtheclaimsofthe¡¯atthetimeandwhattechnologiesaskilledartisanmightuseinasystemlikeMizuno,,theBoardconsideredtheevidenceprovidedbyVelodynewhichpointedto¡°unresolvedlong-feltneed,industrypraise,andcommercialsuccess.¡±Onappeal,,QuanergyarguedonappealthatthePTABerredinitsconstructionoftheterm¡°lidar.¡±RelyingonVeritas,Quanergyassertedthattheindicationsinthespecificationthat¡°lidar¡±mayinvolvepulsedtime-of-flighttechniquesdonotprecludeabr¡¯,here,thespecificat,thepatentdescribes¡°measuringdistanceusingapulsedtime-of-flighttechnique,identifiestheshortcomingsofexistingpointcloudsystemsthatcollectdistancepointsbypulsinglightanddetectingitsreflection,anddisclosesalidarsystemthatcollectstime-of-flightmeasurements.¡±Inlightoftheintrinsicevidence,theCAFCfoundQuanergy¡¯sbroaderconstructioninconsistentwiththespecification,¡¯sconstructionoftheterm¡°lidar¡±,QuanergychallengedthePTAB¡¯,QuanergydisputedtheBoard¡¯sfindingsthatMizunoneit¡¯sandQuanergy¡¯sexpertssupportedtheBoard¡¯,Quanergy¡¯sexpertconcededthatMizuno¡¯g¡°onlyoneparticularembodimentofMizuno¡¯sdevice.¡±ButtheBoardrejectedthisargumentas¡°anattempttodrawanarbitrarydistinctioninthetestimonyofitsexpertbetweenoneofMizuno¡¯sfiguresandMizuno¡¯sdisclosureaswhole.¡±Similarly,theCAFCwasunpersuadedandnotedthatthetestimonyofQuanergy¡¯sexpertonredirectwas¡°incomplete,unspecific,andultimatelyconclusory.¡±TheBoardalsofoundthataskilledartisanwouldnothaveusedpulsedtime-of-flightlidarinMizuno¡¯sshort-rangemeasuringdevicebecauseBerkovicsuggeststhat¡°theaccuracyofpulsedtime-of-flightlidarmeasurementsdegradesinshorterranges.¡±Naturally,theBoardwasleftunpersuadedbyQuanergy¡¯sexpert¡¯sfailuretoexplain¡°howorwhyaskilledartisanwouldhavehadanexpectationofsuccess¡±inovercomingtheproblemsinimplementingapulsedtime-of-flightsensorintoashort-rangemeasurementsystemsuchasMizuno¡¯,theBoardstatedQuanergy¡¯sevidenceofferedtoshowanexpectationofsuccesswas¡°speculationfromitsexpertabouttheendlesspossibilitiesofMizuno¡¯steachings.¡±NexusOnappeal,QuanergyalsochallengedtheBoard¡¯spresumptionofanexusbetweentheclaimedinventionandVelodyne¡¯sevidenceofanunresolvedlong-feltneed,industrypraise,¡°ampleevidence¡±thatitscommercialproducts¡°embodythefullscopeoftheclaimedinventionandthattheclaimedinventionisnotmerelyasubcomponentofthoseproducts.¡±Forexample,theBoardnotedVelodyne¡¯sexperthadprovidedadetailedanalysismappingclaim1ofthe¡¯558patenttoeachofVelodyne¡¯scommercialproducts,rsensorthatcouldcapturedistancepointsrapi,Quanergyidentifieda360-degreehorizontalfieldofview,awideverticalfieldofview,andadense3-DpointcloudasunclaimedfeaturessuchthatVelodyne¡¯¡°clearlysupportedbythechallengedclaims.¡±Onappeal,QuanergyassertedtheBoardtconsideru,theCAFCfound¡°theBoard¡¯sexplanationofhoweachallegedunclaimedfeatureresultsdirectlyfromclaimlimitations¡ªsuchthatVelodyne¡¯sproductsareessentiallytheclaimedinvention¡ªbothadequateandreasonable.¡±Ultimately,theCAFCaffirmedthePTAB¡¯sfindingonnon-obviousnessbasedonthesecondaryindiciaofnon-obviousnessshowingbytheexternalevidenceprovidedbyVelodyne.

Thefundamentalfunctionofatrademarkistoidentifythesourcesofgoods/servicessothatastablecorrespondingrelationshipbetweenthetrademarkandthedesignatedgoods/,manyenterprisesandapplicantsprefershortandeasytoremembersloganforthepromotionandmarketingfort,,(3)ofTrademarkLawofthePeoplesRepublicofChina,thefollowingsignsshallnotberegisteredastrademarks:,itiscommonthatCNIPAwillbelievesuchtrademarkislikelytomisleadthepublictorecognizeitasasloganoradvertisinglanguage,(3):¡°ÃÀʱÃÀ¿Ë¾¡ÔÚÃÀ¼Ò¡±(3);¡°ÊÍ·ÅÄãµÄ»îÁ¦¡±(3);¡°ENJOYTHEDAY¡±(3);¡°HOTELSTHATDEFINETHEDESTINATION¡±(3);¡°WISHYOUWEREHERE¡±(3);¡°UNLOCKTHEFUTUREWITHTHEPOWEROFLIGHT¡±(3).TheabovetrademarkswereallforbiddenfromtrademarkapplicationsinceCNIPAbelievesthemlackingdistinctivefeaturesandarenoteasilydistinguishable,(3)ofTrademarkLawthoughtheapplicantssubmittedrelevantevi,thesignsmayberegisteredastrademarksaftertheyhave¡°Õ⣡¾ÍÊǽÖÎ衱inClass41,theCNIPAbelievesthismarkhasacquireddistinctivenessandbemortinctivefeatures,itshallbeconsideredwithrelevantevidencetodeterminew,,iftheappliedtrademarkcanbecombinedwithotherdistinctiveelements,suchaswordordesign,,¡°LOREALBECAUSEIMWORTHIT¡±;althoughitwouldbeeasiertoenhancethepublicityandreputationofthebrand,itisquitediff,thechancestillexistsiftheslogancanberecognizedasdistinctivenessanddistinguishablethatconsiderthesign,detailedgoods/servicesitems,actualuse,etc.

AnationwidecultureandcreativeindustryalliancewasestablishedTuesdayinGuangzhou,thecapitalofGuangdongprovince,,wassetupduringtheTianheSummitoftheChinaCultureandCreativeIndustryConference,willhelpbuildanationwideplatformforcompaniesandorganizationsinthecultu,aleadingwriterandstrategistonthecreativeeconomy,sharedhisviewsduerthepast40years¡ªespeciallyintheareasofdesign,fashionandmodernart,eindustry,,Howkinshasworkedwithawiderangeofpeopleandorganizationsinover30countriesandregionstoincre:HowPeopleMakeMoneyfromIdeashasuralIndustryFair,,acopyrightexpoofinternationalculturalheritagemuseums,aforumfocusingonadvertisement,aninternationalartexpoandaninternationalentertainmenttradefair,accordingtotheorganizers.

Clearingtheaironlabyrinthinesubject-mattereligibilitystandardsforcomputer-implementedinventions(CIIs),a,,thecourt,whilesettinganewtest,rejected,forthesecondtime,aproblem-solutionapproachtoclaimconstructionfollowedbytheCanadianIntellectualPropertyOffice(CIPO)entsfindingtwoCanadianPatentApplicantsnumbered2,695,130and2,695,146aspatentineligibleundersections2and27(8)(IPIC),anIPpolicyadvocacyorganization,intervenedintheappealproceedings,affiinesinventiontoincludeanynewandusefulart,process,machine,(8),however,,2000SCC66,theSupremeCourtofCanadaclarifiedthatbeforeassessingsubject-mattereligibility,essentialeleme,whereinonlythoseelementsinclaimsthatwerenecessarytosolveth,,CIPOintroducedaPracticeNote,titledExaminationPracticeRespectingComputer-ImplementedInventions,whichindicatedthatifacomputercomponentisfoundtobeanessentialelement,,iftheessentialelementslackanyphysicality,(AttorneyGeneral),2020FC837,CIPOintroducedanewPracticeNoteinNovember2020,titledPatentableSubject-MatterunderthePatentAct,whichnotedthatinordertobepatent-eligible,thecomputercomponentsmustcooperatewithotherelementsoftheclaimedinvention,andthatactualinventioncations,bothtitledColorSelectionSystem,filedbyBenjaminMooreCo.,icalequationthatmodeledhumanpsychologicalperceptionstocolor,associatingacoloremotionscoretovariouscolorsinadatabase,andselecti,bothpatentapplicationswererejectedbyExaminersforencompassingnon-statutorysubject-matter,,theExaminer,uponpurposivelyconstruingtheclaims,,asnotedbytheExaminer,includedcalculatinghumanpsychophysicalperceptionvaluestocolorelementsbasedonmathematicalmodels,andothe,eviewedbyathree-memberPatentAppealBoard,,theApplicantreliedonFreeWorldTrustinemphasizingthatcomputercomponentscau,theApplicantclaimed,theApplicantconcededthatnoattemptwasmadetosolveac,however,concludedthatidentifyingamathematicalcorrelationbetweencolorsandhumanemotiveresponsestoaidcolorselectionwasnotatechnicalproblemforsubject-matterconsiderations,andcompsionerofPatents1981,FCA204,thatuseofcomputersforconduct,theBoardagreedwiththeExaminerandnotedthattheessentialelements,,theAppellantchallengedtheCommissionersclaimcons,Appellantargued,wouldhavebeenidentifyingclaimelementsthathaveamater,theCommissionerhadincorrectlyconcludedthattheremainingcationssuchasidentifyingadjacencyofcolorpairs,storingthecolorlibrary,,,,thePracticeN,theCommissionersapproachofconsideringonlythenovelelementsintheclaimsasessenti,theofficeoftheAttorneyGeneralofCanada(AGC)incorrectbutsoughttoremittheapplicationsbacktotheCommissi,theRespondentarguedthatjudicialinterventionwouldbeprematureastheCommissionerdidnothavetheopportunitytoconsidertheAppeyhavingtheexpert,theRespondentcontendedthata,implementingascientificprincipleormathematicaltheoremonagen,IPIC,generallyalignedwiththeAppellantspositionandca,CIPOstendencyo,gdetrimentaltoCIIs,ntedworldwide,,notingmaterialeffecnon-essentialandallegi,theIntervenorrequestedthecourttore-cessiontotheproblem-so,includingWhirlpoolCorpvCamcoInc,2000SCC67,FreeWorldTrust,andCanada(AttorneyGeneral),2011FCA328thecourtheldthatnoneofthedecisionssuggestaproblem-solutionapproach,andins,wheretheproblem-solutionapproachwasdiscredited,andaddedthatpracticalapplicationofs,theproblem-solutionapproach,consideringonlynovelaspectsofclaimsinsubject-matteranalysis,andholdingcomputercomponentsasnon-essentialfornotsolvingacomputerproblem,ectmatter,thecourtacceptedtheframeworksuggestedbytheIntervenor,isasfollows:Purposivelyconstruetheclaim;Askwhethertheconstruedclaimasawholeconsistsofonlyamerescientificprincipleorabstracttheorem,orwhetheritcomprisesapracticalapplicationthatemploysascientificprincipleorabstracttheorem;andIftheconstruedclaimcomprisesapracticalapplication,assesstheconstruedclaimfortheremainingpatentabilitycriteria:statutorycategoriesandjudicialexclusions,aswellasnovelty,obviousness,ifyingessentialclaimelements,thecourthasdirectedthatclaimsshouldbeassessed,CIPOsrequirementthatapplicationsinvolvingCIIsmu,CIPOspracticeoflimitingthesubject-matterassessmentonlytonovelele,abrightlinetowardscon

Manysoftware-relatedandbusinessmethod-relatedpatentshavebeeninvalidatedforbeingdirectedto¡°abstractideas.¡±OnJanuary10,2018,inFinjan,Inc.,,Inc.,theFederalCircuitaffirmedthedistrictcourt¡¯sholdingthatFinjan¡¯,154,844(¡°the¡¯844patent¡±)[1]wasnotdirectedtoa¡ì¡¯sthresholdtestforpatenteligibilityunder¡ì101is¡°whethertheclaimsfocusonthespecificassertedimprovementincomputercapabilities...or,insteadonaprocessthatqualifiesasan¡®abstractidea¡¯forwhichcomputersareinvokedmerelyasatool.¡±[2]Thecourt¡¯srecentdecisionprovidesadditionalguidanceregardingthetypesofclaimsthatconstitutespecifiofCaliforniaonAugust28,2013,forinfringementofmultiplepatentsbyBlueCoat¡¯¡¯844patentscansfilesforpotentialsecuritythreats(,viruses),createsrespectivesecurityprofileslinkedtothescannedfiles,andthenmakesthescannedfilesavailabletousers.[3]Thejudgefoundthatthe¡¯¡ì101,,amongotherrulings,thedistrictcourt¡¯¡ì101asappliedtothe¡¯,inpart,thattheassertedclaimsofthe¡¯844patentshouldbeinvalidatedbecausetheclaimswereanalogoustothoseinApple,,Inc.;[4]AffinityLabsofTex.,,LLC;[5],[6],theFederalCircuitdistinguisheditspreviousdecisionsinvalidatingclaims,inpart,bycitingbacktoacoreconceptofpatentetandingforthe¡°foundationalpatentlawprinciple:thataresult,evenaninnovativeresult,isnotitselfpatentable.¡±[7]Rather,patents¡°aregranted¡®forthediscoveryorinventionofsomepracticablemethodormeansofproducingabeneficialresultoreffect...andnotfortheresultoreffectitself.¡¯¡±[8]Akeydistinguishingfeaturethatthecourtfoundwasthattheclaimsinthe¡¯844patent¡°recitespecificsteps...thataccomplishthedesiredresult.¡±[9]Notably,the¡¯844patentdoesnotclaimeithertheresultofperformingtheclaimedmethodstepsortheimprovementsoftheclaimedmethodoverthepriorart.[10]However,thecourtstilldistinguishedtheclaimsinthe¡¯844patentfromtheinvalidatedclaimsinApple,AffinityLabs,andIntellectualVentures[11]becausethoseclaimsgenerallyreciteddesirableresultsthatwereimplementedbygenericcomputercomponentsperformingkn¡¯844patent,theFederalCircuitfoundthatthepatent¡°enablesacomputersecuritysystemtodothingsitcouldnotdobefore...allow[ing]accesstobetailoredfordifferentusersandensur[ing]thatthreatsareidentifiedbeforeafilereachesauser¡¯scomputer.¡±[12]Thisnewfunctionalitywasfoundtobesufficientlyenabledbasedonthespecificationofthe¡¯844patent,whichdistinguishedtheadvantagesof¡°behavior-based¡±virusscanningtopriorart¡°code-matching¡±¡¯844patentrecitespecificstepstoaccomplishanadvantageousresultbasedontheenablingdescriptioninthespecification.[13]Thus,thepatenteligibilityinquiryunder¡ì101endedwithdeterminingthattheclaimsweredirectedt,theFederalCircuitprovidesnewguidanceforpatenteligibilityunder¡ì,thecourtbaseditsanalysisonanovelapproachinoneembodimentfoundinthespecificationofthe¡¯844patent,eventhoughtheclaimsarenotlimitedtothatspecificembodiment.[14]Thus,thecourtfoundthattheclaimsarenotrequiredtoexplicitlyrecitearesultorimprovementwherethespecificationadequatelydescr¡ì101maythereforebebasedonacombinationofthestepsrecitedinaclaimforaccomplishingaresultandthespecification¡¯sdescription,whenassessingthepatenteligibilityofcomputer-relatedpatentclaims,emphasisshouldbeplacedonthespecification¡¯sdescriptionofthestateoftheartascomparedtohowanimprovementincom(eg,tables,footnotes),pleaseaccesstheoriginalhere.

¡°Themostsuccessfulpartieschoosetheirbattleswisely,¡±saysTheHonorableGerardRogers,ChiefAdministrativeTrademarkJudgeattheTrademarkTrialandAppealBoard(TTAB),abodywithintheUnitedStatesPatentandTrademarkOffice(USPTO).HavingservedinvariousrolesontheTTABformorethan25years,JudgeRogersispanshavebeendeniedbytheUSPTO,,partieshavebeenknowntopushtheirluck.¡°TrialsaresometimespursuedbecausethepartieshaveissuesoutsidetheTTABthatthey¡¯regrapplingwithand,itappearstous,theythinkitwillgivethemanotherleveragepointtodealwiththeirdifferences.¡±JudgeRogerssayshehasseencaseswherepartieshavenotproperlyfollowedtheTTAB¡¯sManualofProcedure,,regulatory,anddecisionalauthoritythatisrelevanttotheTTAB.¡°Therehavebeenappealsandtrialcasesthathavebeenlostbutcouldhavebeenwon,duetoafailuretofollowtherules,¡±saysJudgeRogers.¡°Manypractitionersfailtofollowtheguidanceonwhatevidencecanbeprobative.¡±JudgeRogersaddsthatit¡°neverhurts¡±toremindstakeholderstobecognizantoftherulesthattheTTABisrequiredtoapply¡ªaswellastheissuesitmustignore¡ª,theTTABoftencannottakeintoaccountparticularsrelatingtouseofatrademarkinthemarketplace,¡°Wehavetoignorethatinformation,yetpeoplebringittousallthetime,¡±,just30percentareexparteappeals,,appealsaccountfor75percentofcasesultimatelydecidedonthemerits,sowhatmightexplainthelargeswingJudgeRogerssaysthatpetitionsforcancellationandoppositionaresimilartocourtdisputesinthatasettlementisavailableand,ifthatoptionisused,¡°fewertrialcasesrequiredispositiononthemeritsasthepartieshaveworkeditout.¡±Inasmallpercentageofcases,apartymight¡°misbehave¡±andbesanctioned,whichcouldalsoleadtothecasebeingterminated,ppositionscanbemuchmoreexpensivethanappealsfromexaminerrefusals,soalotofcasesareneverpursuedbeyondtheinitialstages,,whichcaninvolveplentyofbackandforthbetweentheparties,includingondiscoveryandmotionpractice,,incontrast,¡°whentheattorneyfilesthenoticeofappealthereisnotmuchelsetodootherthanfilethebriefs,¡±,ofteninwrittenratherthanoralform,¡°sothere¡¯snotmuchaddedexpensetohaveanattorneypursueanappeal.¡±MoreAppealsJudgeRogersnotesthattrademarkapplicationfilingswiththeUSPTOhaverisenyear-on-yearforeightyears,so¡°thismeansmoreappealsandoppositionsandtheneedtoincreasethestafftohandlethatwork.¡±ernsabouttheBoard¡¯,seResolution(ACR)procedure,,theTTABseekstoexpediteproceedingsby,amongotherthings,activelyencouragingpartiestoconsiderplacinglimitsondiscoveryandtestimony,andadoptingmoreefficientaltern,forexample,hesaysthat,whileattorneyshaveindividualresponsibilityforcasesontheirdockets,theTTAB¡¯smanagingattorneywillreassigncaseswithpendingmotionsonamoneeditsperformancetargets,saysJudgeRogers,despitealargevariationinthecomplexityofcases,2weeksofthecasebeingreadytodecide,saysJudgeRogers(readyfordecisionmeansafterallbriefingisdoneandthecaseissubmittedbyaBoardparalegaltotheChiefJudgeforassignment,orafteroralargument,ifoneisrequested).¡°Wehaverepeatedlybeatenthisgoal,¡±veragependency(fromcommencementtocompletion)ofexparteappealsforthelastfiveyearsinarow,withthatpendencymeasurefallingintrialcasesforfiveofthepastsixyears.¡°JudgeRogersexplainsthatstakeholdershavelongexpressedapreferencefortheTTABtoremain¡°amorerelaxedalternativetolitigationinfederaldistrictcourts,¡±whereextension,,,,Inc.,ntdistrictcourtlitigationbetweenthesamepartiesthatlitigatedanearliercasebeforetheTTAB,aslongasthe¡°ordinaryelements¡±,JudgeRogerssaysitsimpactontheTTABhasbeen¡°almostnone.¡±However,hedoesnotethatitwasaverypositiverulingfortrademarkownersasit¡°¡±HenotesthatmanyTTABcasesaresettledandthatevenwhentheyarenot,,headds,theissuesthattheTTABanddistrictcourtsadjudicateareoftendifferent(,thesubsequentdistrictcourtcaseverylikelywouldconsideradditionalissuesrelatingtouseinthemarketplace).¡°Therewasalotoftalkthat,becauseofthepossibilityofissuepreclusion,partiesshouldtakemorediscoveryandintroducemoreevidenceattheTTAB.¡°ButIsay:issuepreclusionisunlikelytoariseinallbuttherarestofcases,¡¯tintroducemorediscoverythanusual,anddon¡¯tincreaseyourcostsandfilealotofirrelevantevidencethatwouldhaveabearinginadistrictcourtbutwhichisnotrelevanttoouranalysis.¡±¡¯advice;,JudgeRogers,whohasbeeninhiscurrentpositionsinceNovember2010,saysthereisa¡°realvarietyandthingscancomeuponanygivenday.¡±Histimeincludesmeetingwiththeapproximately70membersoftheTTABstaff,whichincludesjudges,attorneys,thatthejudgesarecontinually,andhestressestheimportanceofworkinginharmony.¡°WeworkcloselywiththeSolicitor¡¯sOffice;theywillbeinthepositionofdefendingvariousBoarddecisionsbeforetheFederalCircuit,sowewanttoputtheminthebestpositionpossible,¡±¡¯sOffice,JudgeRogersexplains,canrelaytotheTTABtheque¡¯smostseniorjudgemaybehisprimaryrole,JudgeRog¡¯sstaffareitsbiggeststrength,saysthejudge.¡°Ifindthetimetoremindouremployeesofwhatgreatworktheydo,¡±ursandstress¡ªhisbicycle.¡°FormanyyearsIhaveriddentenmileseachwaytotheofficeandback;itprovidesabufferbetweenworkandhomelife.¡±

Threeindustries¨Cbankingandfinance,fashion,andinternetandIT¨Caccountedfornearlyone-thirdofallcybersquattingdisputeshandledbyWIPO¡¯sArbitrationandMediationCenterin2017astrademarkownersfiledanall-timehighof3,074WIPOcasesundertheUniformDomainNameDisputeResolutionPolicy(UDRP).CybersquattingdisputesrelatingtonewgenericTop-LevelDomains(NewgTLDs)accountedformorethan12%ofWIPO¡¯s2017caseload,whichintotalcovered6,,,.SITE,(EuropeanUnion)(Sweden),76CountryCodeTop-LevelDomain(ccTLD)registrieshavenowdesignatedWIPO¡¯sdisputeresolutionservice,andccTLDsaccountedforsome17%:¡°ByabusingtrademarksintheDomainNameSystem,eitgoodsorforphishing,lesupportforthecredibilityofcommerceontheInternetandforprotectionagainstfraudulentpractices.¡±,with920casesfiledin2017,followedbyFrance(462),(276),Germany(222),andSwitzerland(143).(Annex3PDF,Annex3:GeographicalDistributionofPartiesinWIPODomainNameCasesTop25(2017)).Intotal,,WIPOappointed298panelistsbasedin45countries,(12%ofallcases),fashion(11%),internetandIT(9%),heavyindustryandmachinery(8%),andfood,beveragesandrestaurants,biotechnologyandpharmaceuticals,electronics,entertainment,andretailat6%2017,complainantsassertedfraud,phishingorscam,,complainantsassertedcounterfeiting,¨C91cases¨CfollowedbyMichelin,ABElectrolux,AndreyTernovskiy(Chatroulette),Sanofi,ZionsBank,Carrefour,Virgin,Accor,,thisessentialWIPOcasefilingtoolcapturesnuRPcasein1999,totalWIPOcasefilingspassedthe39,000markin2017,encompassingover73,,theWIPOCenterreceived52mediationandarbitrationcasesand84goodofficesrequestsfordifferenttypesofintellectualproperty(IP),followedbyICT,trademark,(51%),followedbyNorthAmerica,Asia,,distributionagreements,softwareagreements,,fterthedisputehadarisen,includingproceedingstha,companies,includingmultinationalsandSMEs,werethemostfrequentusersofWIPOmediationandarbitration,followedbyindividuals,researchinstitutionsanduniversities,%ofcasesinvolvepartieswhichalsouseWIPO¡¯sPCT,rstates,theWIPOCenterin20solution(ADR)frameworks,theorganizationoftrainingandpromotion,,GuidanceonWIPOFRANDADRtofacilitatethesubmissionofdisputesconcerningfair,reasonableandnon-discriminatory(FRAND)termsforstandard-essentialpatents(SEPs).WIPO¡¯sWorldIntellectualPropertyReport2017notedthatupto35%ofpatentsfiledworldwidesince1990relatetosmartphones,ADRprocess,andincludestailoredmodelsubmissionagreementstoreferaFRAND-relateddisputetoWIPOproceduresasanalternativetocourtlitigation.

ºóÀ´»éºóÓÐÁ˺¢×Ó»»ÁË´óÒ»µãµÄ·¿×Ó¡£

June14,2022announcedthat,theUnitedStatesDistrictCourtfortheCentralDistrictofCalifornia(theCourt)issuedanordergr¡¯smaterialbreachesofthepartiesJointDevelopmentandLicenseAgreement,whereonFebruary15,2022,,NetlistsDirectorofIPStrategy,said,WearepleasedthattheCourtrecognizedSamsungsfailuretoadmitrequestsforadmissions,,2022,withatrialbeginningnextyearonMay1,fcustomandspecialtymemoryproductsbringindustry-leadingperformats,inservermemory,hybridmemoryandstorageclassmemory,tocompaniesthatimplementNetlist¡¯,entsndoftenaddressfutureeventsorNetlist¡¯nsregardingfutureeventsandaresubjecttoknownandunknownrisks,uncertaintiesandotherfactorsthatcouldcauseactualresultstodiffermateri,uncertaintiesandotherfactorsinclude,amongothers:risksrelatedtoNetlistsplansforitsintellectualproperty,includingitsstrategiesformonetizing,licensing,expanding,anddefendingitspatentportfolio;risksassociatedwithpatentinfringementlitigationinitiatedbyNetlist,orbyothersagainstNetlist,aswellasthecostsandunpredictabilityofanysuchlitigation;risksassociatedwithNetlistsproductsales,includingthemarketanddemandforproductssoldbyNetlistanditsabilitytosuccessfullydevelopandlaunchnewproductsthatareattractivetothemarket;thesuccessofproduct,jointdevelopmentandlicensingpartnerships;thecompetitivelandscapeofNetlistsindustry;andgeneraleconomic,politicalandmarketconditions,includingquarantines,factoryslowdownsorshutdowns,s,expectationsandbeliefsregardingfutureeventsandaresubjecttoknownandunknownrisks,uncertaintiesandotherfactorsthatcouldcauseactualresultstodiffermateri¡¯sannualreportonForm10-KforitsmostrecentlycompletedfiscalyearfiledonMarch1,2022,,,uncertaintiesandotherfactors,theseforward-¡¯sassumptions,expectationsandbeliefsonlyasofthedatetheyaremade,andexceptasrequiredbylaw,Netlistundertakesnoobligationtoreviseorupdateanyforward-lookingstatementsforanyreason.

»»ÈÈÆ÷£ºÁйܻ»ÈÈÆ÷¡¢°åʽ»»ÈÈÆ÷¡¢ÂÝÐý°å»»ÈÈÆ÷¡£

NFT(non-fungibletoken)i,musicians,collectorsandinvestors,withthesalesofNFTsresultinginabillion-dollarsizedmarket;yetthelawsandregulationsaroundthisspecificassetclassarefailingtokeepupwiththefastpaceofdevelopmentandfallshortinaddressingmanykeylegalissuesandcontroversiessurroundingNFTsintraditionallegalareas,,similartomarketselsewhere,,asidefromtheregulationsandrestrictionsfromafinancialperspective,untilnow,neithertheChineseauthoritiesnortheChinesecourtshadeverformallyrespondedtoanyotherkeylegalissuespertainingtoNFTs,InternetCourtonacopyrightinfringementcaserelatingtoanNFT,,thecourtshareditsviewsonseveralcopyrightissuesinrelationtoNFTs,:pertyoftheunderlyingartwork(unlessthesalesagreementprovidesotherwise).ThesaleofanunauthorizedNFTdoesnotinfringeuponthecopyrightowner¡¯srightofdistributionintheunderlyingworkwhichislimitedbythefirst-saledoctrine,butinstead,infringesupontherightofcommunicationbyinformationnetworks(whichisahighlycontroversialissueinrelationtocopyrightinfringementofanNFT).ThelegitimatecreatorofanNFTshouldnotbethepersonwhosimplypossessesacopyoftheunderlyingwork,butthepersonwhoownsthecopyrightin,orobtainsaduelicensefor,,thevettingobligationsofanNFTplatformshouldberelativelyhigher,because:TheNFTbusiness,,theunderlyingtechnologyofNFTswasbuilttocreateatrustworthyecosystemforallpartiestoatransaction,henceitiscriticallyimportantforanNFTplatformtoensuretherearenoobviousflawsinthecopyrightownershipoftheunderlyingworkofanNFT(whichistheverybasisandstartofallsubsequenttransactionsoftheNFT);otherwise,theentireNFTtransactionchainwouldbecomeveryunstableandallrelatedparties¡¯(profits)directlyfromsalesofNFTsonitsplatform,mechanismandusereasonableeffortstoverifythecopyrightownershipofeachunderlyingwork,(suchasmanuscripts,originalwork,publicpublications,copyrightregistrationcertificate,certificateissuedbycertificationagency,etc.)toprovecopyrightownership,andtoprovideguaranteesifnecessary,,thecourtacceptsthefactthatNFTscannotbedeletedduetotheirspecialtechnicalfeatures,butstipulatesthatplatformscansendinfringingNFTstoaneateraddress(wheretheNFTisburnedandremovedfromcirculation),dthelegalnatureofanNFT,aswellastheobligationsofanNFTplatform,,asthecourtisonlyadistrict-levelcourt,itremainsunclearastowhetheritsrulingwillbewidelyfollow,astheauthoritieshavenotyetenactedanyformalNFTlawsorregulations,thecourt¡¯sinsightsinthejudgmentaremeaningful,andNFTplayersinChinashouldwithoutdoubtcarefullyconsidertheimplicationsoftheruling.

TheSupremeCourtwillhearanongoingcopyrightcasebetweenSwedishfastfashiongiantHMandpattern-makingcompanyUnicolors,ent,aswellasthefindingsofothercircuitsandtheCopyrightOfficeinholdingthattheCopyrightActrequiresadistrictcourttoseekguidancefromtheCopyrightOfficewhentherearequestionsaboutthevalidityofacopyrightregistrationbutnoevid,accusingthefastfashionbehemothofinfringingoneofitsgeometricpatterns¨Cbywayofa¡°remarkablysimilar¡±print¨C,inwhichajuryfoundthatHMhadwillfullyinfringedUnicolors¡¯scopyright-protectedpattern,andawardedthepatterncompany$846,720indamages,attorney¡¯sfees,andcosts,¡¯sappealwasitsclaimthatUnicolorslacksavalidcopyrightregistrationforthefabricpatternatthecenterofthecasebecauseUnicolorshadimpher,makingthemanappropriate¡°singleunit¡±foronecollectivecopyrightapplicationandregistration,HMclaimedthatUnicolorsactuallysoldsomeofthepatternsseparatelytodifferentcustomers¨Catdifferenttimes,thereby,makingthecompany¡¯,2020,theNinthCircuitreversedthejuryverdictandsidedwithHMonthebasisthatthereisnointent-to-defraudrequirementforreg¡ì411(b)(2)¨CwhichrequiresdistrictcourtstoasktheRegisterofCopyrightswhetherregistrationwouldhavebeenrefusediftheCopyrightOfficehadknowntheinformationwasinaccurate¨CwhenitdidnotreferthemattertotheCopyrightOfficeafterHMallegedthattheregistrationcontainsinac,andUnicolorsfiledapetitionforawritofcertiorari,¡¯spetition,theNinthCircuitgotthecasewrong,asthejudges¡¯rulingconcerningthetimelineofthepublicationoftheworkscoveredbythesingle-unitcopyrightregistrationwas¡°flawedbecausetherewasnoevidencesupporting[their]conclusionthatthedesignswereseparatelypublishedbeforecertaindesignswerecategorizedasconfinedinUnicolors¡¯registrationcertificate.¡±Withthatinmind,Unicolorsclaimedthattherewas¡°insufficientevidencetodeduceany¡ì411(b).¡±¡°Thepanel¡¯¡ì411(b)wasalsoflawed,¡±accordingtoUnicolorsbecause¡°manycourts,legislativeandadministrativeauthorities,andtheleadingcopyrighttreatisehaveuniformlyinterpretedthePrioritizingResourcesandOrganizationforIntellectualPropertyActof2008¡­tocodifythedoctrineoffraudontheCopyrightOfficeandthus,toallowinvalidationundersection411(b)onlywhentheregistrantisshowntohaveactedinbadfaithorintendedtodefraudtheCopyrightOffice.¡±LookingaheadtotheSupremeCourt¡¯sconsiderationofthecase,ractitionersthatthesection411(b)issueis¡°ripeforreview,¡±particularlygiventhatdisputesaboutcopyrightregistrationerrors¨Cwhichcanstemfrom¡°anumberoffactors,includingunclearguidanceaboutregistrationrules,asimplemisunderstandingofwhattheapplicationrequiresand,mostrelevanttotheissueathand,purposefulorknowinginaccuracies¡±¨Care¡°commoninlitigation.¡±MeanwhileFinneganattorneysSamuelEichnerandMargaretEsquenethavenotedthatingrantingcertiorari,theSupremeCourtmaybelookingto¡°resolveanapparentcircuitsplitontheissueofwhetherthereisanintent-to-defraudrequirementbeforeareferralismadetotheCopyrightOfficeunderSection411(b).¡±Atthesametime,theCourtmayalsobeaiming¡°toclarifythestrengthofacopyrightregistration¡¯spresumptivevalidityand/ortheextenttowhichtheCopyrightActrequirescourtstodefertoCopyrightOfficedeterminationsundersection411(b)(2)astowhetherinaccuracies,ifknown,wouldhavecausedtheCopyrightOfficetorefuseregistration.¡±Ultimately,EichnerandEsquenetassertthatbecauseintenttodefraudisgenerallydifficulttoprove,¡°theSupremeCourt¡¯sdecisionshouldhaveasignificantimpactonthestrengthofcopyrightregistrations¡±¨Cwhicharenowprerequisitestofilingcopyrightinfringementactions¨C¡°andtheirsusceptibilitytovalidityattacksbasedonperceivedinaccuraciesinregistrations.¡±Assuch,thedecisionhasthepotentialtoimpactcopyrightapplicationpractices.

OnApril12,accordingtoanordermadepublicinManhattanfederal,DistrictJudgeJedRakoffhasthrownoutalawsuitfromInternationalBusinessMachinesCorp(IBM)claimingonlinepetfoodretailerChewyIncswebsiteandmobileappviolatedseveralIBMpatentscoveringimprovementstowebsitefunctionalityandtargetedadvertising,fromwhichIBMwouldseekatleast$¡¯unpatentableabstractidea,Florida-basedChewysuedIBMtoheadoffapotentiallawsuitandaccusedtechgiantIBM,oneofthelargestpatentownersintheworld,ofseekingexorbitantlicensingfeesforearlyInternetpatentshavingnovalue.,afteritsupposedlyrejecteda$,IBMwassaidtohavesimilarlysuedotherinternet-basedcompaniesincludingTwitterInc,AirbnbIncandZillowGroupInc,andthatmostofthemhadbasicallysurrenderedbeforethetrial.

UtahscookiecompetitioncontinuedonJuly13whenDirtyDoughandCraveCo,foundedinLoganbySawyerHemsleyandJasonMcGowan,filedalawsuitagainstDirtyDough,acookiebusinessthatstartedinTempe,Arizona,,aCrumblinsiderleftCrumbltofoundDirtyDough,whichsellsandpromotescookiesusingpackaging,decor,andpresentationthatisconfusinglysim,whosbrotherwasaCrumblemployee,toldTheHerald,youguysknowthatDirtyDoughwasalreadystartedin2018,,Ithinkwerethemostdifferent,..,,bigsupporter,Maxwellsaid,expla,allofasuddenoutofnowhere¡­wegethitwithalawsuit,,,,wellseeiftheywanttotalk¡­whatsthesolutionhereMaxwellsaid,,wereachedouttothem¡ªtoldthemweacceptedcounsel,,,anothercookiecompanythathascometoUtah,,afterCrumbldeniedanapplicationbyCravesfoundertobecomeaCrumblfranchisee,Cravebegansellingandpromotingitscopycatgourmetcookies,Crumblscomplaintreadsbeforealletailsofthevaluablegoodwill,reputation,ontobecomeaCrumblefranchiseeorthatCraveisinviolationofanyofCrumblsallegedtrademarks,tradedress,orotherintellectualpropertyrights,rattemptbyathreatenedcompetitortousealawsuittostiflefairandfreecompetitionanddenyconsumersachoiceofproducts,Englishsaidinastatementto,,orelsewhywouldnttheytalkwithusorsendacease-and-desistletter,,,Maxwellsaid,,hesaid,,Crumblsaidtheyareprotectingtheirsuccess:Asafranchisorof30,000+CrumblCrewmembers,1,000+FranchisePartners,andhundredsofCrumblHQemployees,wewillalwaystakeseriouslyourroleinbuildingandprotectingthecompanyanditstrademarksthatweveallworkedsohardtocreatetogether.

,aChinesesmartwatchmaker¨CPutianDoumaofirmhastriedofusingtheHuaweilogoanditsnamewithsomesmartwatchestoselltheminitsstoreduetowhichthelegallawsuitshaveorderedthecompanytocompensate2millionyuan(),,,bracelets,andmoresold,,suchtypeofbehav,thedefendantbeginsarguingthatsuchterm,:Theevalua,thedefendantsdefensethatthewordHuaweiusesinadescriptivemannercannotestablish,,thedefendantsuseofofficialwebsitemoneyandofficialupgrademoneyintheproductintrodu,thecourthascommandedthedefendanttocompensateforthelossofHuaweiassoonaspossible.

NFT(non-fungibletoken)i,musicians,collectorsandinvestors,withthesalesofNFTsresultinginabillion-dollarsizedmarket;yetthelawsandregulationsaroundthisspecificassetclassarefailingtokeepupwiththefastpaceofdevelopmentandfallshortinaddressingmanykeylegalissuesandcontroversiessurroundingNFTsintraditionallegalareas,,similartomarketselsewhere,,asidefromtheregulationsandrestrictionsfromafinancialperspective,untilnow,neithertheChineseauthoritiesnortheChinesecourtshadeverformallyrespondedtoanyotherkeylegalissuespertainingtoNFTs,InternetCourtonacopyrightinfringementcaserelatingtoanNFT,,thecourtshareditsviewsonseveralcopyrightissuesinrelationtoNFTs,:pertyoftheunderlyingartwork(unlessthesalesagreementprovidesotherwise).ThesaleofanunauthorizedNFTdoesnotinfringeuponthecopyrightowner¡¯srightofdistributionintheunderlyingworkwhichislimitedbythefirst-saledoctrine,butinstead,infringesupontherightofcommunicationbyinformationnetworks(whichisahighlycontroversialissueinrelationtocopyrightinfringementofanNFT).ThelegitimatecreatorofanNFTshouldnotbethepersonwhosimplypossessesacopyoftheunderlyingwork,butthepersonwhoownsthecopyrightin,orobtainsaduelicensefor,,thevettingobligationsofanNFTplatformshouldberelativelyhigher,because:TheNFTbusiness,,theunderlyingtechnologyofNFTswasbuilttocreateatrustworthyecosystemforallpartiestoatransaction,henceitiscriticallyimportantforanNFTplatformtoensuretherearenoobviousflawsinthecopyrightownershipoftheunderlyingworkofanNFT(whichistheverybasisandstartofallsubsequenttransactionsoftheNFT);otherwise,theentireNFTtransactionchainwouldbecomeveryunstableandallrelatedparties¡¯(profits)directlyfromsalesofNFTsonitsplatform,mechanismandusereasonableeffortstoverifythecopyrightownershipofeachunderlyingwork,(suchasmanuscripts,originalwork,publicpublications,copyrightregistrationcertificate,certificateissuedbycertificationagency,etc.)toprovecopyrightownership,andtoprovideguaranteesifnecessary,,thecourtacceptsthefactthatNFTscannotbedeletedduetotheirspecialtechnicalfeatures,butstipulatesthatplatformscansendinfringingNFTstoaneateraddress(wheretheNFTisburnedandremovedfromcirculation),dthelegalnatureofanNFT,aswellastheobligationsofanNFTplatform,,asthecourtisonlyadistrict-levelcourt,itremainsunclearastowhetheritsrulingwillbewidelyfollow,astheauthoritieshavenotyetenactedanyformalNFTlawsorregulations,thecourt¡¯sinsightsinthejudgmentaremeaningful,andNFTplayersinChinashouldwithoutdoubtcarefullyconsidertheimplicationsoftheruling.

Synopsys,(DMCA)actionagainstLibraryTechnologies,accesstoSynopsys¡¯ssoftwareinviolationoftheDMCAandtheparties¡¯¡°spoof[ed]¡±Synopsys¡¯slicenseserversbyalteringidentifyinginformationonvariouslicenseservercomputersto¡°leadingproviderofElectronicDesignAutomation(¡°EDA¡±)solutionsforthesemiconductorindustry.¡±Itreportedlyoffersasuiteofsoftwarequalityandsecuritysolutions,includingits¡°HSPICE¡±,LibraryTechnologiesisaprivatelyheldcompanybasedinSiliconValleythat¡°developsandmarketsdesignandanalysistoolsforintegratedcircuitdesign.¡±Itssuiteoftoolsandproductsareintegratedwithandinterfaceto¡°popularchipdesignflowsincludingSynopsystools.¡±Thecomplaintcontendsthatthepartiesenteredintoan¡°EndUserLicenseandMaintenanceAgreement¡±¡°licenseseats¡±,thethree-countcomplaintavers,LibraryTechnologiesbreachedtheagreementwhenit¡°alteredtheHostIDsofitslicenseservercomputerstoimpersonateaserverauthorizedtouseSynopsysTools,inordertocircumventSynopsys¡¯accesscontrollicensekeyprotections,therebygainingaccesstomoreconcurrentusageofSynopsysToolsthanauthorized.¡±SynopsyscontendsthatLibraryTechnologiesaccessedthesoftware¡°inexcessofitslicenseover400,000times,¡±¡¯unauthorizedandunpaidforaccess,Synopsysargues,notonlybreachedtheparties¡¯,Synopsysseeksinjunctiverelief,statutoryandactualdamages,attorneys¡¯feesandlitigationcosts,anaccounting,,HerringtonSutcliffeLLP.

OnMay3,2022,theAdministrativeConferenceoftheUnitedStates(ACUS)announcedthattheUnitedStatesPatentandTrademarkOffice(USPTO)hadengagedACUStoconductanindependentstudyintotheissuesassociatedwith,andthedesignof,(May3,2022)TheACUSinvitespubliccommentsonthestudy,whichareduebyJuly5,,however,,concernshavebeenraisedthatthecostofpatentlitigationinfederalcourtdeterssmall-andmedium-sizedenterprises,includingthoseownedbytraditionallyunderrepresentedgroups,,theDepartmentofCommerceinvestigate,thenDirectoroftheUSPTODavidKapposissuedaFederalRegisternoticeseekingpubliccommentsonwhethertheUnit(,2012)ThenoticeofthisnewstudycomesnearlyayearafterabipartisangroupofsixsenatorssentalettertotheCommissionerforPatents,,2021letter,SenatorsChristopherCoons(D-DE)JohnCornynIII(R-TX)ThomasCotton(R-AR)MazieHirono(D-HI)PatrickLeahy(D-VT)andThomasTillis(R-NC)referencedthe2012FederalRegisternoticeandstatedthattheUSPTOhadnotfolloweduponthatdthatthestudybeprovidedtotheSenateJudiciaryCommitteenolaterthanDecember31,ctanindependentsurveyandanalysisofissuesassoc:;tentcourt;,structure,andinternalorganizationofapotentialsmallclaimspatentcourt,includingwhetheritshouldbeestablishedwithintheArticleIIIfederalcourts,asorwithinanArticleIcourt,orasanadministrativetribunal;,appointment,management,andoversightofofficialswhopresideoverproceedingsinapotentialsmallclaimspatentcourt;,whetherparticipationinsuchproceedingswouldbemandatoryorvoluntary,andwhetherpartiescanremovecasestoanotheradministrativetribunalorfederalcourt;urt,including,asrelevant,pleadings,discovery,andalternativedisputeresolution;vide;;/,thereisabroadrangeofpossibilit,andhowitisstructured,willimpactpatentholdersandaccusedinfringersalike.

Chinashighestcourthasruledthatthefameofaninfringedtrademarkshouldcomeintoconsiderationwhendeterminingdamages,ringementandunfaircompetitionintheChongqingFifthPeoplesCourtinMarch2011afterdiscoveringthatitsformerlylicenseddistributorSentaidahadbeemmascot(otherwiseknownastheMichelinMan),thecompanysphoneticnameMIQILINinChinesecharacters(ÃׯäÁÖ),LiDaowei,alocalChongqingtiredealer,wassellingSentaidatiresusingMichelinsÃׯäÁÖsCourtand,atsecondinstance,theChongqingHighPeoplesCourtfoundthatoneofSentaidastrademarkswassimilartoMichelinsandorderedittopayRmb10,suseofÃׯäÁÖconstitutedtrademarkinfringementandawardedMichelinRmb50,,theyrejectedtheclaimofsimilaritybetweenanotherofSentaidat(SPC),whichinMarchthisyear(andrecentlyreported)repealedthelowercourtsjudgmentsandraisedtheamountofdamagestoRmb500,000themaximumamountofdiscretionalcompensationallowedunderChinas2001TrademarkLaw,ngbusinessinChina,saysZhangHui,,wherethemedyingtrademarkinfringements,,,marksofhighfameshallbegr,suff,theBeijingIPCourtawardedstatutorydamagesofRmb3millionthemaximumavailableunderthecountrys2014TrademarkLawtoItalianluxuryfashionbrandMonsertedmarksandbadfaithoftheinfringers,saysZhang,whoexplains:TheamountofdamagesgrantedintheMonclercaseisbolderandoutofexpectation,thoughRmb3millionistheceilingofstatutorydamagesunderthe2014TrademarkLaw,gstatutorydamages,,thisstatusquoappearstobechanging,asChinesecourtsincreasinglyconsiderthefameorrenownofpartic,togetherwiththebadfaithoftheinfringers,influencedthecourtevaluationoftrademarkinfringement,andinthiscasecausedtheSPCtosubstantiallyincreasetheamountofdamagesfromthatoftheoriginaljudgments,ewiththetrademarklawandinternationalpractice,andshouldencouragehealthycompetitionasSMEswithlessrecognisabletrademarksfocusfurthereffortsonbrandpromotionandprotection,,rightsholdersshouldensuretheyareinapositiontopresentevidenceofboththeiruseoftheirmarks,andtheirfameinChina,,ce.

NFT(non-fungibletoken)i,musicians,collectorsandinvestors,withthesalesofNFTsresultinginabillion-dollarsizedmarket;yetthelawsandregulationsaroundthisspecificassetclassarefailingtokeepupwiththefastpaceofdevelopmentandfallshortinaddressingmanykeylegalissuesandcontroversiessurroundingNFTsintraditionallegalareas,,similartomarketselsewhere,,asidefromtheregulationsandrestrictionsfromafinancialperspective,untilnow,neithertheChineseauthoritiesnortheChinesecourtshadeverformallyrespondedtoanyotherkeylegalissuespertainingtoNFTs,InternetCourtonacopyrightinfringementcaserelatingtoanNFT,,thecourtshareditsviewsonseveralcopyrightissuesinrelationtoNFTs,:pertyoftheunderlyingartwork(unlessthesalesagreementprovidesotherwise).ThesaleofanunauthorizedNFTdoesnotinfringeuponthecopyrightowner¡¯srightofdistributionintheunderlyingworkwhichislimitedbythefirst-saledoctrine,butinstead,infringesupontherightofcommunicationbyinformationnetworks(whichisahighlycontroversialissueinrelationtocopyrightinfringementofanNFT).ThelegitimatecreatorofanNFTshouldnotbethepersonwhosimplypossessesacopyoftheunderlyingwork,butthepersonwhoownsthecopyrightin,orobtainsaduelicensefor,,thevettingobligationsofanNFTplatformshouldberelativelyhigher,because:TheNFTbusiness,,theunderlyingtechnologyofNFTswasbuilttocreateatrustworthyecosystemforallpartiestoatransaction,henceitiscriticallyimportantforanNFTplatformtoensuretherearenoobviousflawsinthecopyrightownershipoftheunderlyingworkofanNFT(whichistheverybasisandstartofallsubsequenttransactionsoftheNFT);otherwise,theentireNFTtransactionchainwouldbecomeveryunstableandallrelatedparties¡¯(profits)directlyfromsalesofNFTsonitsplatform,mechanismandusereasonableeffortstoverifythecopyrightownershipofeachunderlyingwork,(suchasmanuscripts,originalwork,publicpublications,copyrightregistrationcertificate,certificateissuedbycertificationagency,etc.)toprovecopyrightownership,andtoprovideguaranteesifnecessary,,thecourtacceptsthefactthatNFTscannotbedeletedduetotheirspecialtechnicalfeatures,butstipulatesthatplatformscansendinfringingNFTstoaneateraddress(wheretheNFTisburnedandremovedfromcirculation),dthelegalnatureofanNFT,aswellastheobligationsofanNFTplatform,,asthecourtisonlyadistrict-levelcourt,itremainsunclearastowhetheritsrulingwillbewidelyfollow,astheauthoritieshavenotyetenactedanyformalNFTlawsorregulations,thecourt¡¯sinsightsinthejudgmentaremeaningful,andNFTplayersinChinashouldwithoutdoubtcarefullyconsidertheimplicationsoftheruling.

3¡¢ÕºÁÏÖ­Öжà·ÅÒ»µã´×£¬ÓнâÄå¡¢¿ªÎ¸µÄЧ¹û£»Ã״ס¢³Â´×¾ù¿É¡£

¡°Themostsuccessfulpartieschoosetheirbattleswisely,¡±saysTheHonorableGerardRogers,ChiefAdministrativeTrademarkJudgeattheTrademarkTrialandAppealBoard(TTAB),abodywithintheUnitedStatesPatentandTrademarkOffice(USPTO).HavingservedinvariousrolesontheTTABformorethan25years,JudgeRogersispanshavebeendeniedbytheUSPTO,,partieshavebeenknowntopushtheirluck.¡°TrialsaresometimespursuedbecausethepartieshaveissuesoutsidetheTTABthatthey¡¯regrapplingwithand,itappearstous,theythinkitwillgivethemanotherleveragepointtodealwiththeirdifferences.¡±JudgeRogerssayshehasseencaseswherepartieshavenotproperlyfollowedtheTTAB¡¯sManualofProcedure,,regulatory,anddecisionalauthoritythatisrelevanttotheTTAB.¡°Therehavebeenappealsandtrialcasesthathavebeenlostbutcouldhavebeenwon,duetoafailuretofollowtherules,¡±saysJudgeRogers.¡°Manypractitionersfailtofollowtheguidanceonwhatevidencecanbeprobative.¡±JudgeRogersaddsthatit¡°neverhurts¡±toremindstakeholderstobecognizantoftherulesthattheTTABisrequiredtoapply¡ªaswellastheissuesitmustignore¡ª,theTTABoftencannottakeintoaccountparticularsrelatingtouseofatrademarkinthemarketplace,¡°Wehavetoignorethatinformation,yetpeoplebringittousallthetime,¡±,just30percentareexparteappeals,,appealsaccountfor75percentofcasesultimatelydecidedonthemerits,sowhatmightexplainthelargeswingJudgeRogerssaysthatpetitionsforcancellationandoppositionaresimilartocourtdisputesinthatasettlementisavailableand,ifthatoptionisused,¡°fewertrialcasesrequiredispositiononthemeritsasthepartieshaveworkeditout.¡±Inasmallpercentageofcases,apartymight¡°misbehave¡±andbesanctioned,whichcouldalsoleadtothecasebeingterminated,ppositionscanbemuchmoreexpensivethanappealsfromexaminerrefusals,soalotofcasesareneverpursuedbeyondtheinitialstages,,whichcaninvolveplentyofbackandforthbetweentheparties,includingondiscoveryandmotionpractice,,incontrast,¡°whentheattorneyfilesthenoticeofappealthereisnotmuchelsetodootherthanfilethebriefs,¡±,ofteninwrittenratherthanoralform,¡°sothere¡¯snotmuchaddedexpensetohaveanattorneypursueanappeal.¡±MoreAppealsJudgeRogersnotesthattrademarkapplicationfilingswiththeUSPTOhaverisenyear-on-yearforeightyears,so¡°thismeansmoreappealsandoppositionsandtheneedtoincreasethestafftohandlethatwork.¡±ernsabouttheBoard¡¯,seResolution(ACR)procedure,,theTTABseekstoexpediteproceedingsby,amongotherthings,activelyencouragingpartiestoconsiderplacinglimitsondiscoveryandtestimony,andadoptingmoreefficientaltern,forexample,hesaysthat,whileattorneyshaveindividualresponsibilityforcasesontheirdockets,theTTAB¡¯smanagingattorneywillreassigncaseswithpendingmotionsonamoneeditsperformancetargets,saysJudgeRogers,despitealargevariationinthecomplexityofcases,2weeksofthecasebeingreadytodecide,saysJudgeRogers(readyfordecisionmeansafterallbriefingisdoneandthecaseissubmittedbyaBoardparalegaltotheChiefJudgeforassignment,orafteroralargument,ifoneisrequested).¡°Wehaverepeatedlybeatenthisgoal,¡±veragependency(fromcommencementtocompletion)ofexparteappealsforthelastfiveyearsinarow,withthatpendencymeasurefallingintrialcasesforfiveofthepastsixyears.¡°JudgeRogersexplainsthatstakeholdershavelongexpressedapreferencefortheTTABtoremain¡°amorerelaxedalternativetolitigationinfederaldistrictcourts,¡±whereextension,,,,Inc.,ntdistrictcourtlitigationbetweenthesamepartiesthatlitigatedanearliercasebeforetheTTAB,aslongasthe¡°ordinaryelements¡±,JudgeRogerssaysitsimpactontheTTABhasbeen¡°almostnone.¡±However,hedoesnotethatitwasaverypositiverulingfortrademarkownersasit¡°¡±HenotesthatmanyTTABcasesaresettledandthatevenwhentheyarenot,,headds,theissuesthattheTTABanddistrictcourtsadjudicateareoftendifferent(,thesubsequentdistrictcourtcaseverylikelywouldconsideradditionalissuesrelatingtouseinthemarketplace).¡°Therewasalotoftalkthat,becauseofthepossibilityofissuepreclusion,partiesshouldtakemorediscoveryandintroducemoreevidenceattheTTAB.¡°ButIsay:issuepreclusionisunlikelytoariseinallbuttherarestofcases,¡¯tintroducemorediscoverythanusual,anddon¡¯tincreaseyourcostsandfilealotofirrelevantevidencethatwouldhaveabearinginadistrictcourtbutwhichisnotrelevanttoouranalysis.¡±¡¯advice;,JudgeRogers,whohasbeeninhiscurrentpositionsinceNovember2010,saysthereisa¡°realvarietyandthingscancomeuponanygivenday.¡±Histimeincludesmeetingwiththeapproximately70membersoftheTTABstaff,whichincludesjudges,attorneys,thatthejudgesarecontinually,andhestressestheimportanceofworkinginharmony.¡°WeworkcloselywiththeSolicitor¡¯sOffice;theywillbeinthepositionofdefendingvariousBoarddecisionsbeforetheFederalCircuit,sowewanttoputtheminthebestpositionpossible,¡±¡¯sOffice,JudgeRogersexplains,canrelaytotheTTABtheque¡¯smostseniorjudgemaybehisprimaryrole,JudgeRog¡¯sstaffareitsbiggeststrength,saysthejudge.¡°Ifindthetimetoremindouremployeesofwhatgreatworktheydo,¡±ursandstress¡ªhisbicycle.¡°FormanyyearsIhaveriddentenmileseachwaytotheofficeandback;itprovidesabufferbetweenworkandhomelife.¡±

QingYuNian,apopularChinesecostumedramaadaptedfromtheChinesewebnovelofthesamename,hasbeenaccusedbyChinesenetizensofplagiarizingcontentfromthefantasynovelseriesTheTwelveKingdoms(1992)ofdialoguefromQingYuNianthat,tonotbediscouragedevenwhenencounteringdisaster,tocorrectinjusticewithoutfear,donotyieldandflatterthemonstersintheJapanesenovelisbeingcomparedtoQingYuNianstobeunyieldingwhenabusedbyothers,tonottobefrustratedwhendisastersoccur,ifanythingisunfair,befearlessincorrectingit,,themeaningandstructureofbothareverysimilar,,itdefinitelyborrowedsomeideasfromTheTwelveKingdoms,buttocallitplagiarism,Idoubtit,,eventheirlogicandstructurearethesameandyousayitsnotplagiarismpostedanothernetizenwhoconfrontedQi,butifthetakenbithasbeenwashedthoroughly,andhasnodramaticsimilarities,andthebithappenstobelessimportantandhaslessfunctionwhenevaluatingitintheentirework,then,itisnoteasytodefineitasplagiarism,said,alawyerspecializingincopyrightlaw,,theconceptofanovel,filmandTVscript;,,thelawprotectsexpression,,sometimescanbeconfusinganddependsontheparticularcase,,QingYuNianisawell-ratedalternativehistorynovelthatte,theworkwasadaptedintoa46-episodeTVdramastarringfamousactorssuchasZhangRuoyun,ChenDaomingandXiaoZhan,acontr,theIPhasbee,iftheplagiarismscandalgainsground,willtherebeasecondseasonPleasedontcancelit,IliketheTVdramaalot,Tanni,afanoftheshowinBeijing,,theofficialproductionteamfortheshowannouncedthatasecondseasonisindevelopmentandwilllikelyairin2022.

2016Ä꣬Öì±û·åͶ×ÊÊ®¶àÍòÔª£¬Ôھɴ岿µÄÎ÷²à½¨Æð200ƽ·½Ã×µÄÁÙʱ»î¶¯°å·¿×÷Ϊ¡°ÎÄÒÕС»áÌá±£¬Ð¡»áÌó¤ÓжþÊ®ÁùÆßÃ×£¬¿íÓа˾ÅÃ×£¬ÉèÓиüÒÂÊÒ¡¢Ë®ÄàÎę̀£¬Îę̀ÉÏÓÐºìµØÌº£¬ÎèÌ¨Ç°Ãæ°Ú·Å×ÅÕûÆëµÄ¼òÒ×Ô²µÊ£¬¿É¹©300¶àÈ˹ۿ´½ÚÄ¿¡£

ChinawillcontinuetostrengthentheprotectionofintellectualpropertyrightsandprovideafavorableenvironmentforglobalinnovatorsandentrepreneurstoensurethatscientificandtechnologicalachievementscanbetterbenefitChinaandtheworldatlarge,enceandTechnologyInnovationCooperationConferenceheldinBeijing,sayingthatChinastandsreadytoworkwiththerestoftheworldtobuildanopen,fair,justandnondllastheslowdowninglobaleconomicgrowth,itismorenecessarythaneverforallcountriestostrengtheninclusivecooperationinscienceandtechnologyandmakeinnovationssoastojointlydealwithglobalchallenges,sbenefitedfrominclusivecooperation,andglobalprogressinscienceandtechnologyalsoneedsChina,notingthatChinahasalreadyestablisheds,Chinawillimplementamoreinclusiveandmutuallybeneficialstrategyoninternationalscientificandtechnologicalcooperationandtakeamoreopenattitudetowardspromotingglobalcoordinationonscientificinnovations,ationnetwork,jointlypushforbreakthroughsinsuchareasasfundamentalscienceresearchandtheapplicationofsci,themedTechnologyEmpowerstheFuture,InnovationLeadsDevelopment,wasattendedbo,assistantdirectorgeneraloftheWorldIntellectualPropertyOrganization,saidinavideospeechthatChinaisnowaleadingcountryinglobalinnovationandWIPaladdressthatChinasprogressinscienceandtechnologyaswellasitseconomicgrowthhavemghitsscientificdevelopment.

Clearingtheaironlabyrinthinesubject-mattereligibilitystandardsforcomputer-implementedinventions(CIIs),a,,thecourt,whilesettinganewtest,rejected,forthesecondtime,aproblem-solutionapproachtoclaimconstructionfollowedbytheCanadianIntellectualPropertyOffice(CIPO)entsfindingtwoCanadianPatentApplicantsnumbered2,695,130and2,695,146aspatentineligibleundersections2and27(8)(IPIC),anIPpolicyadvocacyorganization,intervenedintheappealproceedings,affiinesinventiontoincludeanynewandusefulart,process,machine,(8),however,,2000SCC66,theSupremeCourtofCanadaclarifiedthatbeforeassessingsubject-mattereligibility,essentialeleme,whereinonlythoseelementsinclaimsthatwerenecessarytosolveth,,CIPOintroducedaPracticeNote,titledExaminationPracticeRespectingComputer-ImplementedInventions,whichindicatedthatifacomputercomponentisfoundtobeanessentialelement,,iftheessentialelementslackanyphysicality,(AttorneyGeneral),2020FC837,CIPOintroducedanewPracticeNoteinNovember2020,titledPatentableSubject-MatterunderthePatentAct,whichnotedthatinordertobepatent-eligible,thecomputercomponentsmustcooperatewithotherelementsoftheclaimedinvention,andthatactualinventioncations,bothtitledColorSelectionSystem,filedbyBenjaminMooreCo.,icalequationthatmodeledhumanpsychologicalperceptionstocolor,associatingacoloremotionscoretovariouscolorsinadatabase,andselecti,bothpatentapplicationswererejectedbyExaminersforencompassingnon-statutorysubject-matter,,theExaminer,uponpurposivelyconstruingtheclaims,,asnotedbytheExaminer,includedcalculatinghumanpsychophysicalperceptionvaluestocolorelementsbasedonmathematicalmodels,andothe,eviewedbyathree-memberPatentAppealBoard,,theApplicantreliedonFreeWorldTrustinemphasizingthatcomputercomponentscau,theApplicantclaimed,theApplicantconcededthatnoattemptwasmadetosolveac,however,concludedthatidentifyingamathematicalcorrelationbetweencolorsandhumanemotiveresponsestoaidcolorselectionwasnotatechnicalproblemforsubject-matterconsiderations,andcompsionerofPatents1981,FCA204,thatuseofcomputersforconduct,theBoardagreedwiththeExaminerandnotedthattheessentialelements,,theAppellantchallengedtheCommissionersclaimcons,Appellantargued,wouldhavebeenidentifyingclaimelementsthathaveamater,theCommissionerhadincorrectlyconcludedthattheremainingcationssuchasidentifyingadjacencyofcolorpairs,storingthecolorlibrary,,,,thePracticeN,theCommissionersapproachofconsideringonlythenovelelementsintheclaimsasessenti,theofficeoftheAttorneyGeneralofCanada(AGC)incorrectbutsoughttoremittheapplicationsbacktotheCommissi,theRespondentarguedthatjudicialinterventionwouldbeprematureastheCommissionerdidnothavetheopportunitytoconsidertheAppeyhavingtheexpert,theRespondentcontendedthata,implementingascientificprincipleormathematicaltheoremonagen,IPIC,generallyalignedwiththeAppellantspositionandca,CIPOstendencyo,gdetrimentaltoCIIs,ntedworldwide,,notingmaterialeffecnon-essentialandallegi,theIntervenorrequestedthecourttore-cessiontotheproblem-so,includingWhirlpoolCorpvCamcoInc,2000SCC67,FreeWorldTrust,andCanada(AttorneyGeneral),2011FCA328thecourtheldthatnoneofthedecisionssuggestaproblem-solutionapproach,andins,wheretheproblem-solutionapproachwasdiscredited,andaddedthatpracticalapplicationofs,theproblem-solutionapproach,consideringonlynovelaspectsofclaimsinsubject-matteranalysis,andholdingcomputercomponentsasnon-essentialfornotsolvingacomputerproblem,ectmatter,thecourtacceptedtheframeworksuggestedbytheIntervenor,isasfollows:Purposivelyconstruetheclaim;Askwhethertheconstruedclaimasawholeconsistsofonlyamerescientificprincipleorabstracttheorem,orwhetheritcomprisesapracticalapplicationthatemploysascientificprincipleorabstracttheorem;andIftheconstruedclaimcomprisesapracticalapplication,assesstheconstruedclaimfortheremainingpatentabilitycriteria:statutorycategoriesandjudicialexclusions,aswellasnovelty,obviousness,ifyingessentialclaimelements,thecourthasdirectedthatclaimsshouldbeassessed,CIPOsrequirementthatapplicationsinvolvingCIIsmu,CIPOspracticeoflimitingthesubject-matterassessmentonlytonovelele,abrightlinetowardscon

OnJuly20,ViaLicensingannouncedthatXiaomihasreneweditslicensingagreementfortheViaAdvancedAudioCodingPatentPool,,XiaomiandViareachedanagreementforXiaomitousepatentedtechnologyundertheAdvancedAudioCoding(AAC),anditthuscouldenableconsumerstoenjoyhigh-qualityaudiothroughhighcompressionefficiency,,GeneralManagerofGlobalBusinessDevelopmentandIPStrategyofXiaomi,said:WearehappytocontinueouragreementwithViasAACpatentpool,abalancedcollaborativicatedtoinnovationinpartnershipwithtechfirms,iesintheaudio,wireless,,,LeiJun,CEOofXiaomi,saidthatthefirmhadobtained25,000patentsworldwide,andithadanother20,:XiaomiAutoAnnouncesNewAutomatedDrivingPatentXiaomihasappliedformorethan2,300patents,ithasachievedtheindustrysfirst120Wsinglebatterycellchargingtechnologyand200Wwiredchargingtechnology,andithasover1,400globalpatentapplicationsforchargingt,

InthewakeoftheCOVID-19outbreak,($)in2020,,legalcounseloftutoringserviceproviderTALEducationGroup,spokeatarecent,hadmorethan14,000linkscarryingunauthoriz,infringementsarecontinuing,ofonlineplatforms,os,anyhs,,ajudgefromtheBeijingInternetCourt,saidthatinjudicialpractices,onlinecoursescanbeprots,,offenderstrytogetaroundthelegalissuebyinsistingtheyareforschooling,,asmallnumberofcopiesofpublishedworksisallowedforschooling,scientificresearchortranslation,,statutorylicen,alawprofessoratEastChinaUniversityofPoliticalScienceandLaw,saidthattheuseoftheworksa£­includingschooltextbooks£­basedontheprincipleofrationaluse,,worksareban,whichconstitutesarationaluse,theyaresubjecttostringentrequirements,,thejudgenoted,thetranslation,reproductionandnetworkdistributionhorizationfromauthorsonebyone,saidQiLei,authorizationandbrands.

Lastweek,theItalianSocietyofAuthorsandEditors(SIAE)saiditpartnered,forexample,asimilarprojectincollaborationwiththeLaSapienzaUniversityofRomeandthestartupBlockchainCore,,SIAEisworkingwithAlgorandtoleveragethelatter¡¯bysomeone,andtheplatformwillkeeptrackoftheroyaltiestheywouldreceive.¡°Theworldisevolving,butthefoundingmissionoftheItalianSocietyofAuthorsandPublishers,theprotectionofcreativity,doesnotchange,¡±saidSIAEGeneralManagerGaetanoBlandini.¡°OurcollaborationwithAlgorandispartofaprocessalreadystartedandisalignedwithresearchandinnovationonanationalandglobalscale.¡±CommentingonthepartnershipwithSIAE,SilvioMicali,thefounderofAlgorand,said,¡°Collaborationbetweentechnologyprovidersandforward-thinkingorganizationssuchasSIAEopensupvastopportunitiesforprogressiontowardsneweconomicmodelsthatpromoteinclusivity,transparency,andfrictionlesstransactions.¡±Blockchainisbeingseenastheperfectmat,ab,,potentially,eachpieceofcopyrightedworkcanbeassigneduniqueidentifiers,androyaltypaymentscouldbedirectlysenttotheowner¡¯,,,Ba,HTCandafewotherfirmshaveinvestedinTaiwan-basedpropertyrightsstartupBitmarkInc,,SouthKorea¡¯sCJOliveNetworks,theITdivisionofCJGroup,launchedablockchaindigitalcopyrightssystemwhichfocusesonmusicalworks.

TheCourtofAppealinTheHaguehasupheldafir,,KPN,NokiaNokiaandKPNhaveonceagainbeensuccessfulintheongoingcaseagainstAssiaoverDSLtechnologyMaryia/ADOBESTOCKInJanuary2021,,theDistrictCourtofTheHaguefoundthatKPNhadnotinfringedEP790,,unlikeinparallelproceedings,,becauseKPNappliestheprocesslaidoutinthepatent¡¯,AssiaarguedthatitsDSLproductoperateswiththepatent¡¯,thecourtthrewouttheclaimofinfringement,¡¯sinitialvictory(caseID:C/09/571729).NokiadeliverskeyDSLtechnologycomponentstoKPN,turningoutasaninter,¡¯sEP2259456,theCourtofAppealconfirmedinMarch2021aninvaliditydecision,56(caseID:C/09/563488).Here,,whichisstandardessential,,Assiaw,theCourtofAppealnullifiedallclaimsofEP456.

UtahscookiecompetitioncontinuedonJuly13whenDirtyDoughandCraveCo,foundedinLoganbySawyerHemsleyandJasonMcGowan,filedalawsuitagainstDirtyDough,acookiebusinessthatstartedinTempe,Arizona,,aCrumblinsiderleftCrumbltofoundDirtyDough,whichsellsandpromotescookiesusingpackaging,decor,andpresentationthatisconfusinglysim,whosbrotherwasaCrumblemployee,toldTheHerald,youguysknowthatDirtyDoughwasalreadystartedin2018,,Ithinkwerethemostdifferent,..,,bigsupporter,Maxwellsaid,expla,allofasuddenoutofnowhere¡­wegethitwithalawsuit,,,,wellseeiftheywanttotalk¡­whatsthesolutionhereMaxwellsaid,,wereachedouttothem¡ªtoldthemweacceptedcounsel,,,anothercookiecompanythathascometoUtah,,afterCrumbldeniedanapplicationbyCravesfoundertobecomeaCrumblfranchisee,Cravebegansellingandpromotingitscopycatgourmetcookies,Crumblscomplaintreadsbeforealletailsofthevaluablegoodwill,reputation,ontobecomeaCrumblefranchiseeorthatCraveisinviolationofanyofCrumblsallegedtrademarks,tradedress,orotherintellectualpropertyrights,rattemptbyathreatenedcompetitortousealawsuittostiflefairandfreecompetitionanddenyconsumersachoiceofproducts,Englishsaidinastatementto,,orelsewhywouldnttheytalkwithusorsendacease-and-desistletter,,,Maxwellsaid,,hesaid,,Crumblsaidtheyareprotectingtheirsuccess:Asafranchisorof30,000+CrumblCrewmembers,1,000+FranchisePartners,andhundredsofCrumblHQemployees,wewillalwaystakeseriouslyourroleinbuildingandprotectingthecompanyanditstrademarksthatweveallworkedsohardtocreatetogether.

Astheproverbsays,wheninRome,,agoodChinesenameforforeignbrandwouldbemucheasierforthelocalconsumerstoremember,,BMWiscalled±¦Âí(baoma)inChina,,±¦Âí,foreignbrandownerswouldhaveconscious,onethingtobeoftenoverlookedis,аÙÂ×(xinbailun)intimeandcontinuingusageofthisunregisteredtrademark,NewBalancewaslatersuedbyZhouLelun,theregistrantofthetrademarkаÙÂ×,,withacompensationof5millionyuan(aboutUSD738thousand).Itwasnot,itcontinuedtousetheChinesenameaftersomeoneelsehadalreadyregisteredthisChinesenameastrademark,,,attentionshallbepaidtothecompositionofthemarktobeapplied,,theforeign-languagem,,warningtheforeigntrademarkownernotonlyregistershisChinesecharactermarkinuse,,(es)(es)inwhi(es)againstpotentialtrademarksquattersinwhichthegoods/servicesarecloselyconnectedwiththecoregoods/,Class9(sunglasses),Class14(jewelry)¡¢Class18(bags)andClass25(clothes)alwayssharethesamemarketingchannel,andtrademarksquattingfrequentlyhappensamongtheseclasses.(Tobecontinued)

PeiHaozhenginstructsChristophReinhardt(left),,whohelpedtosetupaprotectionzoneduringtheNanjingMassacrein1937.[PhotoprovidedtoChinaDaily]Origamimasterpromotestheartformtoagrowingaudience,,inorigamiartistPeiHaozhengseyes,,fromdailyobjectstomythicalcreatures,ghjustfoldingwithnocutsorglue,nsteadofcopiesofotherartistsdesigns-andwontheInternationalOrigamiInternetOlympiadin2017,,PeifoldedanancientChinesewomanholdingamirrorfromasheetofhandmadexuanzhi(ricepaper),,theeventisseenbymany,(whitedeerplain)£­fromdailyobjectstomythicalcreatures£­intheskilledhandsofPeiHaozheng.[PhotoprovidedtoChinaDaily],JapaneseartistAkiraYoshizawa(1911-2005),regardedasthefatherofmodernorigami,helpedtoraisetheancient,wherepaperwasinventedduringtheWesternHanDynasty(206BC-AD24).AlthoughorigamiisaminorartforminChina,,,butonlythosewitharealpassionfororigamiwillmakeitintoalifelongcareer,,Peidescribeshimselfasaman,orOrychophragmusviolaceus,whichisdubbedastheflowerofpeace,hehascreatedthepurpl£­fromdailyobjectstomythicalcreatures£­intheskilledhandsofPeiHaozheng.[PhotoprovidedtoChinaDaily]Tocelebratethe100thanniversaryofthefoundingoftheCommunistPartyofChinathisyear,theartistcreatedanorigamipiecetitledYuanhangBainian(100yearsofsailing).,wherethefirstNationalCongressoftheCPCwasconcluded100yearsago,butalsotodaysvibrantsociety,,Jiangsuprovince,Peistartedfoldingpaperwhenhewasinkindergarten,,helearnedfoldingfromteachersandparents,,,,,hecameacrossadiagramwithhundredsofpatternedlinesdesignedbyRobertLang,,£­fromdailyobjectstomythicalcreatures£­intheskilledhandsofPeiHaozheng.[PhotoprovidedtoChinaDaily]Withnoonetoconsult,Peitaughthimselfthroughorigamitheorybooks,,,tur,thenasophomoreattheHuazhongAgriculturalUniversityinWuhan,Hubeiprovince,,,PeiwasinvitedtoattendtheChineseversionofSuperBrain,,,,PeitookupthechallengeofcreatingasolarpanelinorigamistyleatForwardtotheFuture,ded,£­fromdailyobjectstomythicalcreatures£­intheskilledhandsofPeiHaozheng.[PhotoprovidedtoChinaDaily]Peigothismastersdegreeinscience,,origamiisnotjustacraft,butanartthatcandelivercultureandlastforever,Peisays.

Nationallegislatorsandexpertsonintellectualpropertyrightshavewelcomedstrongerprotectionofonlinecopyrightsandharsherpunishmentsforcopycatsinnewlyreleaseddraftamendmentstoexistinglawwhilesugges,technologicalandculturalgrowthnorsolvednewproblemsintheindustry,saidLiRui,,thecountrystoplegislature,,whichhasbeenineffectfor30years,hadplayedanimportantroleinencouraginginnovationandprotectingcopyrights,Lisaid,butitcannotgivemorelegalsupporttonewtypesofonlinecopyrights,letaloneendrelateddisputes,tmonthshowedthattherewere904millioninternetusersacrossthecountrybyMarch,,thenationisalsoseeingabigincreaseofIP-relatedconflictsonline,,2018,toMarch31,forexample,theBeijingInternetCourtfiled42,121casesononlineIPrights,s,includingnovels,picturesandvideos,areemergingonline,andbecauseofhowfastinformationspreadsontheinternet,saidKangLixia,,theworkscreatorswillfacegreatereconomiclosses,ascollectingevidenceonlineforthemisalsoabigchallenge,shesaid,addingthathighlightingprommittee,,sayingtheyposedabiggerisorherworks,peopleusingtheworkswithoutpayingorthosedeliberatelyinfringinosstocopyrightholdersandbenefitsgainedbyinfringerscannotbedetermined,thedraftraisestheceilingforcompensationthatpirateswillhavetopayto5millionyuan($706,000),upfrom500,,protectionandapplicationofcopyrights,saidLiXueyong,,balancingcopyrightprotection,,sayingweshouldgive,weneedtopaymoreattentiontoimprovingthedraftsowecanfindbetterwayst,aseniorlawmaker,saidtherewereafewproblems-suchashowtoprotectcopyrightsonlivestreamingplatformsandwhetherworksmadebyrobotsshouldbesafeguarded-thatstillhadnoclearsolution,whichrequiresustoconductfurtherstudiesandpromotethedraftinatimelymanner.

¡°Theobviousnessinquirydoesnotrequirethatthepriorartcombinationisthe¡®preferred,orthemostdesirable¡¯configuration.¡±¨CCAFChttps:///103763568/,(CAFC)affirmedthePatentTrialandAppealBoard¡¯s(PTAB¡¯s)obviousnessdeterminationanditsdenialofpatentownerHoytFleming¡¯,,includingclaims135-139,ofthe¡¯,Flemingmovedtoamend,thecombinationofCirrusDesign¡¯sPilotOperationHandbookfortheSR22,RevisionA7,(,2003)(POH),460,810(James).TheBoardfurtherfoundthatFleming¡¯sproposedamendedclaimsdidnotmeetthestatutoryandregulatoryrequirementsforpatentabilitybecaus,FlemingarguedtheBoarderredindeterminingt¡¯474PatentThe¡¯474patentdescribesballisticparachutesystemsonaircraft,wherethe¡°ballisticparachutesusearockettoquicklydeployaparachute,slowingthefallofacrashingaircraft¡±,thisballisticparachuteismostsuccessfulunderconditions¡°whenitcanbecomefullyinflatedandfunctional[,]¡±,thespecificationdisclosesthat¡°thatitispreferredtoreachkeyoperatingparameters¡ªlikecertainspeed,altitude,andpitch¡ªbefore(or,iftimerequires,while)deployingaballisticparachute.¡±The¡¯474patentisdirectedto¡°intelligentballisticparachutesystems¡±whichis¡°capableofperformingpre-activationandpost-activationactions[,]¡±intendedtohelptheaircraftreachdesiredoperatingparametersfor:(1)increasealtitude;(2)flyatalevelattitude;(3)reducespeed;and(4)enableordisable¡°reefingcontrol.¡±Additionally,thespecificationdisclosesthat,¡°uponreceivingaparachuteactivationrequestfroman¡®activationinterface,¡¯¡®oneormoreprocessors¡¯determinewhetherapre-activationactionmustbeperformedbeforedeployingtheparachute.¡±Ifso,¡°intelligenceoverrideinterface,¡±which¡°allowsanaircraftoccupanttomanuallyby-passtheprocessor-controlledoperationstoimmediatelydeploytheparachute,forexamplebypullingapull-handleorpressingabutton.¡±Specifically,therepresentativeClaim137ofthe¡¯474patentteachesthatuponthereceiptofthewhole-aircraftballisticparachutedeploymentrequest,theautopilotiscommandedto¡°increaseaircraftpitch.¡±Claims138and139areidenticalexcepttheautopilotiscommandedto¡°reduceaircraftroll¡±andto¡°changetheattitudeoftheaircraft,¡±,thePTABdeterminedthatclaims137¨C139ofthe¡¯¡¯soperatinghandbookwhichdescribestheoperationoftheCirrusAirframeParachuteSystem(CAPS),,POHsuggeststheparachuteshouldbeactivatedfroma¡°wings-level,uprightattitude¡±,anaircraftmayautomaticallyinitiateshutdownprocedures,tuation,including,forexample,¡°shuttingoffallengines,terminatingallflightfunctions,[and]deployinganemergencyrecoveryparachute.¡±ObvioustoCombineOnappeal,,hechallengedtheBoard¡¯sobviousnessdetermination,¡°arguingthatnoneofthepriorartdisclosescommandinganaircraft¡¯sautopilottoincreasepitch,reduceroll,orchangeattitudebasedontheaircraft¡¯sreceiptofaparachutedeploymentrequest,asrequiredbyclaims137¨C139.¡±TheCAFCagreedwiththePTAB¡¯thiselement,theBoardneverthelessfoundthat¡°apersonofordinaryskillwouldhavebeenmotivatedtoprogramJames¡¯autopilotinviewofPOHsothatuponthereceiptofaparachutedeploymentrequest,James¡¯autopilotwouldseektoensuresafetybyfollowingPOH¡¯sguidanceforsafeparachutedeployment,includingchangingtheaircraft¡¯spitch,reducingaircraftroll,and/,theCAFCadded,theproposed¡°aircraftautopilotsareprogrammabletoperformcertainactions,forexampleincreasingaircraftpitchanddeployingaparachute.¡±Inaddition,Jamesdisclosesthatuponreceivingasignal,¡°anaircraftmayautomaticallyinitiateshutdownprocedures,includingdeployinganemergencyparachute¡±¡°thesestandardautopilotmaneuvers¡ªslowingaircraftspeed,maintainingasteadyattitude,andchangingaircraftpitch¡ªshouldpreferablybecompletedbeforedeployinganemergencyparachute.¡±Lastly,theCAFCexplainedthat¡°itisappropriatetoconsidertheknowledge,creativity,andcommonsenseofaskilledartisaninanobviousnessdetermination.¡±WhiletheSupremeCourthascautionedagainstthemisuseoftheseconsiderations,ithascontinue,theCAFCfoundthattheBoard¡¯sconclusionisthe¡°resultofafaithfulapplicationofourlawonobviousness.¡±TeachingAwaySecond,Flemingarguedthatthepriorartteachesawayfromtheclaimedinventioninthe¡¯,Flemingarguedthat¡°thepriorartcautionedthatautopilotsshouldnotbeusedincertainemergencysituationswhereaballisticparachutemaybeneeded[,]¡±such,andtheCAFCagreed,¡°areasonablefact-findercouldnonethelessconcludethatthepriorartdoesnotsuggesttotheskilledartisanthatanautopilotshouldneverbeusedinanyemergencysituationforanyaircraft.¡±Forexample,Jamesdisclosesthatthecontinuoupriateintheeventofpilotincapacitation,dedfrommakingtheproposedcombinationbecause¡°usingJames¡¯sautopilotwouldbeunsafeinmanyemergencysituations.¡±However,theCAFCsidedwiththeBoard¡¯sreasoningthat¡°theobviousnessinquirydoesnotrequirethatthepriorartcombinationisthe¡®preferred,orthemostdesirable¡¯configuration.¡±Becausethepriorartcautionedpilotsnottouseanautopilotinsomeemergencysituationsdoesnotmeanthattheskilledaard¡¯sdenialofhismotiontoamendafterconcludingt¡ªagainusingatleastaportionofthedistributedprocessingsystemandbasedonanoccupantpullingthepullhandle¡ª,theproposedamendedclaimsrequirethatthea¡¯scitationstothewrittendescription,theBoardfound,andtheCAFCagreed,thatthecitedportionsdidnotdisclosethelimitationsoftheproposedamendedclaimsandtheseclaimslac,theCAFCheldthattheBoarddidnotabuseitsdiscretionindenyingFleming¡¯smotiontoamend.

ASouthAfricanjudgmentdealin,,however,(Pty)(the¡°organiser¡±)inthiscaseorganisesacharitableeventthattakestheformofasleep-out¨Cbusinessleadersareaskedfordonationsandthey¡¯rerequestedtosleepoutdoorsonawinter¡¯st(the¡°charity¡±).Intheprocessoforganisingthefirstsleep-out,theorganiserestablishedanelectronicdatabase,whichcameaboutbecauseeverydonorhadtoregisterontheorganiser¡¯¡¯tforeseenwasthatcertaincompanieswouldwanttopaybyelectronicfundstransfer(¡°EFT¡±).Toaccommodatethesecompanies,,,infact,createdbyanemployeeofthecharity,andthisemployeewasalsoresponsibleforinputtingthedonors¡¯rdidn¡¯ved,theorganiserandthecharityagreedthatalldonationswouldbepaiddirectlyintothebankaccountofthecharity,whichhadthenece,thecharitymadeuseoftheelectronicdatabase,,theorganiserarrangedfurthersleep-outs,butontheseoccasions,,thecharitystart,,erSouthAfricancopyrightlawasa¡°literarywork¡±.Thissomewhatmisleadingtermisdefinedtoinclude¡±tablesandcompilationsofdatastoredorembodiedinacomputer¡±.Thejudgewentontosaythatinordertoenjoycopyrightprotection,aliteraryworkmustbe¡°original¡±.(Pty)LtdvSaundersValveCompanyLtd,thecourtsaidthatforthepurposesofcopyright,¡°allthatisrequiredisthattheworkshouldemanatefromtheauthorhimselfandnotbecopied.¡±InHauptt/aSoftcopyvBrewersMarketingIntelligence(Pty)LtdandOthers,thecourtheldthataworkisoriginalifithasnotbeencopiedfromanexistingsource,andifitsproductionrequiredasubstantialdegreeofskill,,1978,theauthoroftheliteraryworkistheownerofthecopyrightunlessthecopyrighthasbeenassignedand,ifgeneratedbyacomputer,theauthoristhepe,,thecontributionofthecharity¡¯semployeedidnotmeettheoriginalitytest,astheformthatitsemployeehadcreatedforEFTpayerswassubstantial¡°nosubstantialdegreeofskill,judgementorlabour¡±.Thejudgewentontomakeanumberoffurtherpoints:theformforEFTpaymentswas¡°ancillary¡±tothedatabase:¡°butforitsincorporationonthewebsitetherespondentwouldnothavehadthemeanstocollectthedataitclaimstohavecollectedinthemanneritcollectedit...forthatreasonitwouldbeabsurdtoseparatethemanualformfromthewebsite.¡±eveniftheemployeehadinnovatedtheideaofEFTpayments,thisdidnotelevatethecharity¡°tothestatusofapersonwhomadearrangementsnecessaryforthecreationofthewebsite¡±.Thecharityneeded¡°theconcurrenceoftheapplicant¡±,andwithoutthisit¡°wouldnothavebeenabletocollectthedataitclaimstoown¡±.thepurposeoftheEFTinnovationwassimplytomakeitpossiblefordonorstopaybyEFTandgettaxexemptioncertificates,,soitsclaimtobeingapartnerwas¡°absurd¡±.Thejudgeconcludedthatgivingthecharitythestatusofanauthorofthedatabaseonthebasisofdatamanuallyaddedtothedatabasethatisautomaticallygeneratedfromthewebsitewouldbean¡°overbroadinterpretation¡±.Theorganiserwast(injunction).Ifthere¡¯salessontobelearnedfromthiscase,it¡¯sthis:copyrightissuesneedtobeconsideredandclarifiedrightfromthestart.

OnJuly11,theDelhiHCrestrainedaBengaluru-basedcakeryfromusingthenameFacebakeorFacecake,oranyotherFacebook-relatedtrademarkforitsproductsandservicesThecourtintheSnapdealcasealsodirectedDomainNameRegistrarstocreateamechanismforbrandstoseekcancellationortransferofdomainnamesthatinfringetrademarkIndiascurrentlawsthatgoverntrademarkinfringementsincludetheTrademarkAct,1999,whichwasdevelopedtocomplywiththeTRIPSagreementoftheWTOTru-basedcakeryfromusingthenameFacebakeorFacecake,,JusticeNavinChawla,whowashearingthecase,orderedthebakerytodeliverallfinishedandunfinishedproductsbearingthetrademarksimilartoMeta,theparentcompanyofFacebook,,theCourtalsoawardedINR50,,£¨DNRs£©oughttocreateamechanismviawhichtrademarkownerscouldapproachtheDNRsandsec,whileDNRsarecompaniesthatallowuserstoregisterthem,suchasGoDaddy,Namecheap,oumthathasseeninfringementcasesfiledleft,,manybrandswithnomanufacturingaddressespopulatethestreetsandcorners,,itisdifficulttotrackthesedubiousoperatorsinmostcases.

Thefundamentalfunctionofatrademarkistoidentifythesourcesofgoods/servicessothatastablecorrespondingrelationshipbetweenthetrademarkandthedesignatedgoods/,manyenterprisesandapplicantsprefershortandeasytoremembersloganforthepromotionandmarketingfort,,(3)ofTrademarkLawofthePeoplesRepublicofChina,thefollowingsignsshallnotberegisteredastrademarks:,itiscommonthatCNIPAwillbelievesuchtrademarkislikelytomisleadthepublictorecognizeitasasloganoradvertisinglanguage,(3):¡°ÃÀʱÃÀ¿Ë¾¡ÔÚÃÀ¼Ò¡±(3);¡°ÊÍ·ÅÄãµÄ»îÁ¦¡±(3);¡°ENJOYTHEDAY¡±(3);¡°HOTELSTHATDEFINETHEDESTINATION¡±(3);¡°WISHYOUWEREHERE¡±(3);¡°UNLOCKTHEFUTUREWITHTHEPOWEROFLIGHT¡±(3).TheabovetrademarkswereallforbiddenfromtrademarkapplicationsinceCNIPAbelievesthemlackingdistinctivefeaturesandarenoteasilydistinguishable,(3)ofTrademarkLawthoughtheapplicantssubmittedrelevantevi,thesignsmayberegisteredastrademarksaftertheyhave¡°Õ⣡¾ÍÊǽÖÎ衱inClass41,theCNIPAbelievesthismarkhasacquireddistinctivenessandbemortinctivefeatures,itshallbeconsideredwithrelevantevidencetodeterminew,,iftheappliedtrademarkcanbecombinedwithotherdistinctiveelements,suchaswordordesign,,¡°LOREALBECAUSEIMWORTHIT¡±;althoughitwouldbeeasiertoenhancethepublicityandreputationofthebrand,itisquitediff,thechancestillexistsiftheslogancanberecognizedasdistinctivenessanddistinguishablethatconsiderthesign,detailedgoods/servicesitems,actualuse,etc.

OneofCrocslong-timelegalrivalshasagreedtopaytheclogmaker$6mi,,$6millionitagreedtopayincludesallinterest,costsandattorneysfessufferedanydamage,,¡ªitpublishedapressreleasestatingithadsecuredalong-soughtafterjudgementofinfringement¡ª,$55,000,tsorforanyonewhotriestobenefitofftheinvestmentsthatwehavemadeinourbrand,DanielHart,executivevicepresidentandchieflegalandriskofficeratCrocs,,italsoreinforcesourunr,DoubleDiamondDistribution,in2006aspartofalargercomplaintaccusingitand10othernamedentitiesofpatentinfringement,,whicheventuallywentbankruptin2018andwasboughtbyOptimalInvestmentGroupthesameyear,plasticclogmarket,infringingonDawgsZ-StrapsandalandcommittingcomputerfraudbyhavingDawgsproductstakenoffZulily,thelastofwhichacourtruledsofrivolousitfinedthebusiness$50,,,789(the789patent),attheheartofCrocsoriginalsuit¡ª,rulingthepatentinvalidonmultipleoccasions,,however,,Crocsannouncedithadfiled21lawsuitsagainstcompaniesbiga,Walmart,(USITC)agreedtoinvestiainbusinesses,includingSkechers,basedonsettlementagreements,,meanwhile,,however,theUSITCdeclareditsinvestigationinMay,amonthafterCrocsfileditslawsuit,¡ªtheadministrativelawjudgedeclarednon-infringementwithrespecttothe789patentanddubbedanotherpatentinvalidasobvious¡ª,theUSITCissuedageneralexclusionorderdirectedagainstinfringingfoamfootwearproductsandceaseanddesistordersdirectedagainstDoubleDiamondDistribution,

Fairuseisacommondefenceintrademarkinfringementactions,withajurisprudentialbasisthatatrademarkownercannotexclusivelymonopoliseadescriptiash(Ç໨½·)caseandtheSupremePeople¡®sCourt¡¯strialintheJapanesehoneysuckle(½ðÒø»¨):Wherearegisteredtrademarkcontainsthegenericname,depictionormodelnumberofthegoodconcerned,directlydesignatesthequality,mainrawmaterials,function,intendedpurpose,weight,quantityorothercharacteristicofthegoodorcontainsaplacename,theholderoftheexclusiverighttousetheregisteredtradem,thereisnospecificionsConcerningtheTrialofCivilTrademarkDisputeCasesof2006statesthatanactoffairuseofatrademarkisrequiredtosatisfythefollowingconditions:(1)theuseisingoodfaith;(2)itisnotusedasatrademarkforonesowngoods;and(3),somecourtswillalsoc,itisnecessarytocomprehensivelyconsiderthefameofatrademarkandtheuserspurp,inthe2021greenprickleyashcase,theSichuanHighCourtheldthattheChinesecharactersforgreenprickleyashintheallegedinfringingmarkwereanobjectivedescriptionoftheseasoningcontainedinaspecialfishhotpotdish,anghaiandJiangsu,,theallegedinfringerdisplayednosubjectiveintentiontofree-rideonthetrademark,,fontsizeandprominencetodeterminewhetheritconstitutestrademarkuse,(µÂÖݰǼ¦)case,thecourtheldthattheChinesecharactersforDezhoubraisedchickenusedontheallegedinfringinggoodsweredistinctiveandprominent,aneupperleftcornerofthegoodsandwassignificantlysmallerthanthecharactersforDezhoubraisedchicken,themannerofuseindicatedthatitwasnotsimplytodescribethatitsbraisedchickenwassourcedfromDezhou,¡ãCcase,heardin2016and2018,thecourtatfirstinstanceheldthat85¡ãCwasprominentlyusedinaconspicuouslocationontheouterpackagingoftheallegedinfringingproduct,exceedingthelimitoffairuse,,theappealscourtheldthatalthoughthetypesizeontheexternalpackagingoftheallegedinfringingproductwaslargerthanothersurroundingtexts,thecharacters85¡ã,ribethefeaturesofth(·ôר¼Ò)case,thecourtheldthattheavailableevideemark,itwasrejectedbytheTr,thecontestedpointinthecasewaswhethertheuseofSkinExpertinfringedtheexclusiverighttousetheregisteredtrademarkFuExpert(·òר¼Ò,pronouncedinChineseidenticallytoSkinExpert)ratherthanwhethertheinfringingmarkcouldberegisteredasatrademark,,theShanghaicourtheldthatthemannerofuseoftheallegedinfringinggreenprickleyashfish(Ç໨½·Óã)hadtheeffectofidentifyingthesourceoftheservice,whileusercommentsintheDianpingapp,usedasevidenceinthecase,showedconsumersreliedonthemarktodeterminewhetherthemerchantsprovidingthecateringservicewerethesame,ic,,itcanbegleanedthat,eveninthesamecase,ofcomprehensiveconsiderationaftertakingintoaccounttheusersintention,,itmustconsiderwhetherthedefendantwillinvokefairuseandpayattentiontocollectingandpreparingpertinentevidence,suchaswhethertheinfringerhadthemaliciousintentoffree-riding,theusewasfairandproper,activitiesand,wherethereisapriorregisteredtrademark,stresscomplianceinusetowardoffrisksoftrademarkinfringement.

OnJuly11,theDelhiHCrestrainedaBengaluru-basedcakeryfromusingthenameFacebakeorFacecake,oranyotherFacebook-relatedtrademarkforitsproductsandservicesThecourtintheSnapdealcasealsodirectedDomainNameRegistrarstocreateamechanismforbrandstoseekcancellationortransferofdomainnamesthatinfringetrademarkIndiascurrentlawsthatgoverntrademarkinfringementsincludetheTrademarkAct,1999,whichwasdevelopedtocomplywiththeTRIPSagreementoftheWTOTru-basedcakeryfromusingthenameFacebakeorFacecake,,JusticeNavinChawla,whowashearingthecase,orderedthebakerytodeliverallfinishedandunfinishedproductsbearingthetrademarksimilartoMeta,theparentcompanyofFacebook,,theCourtalsoawardedINR50,,£¨DNRs£©oughttocreateamechanismviawhichtrademarkownerscouldapproachtheDNRsandsec,whileDNRsarecompaniesthatallowuserstoregisterthem,suchasGoDaddy,Namecheap,oumthathasseeninfringementcasesfiledleft,,manybrandswithnomanufacturingaddressespopulatethestreetsandcorners,,itisdifficulttotrackthesedubiousoperatorsinmostcases.

ChinaonTuesdaykickedoffafive-monthcampaignagainstunlicense,e-commercewebsites,onlineadvertisements,musicandvideostreamingwebsites,cloudstorageservicesandonlinenewsproviders,accordingtoastatementreleasedbytheNationalCopyrightAdministration(NCA).Iturgedlocalpoliceandcopyright,internetandtelecomdepartmentstostrengthensupervisionandseverelycrackdownonintellectualproper,a,StateInternetInformationOffice,theMinistryofIndustryandInformationTechnologyandtheMinistryofPublicSecurity.

TheCourtofAppealinTheHaguehasupheldafir,,KPN,NokiaNokiaandKPNhaveonceagainbeensuccessfulintheongoingcaseagainstAssiaoverDSLtechnologyMaryia/ADOBESTOCKInJanuary2021,,theDistrictCourtofTheHaguefoundthatKPNhadnotinfringedEP790,,unlikeinparallelproceedings,,becauseKPNappliestheprocesslaidoutinthepatent¡¯,AssiaarguedthatitsDSLproductoperateswiththepatent¡¯,thecourtthrewouttheclaimofinfringement,¡¯sinitialvictory(caseID:C/09/571729).NokiadeliverskeyDSLtechnologycomponentstoKPN,turningoutasaninter,¡¯sEP2259456,theCourtofAppealconfirmedinMarch2021aninvaliditydecision,56(caseID:C/09/563488).Here,,whichisstandardessential,,Assiaw,theCourtofAppealnullifiedallclaimsofEP456.

InthewakeoftheCOVID-19outbreak,($)in2020,,legalcounseloftutoringserviceproviderTALEducationGroup,spokeatarecent,hadmorethan14,000linkscarryingunauthoriz,infringementsarecontinuing,ofonlineplatforms,os,anyhs,,ajudgefromtheBeijingInternetCourt,saidthatinjudicialpractices,onlinecoursescanbeprots,,offenderstrytogetaroundthelegalissuebyinsistingtheyareforschooling,,asmallnumberofcopiesofpublishedworksisallowedforschooling,scientificresearchortranslation,,statutorylicen,alawprofessoratEastChinaUniversityofPoliticalScienceandLaw,saidthattheuseoftheworksa£­includingschooltextbooks£­basedontheprincipleofrationaluse,,worksareban,whichconstitutesarationaluse,theyaresubjecttostringentrequirements,,thejudgenoted,thetranslation,reproductionandnetworkdistributionhorizationfromauthorsonebyone,saidQiLei,authorizationandbrands.

ChinaonTuesdaykickedoffafive-monthcampaignagainstunlicense,e-commercewebsites,onlineadvertisements,musicandvideostreamingwebsites,cloudstorageservicesandonlinenewsproviders,accordingtoastatementreleasedbytheNationalCopyrightAdministration(NCA).Iturgedlocalpoliceandcopyright,internetandtelecomdepartmentstostrengthensupervisionandseverelycrackdownonintellectualproper,a,StateInternetInformationOffice,theMinistryofIndustryandInformationTechnologyandtheMinistryofPublicSecurity.

UtahscookiecompetitioncontinuedonJuly13whenDirtyDoughandCraveCo,foundedinLoganbySawyerHemsleyandJasonMcGowan,filedalawsuitagainstDirtyDough,acookiebusinessthatstartedinTempe,Arizona,,aCrumblinsiderleftCrumbltofoundDirtyDough,whichsellsandpromotescookiesusingpackaging,decor,andpresentationthatisconfusinglysim,whosbrotherwasaCrumblemployee,toldTheHerald,youguysknowthatDirtyDoughwasalreadystartedin2018,,Ithinkwerethemostdifferent,..,,bigsupporter,Maxwellsaid,expla,allofasuddenoutofnowhere¡­wegethitwithalawsuit,,,,wellseeiftheywanttotalk¡­whatsthesolutionhereMaxwellsaid,,wereachedouttothem¡ªtoldthemweacceptedcounsel,,,anothercookiecompanythathascometoUtah,,afterCrumbldeniedanapplicationbyCravesfoundertobecomeaCrumblfranchisee,Cravebegansellingandpromotingitscopycatgourmetcookies,Crumblscomplaintreadsbeforealletailsofthevaluablegoodwill,reputation,ontobecomeaCrumblefranchiseeorthatCraveisinviolationofanyofCrumblsallegedtrademarks,tradedress,orotherintellectualpropertyrights,rattemptbyathreatenedcompetitortousealawsuittostiflefairandfreecompetitionanddenyconsumersachoiceofproducts,Englishsaidinastatementto,,orelsewhywouldnttheytalkwithusorsendacease-and-desistletter,,,Maxwellsaid,,hesaid,,Crumblsaidtheyareprotectingtheirsuccess:Asafranchisorof30,000+CrumblCrewmembers,1,000+FranchisePartners,andhundredsofCrumblHQemployees,wewillalwaystakeseriouslyourroleinbuildingandprotectingthecompanyanditstrademarksthatweveallworkedsohardtocreatetogether.

ChinahasoutpacedtheUnitedStatesinthenumberofworldwideartificialintelligence-relatedpatentapplications,accordingtoanewreportissuedbytheChinaIndustrialControlSystemsCyberEmergencyResponseteam,,,712AI-relatedpatentapplications,rankingfirstinChinaforthesecondconsecutiveyear,followedbyTencent(4,115),MicrosoftChina(3,978),Inspur(3,755)andHuawei(3,656).ThereportshowedthatBaiduisthepatentapplicationleaderinseveralkeyareasofAI,includingthedeeplearning(1,429),naturallanguageprocessing(938)andspeechrecognition(933).Sofar,AI-enabledtechnologieshavebeenappliedinseveralsectors,suchasfinance,healthcare,omywillleapfrom$2trillionin2018to$,($)AIcoreindustryby2030,whrialupgrading,andthecountrysstrategicplanforAIoffersabroadspacef,fromtheperspectiveofapplicants,enterprisessuchasBatablishintellectualpropertysystemsrelatedtoAI,aswellasintroducehigh-leveltalents,,vice-presidentofTencent,saidatthesixthWorldInternetConferenceinWuzhen,Zhejiangprovince,thatthecompanyhasfiledover3,000AIpatentappli,particularlyinthefieldofAI,saidZhuWei,seniormanagingdirectorandchairmanofAccentureChina,whilenotingChinesecompanieshavedemonstratedgreatdeterminationtodiger,butalsogivefullplaytothevalueofAI,saidHongJing,founderofGaochengCapital,whoindicatedthatAIcanbeappliedinallwalksoflife,,chairmanandCEOofSinovationVentures,aleadingventurecapitalfirm,saidChinaandtheUSareleadingthefourthindustrialrevolutionbroughtbyAIthathasard,,otherwise,$,a44percentincreaseover2018,accordingtotheconsultancyInternationalDataCorporation.

QingYuNian,apopularChinesecostumedramaadaptedfromtheChinesewebnovelofthesamename,hasbeenaccusedbyChinesenetizensofplagiarizingcontentfromthefantasynovelseriesTheTwelveKingdoms(1992)ofdialoguefromQingYuNianthat,tonotbediscouragedevenwhenencounteringdisaster,tocorrectinjusticewithoutfear,donotyieldandflatterthemonstersintheJapanesenovelisbeingcomparedtoQingYuNianstobeunyieldingwhenabusedbyothers,tonottobefrustratedwhendisastersoccur,ifanythingisunfair,befearlessincorrectingit,,themeaningandstructureofbothareverysimilar,,itdefinitelyborrowedsomeideasfromTheTwelveKingdoms,buttocallitplagiarism,Idoubtit,,eventheirlogicandstructurearethesameandyousayitsnotplagiarismpostedanothernetizenwhoconfrontedQi,butifthetakenbithasbeenwashedthoroughly,andhasnodramaticsimilarities,andthebithappenstobelessimportantandhaslessfunctionwhenevaluatingitintheentirework,then,itisnoteasytodefineitasplagiarism,said,alawyerspecializingincopyrightlaw,,theconceptofanovel,filmandTVscript;,,thelawprotectsexpression,,sometimescanbeconfusinganddependsontheparticularcase,,QingYuNianisawell-ratedalternativehistorynovelthatte,theworkwasadaptedintoa46-episodeTVdramastarringfamousactorssuchasZhangRuoyun,ChenDaomingandXiaoZhan,acontr,theIPhasbee,iftheplagiarismscandalgainsground,willtherebeasecondseasonPleasedontcancelit,IliketheTVdramaalot,Tanni,afanoftheshowinBeijing,,theofficialproductionteamfortheshowannouncedthatasecondseasonisindevelopmentandwilllikelyairin2022.

AmptLLC,theworldsleadingproviderofpoweroptimizersforlarge-scalephotovoltaic(PV)systems,(ITC)againstSolarEdgeTechnologies,Inc.(NASDAQ:SEDG),requestingthattheITCbantheimp,rplantstolowerthecostofenergyproductionandimproveperformanceinnewsystems;upgradeexistingsystems;enablelow-costsolarenergystoragesystems;asels,inIsrael,China,,itwouldnotbepossibleforSolarEdgetocontinuesellingthoseinfringingproductsintheUnitedStates,howevertherearenumerousothernon-infringingcomeroptimizersandrelatedproductsatitsfacilityinFortCollins,Colorado,whichispri0issuedpatents,adingproductsionandplaysafundamentalroleinloweringthecostsoflarge-scalesolarenergyproduction,saidLeventGun,llyusingour,wearestandingupforouremployees,customersandpartners,aswellastheprinciplesoffaircompetitionandr,ThiscomplaintseekstoblockSolarrEdgeisviolatingourintellectualpropertyandthat,,673,630and11,289,,Amptass,,605,498,7,719,140,10,608,437,10,886,746,11,070,062and11,070,063.

Veryrecently,AmulhasbeensuccessfulinobtaininganorderfromtheFederalCourt,,aroundJanuary2020,AmullearntthatgroupoffraudstersofCanadahasblatantlycopiedthetrademarkAMULandthelogoofAmul¨CTasteofIndia,andcreatedafakeAmulprofileon,MohitRana,AkashGhosh,ChanduDas,,,shingpassingofftestbeing:i)existenceofgoodwill,ii)deceptionofpublicduetomisrepresentation,andiii),,theFederalCourtheld,thesaidDefendantsarepermanentlyrestrainedfrominfringingthetrademarkandcopyrightofthePlaintiffs,hePlaintiffswithin30daysofthedateofthisJudgment,ownershipandallrights,access,administrationandcontroloverLinkedInpages/accounts,,AmulhasbeenawardeddamagesofUSD$10,000foractionscontrarytotheTrademarksAct,USD$5,000foractionscontrarytotheCopyrightActandawardedcostsofUSD$17,733,,AmulsManagingDirectoraddedthatallthiswaspossibleonlybecausewewe,wehopesuchorderswoulddetercounterfeiters,infringers,globally,beforeappropriatingsomeoneelsesIPRwhichhasbeenbuiltwithalotofe,proudlyassociatethemselveswithAMUL,st22yearsandalsostartedexportingAmulKool,,TheTasteofIndia!,,IPLawyer,SMajumdarCo.,,IPLawyer,¨C,Indiaisk(9billionCAD$).Infact,thetrademarkAMULissopopular,,whentheIntellectualPropertyAppellateBoardaccordeditthestatusofawell-knowntrademarkinCanadarecently.

Manysoftware-relatedandbusinessmethod-relatedpatentshavebeeninvalidatedforbeingdirectedto¡°abstractideas.¡±OnJanuary10,2018,inFinjan,Inc.,,Inc.,theFederalCircuitaffirmedthedistrictcourt¡¯sholdingthatFinjan¡¯,154,844(¡°the¡¯844patent¡±)[1]wasnotdirectedtoa¡ì¡¯sthresholdtestforpatenteligibilityunder¡ì101is¡°whethertheclaimsfocusonthespecificassertedimprovementincomputercapabilities...or,insteadonaprocessthatqualifiesasan¡®abstractidea¡¯forwhichcomputersareinvokedmerelyasatool.¡±[2]Thecourt¡¯srecentdecisionprovidesadditionalguidanceregardingthetypesofclaimsthatconstitutespecifiofCaliforniaonAugust28,2013,forinfringementofmultiplepatentsbyBlueCoat¡¯¡¯844patentscansfilesforpotentialsecuritythreats(,viruses),createsrespectivesecurityprofileslinkedtothescannedfiles,andthenmakesthescannedfilesavailabletousers.[3]Thejudgefoundthatthe¡¯¡ì101,,amongotherrulings,thedistrictcourt¡¯¡ì101asappliedtothe¡¯,inpart,thattheassertedclaimsofthe¡¯844patentshouldbeinvalidatedbecausetheclaimswereanalogoustothoseinApple,,Inc.;[4]AffinityLabsofTex.,,LLC;[5],[6],theFederalCircuitdistinguisheditspreviousdecisionsinvalidatingclaims,inpart,bycitingbacktoacoreconceptofpatentetandingforthe¡°foundationalpatentlawprinciple:thataresult,evenaninnovativeresult,isnotitselfpatentable.¡±[7]Rather,patents¡°aregranted¡®forthediscoveryorinventionofsomepracticablemethodormeansofproducingabeneficialresultoreffect...andnotfortheresultoreffectitself.¡¯¡±[8]Akeydistinguishingfeaturethatthecourtfoundwasthattheclaimsinthe¡¯844patent¡°recitespecificsteps...thataccomplishthedesiredresult.¡±[9]Notably,the¡¯844patentdoesnotclaimeithertheresultofperformingtheclaimedmethodstepsortheimprovementsoftheclaimedmethodoverthepriorart.[10]However,thecourtstilldistinguishedtheclaimsinthe¡¯844patentfromtheinvalidatedclaimsinApple,AffinityLabs,andIntellectualVentures[11]becausethoseclaimsgenerallyreciteddesirableresultsthatwereimplementedbygenericcomputercomponentsperformingkn¡¯844patent,theFederalCircuitfoundthatthepatent¡°enablesacomputersecuritysystemtodothingsitcouldnotdobefore...allow[ing]accesstobetailoredfordifferentusersandensur[ing]thatthreatsareidentifiedbeforeafilereachesauser¡¯scomputer.¡±[12]Thisnewfunctionalitywasfoundtobesufficientlyenabledbasedonthespecificationofthe¡¯844patent,whichdistinguishedtheadvantagesof¡°behavior-based¡±virusscanningtopriorart¡°code-matching¡±¡¯844patentrecitespecificstepstoaccomplishanadvantageousresultbasedontheenablingdescriptioninthespecification.[13]Thus,thepatenteligibilityinquiryunder¡ì101endedwithdeterminingthattheclaimsweredirectedt,theFederalCircuitprovidesnewguidanceforpatenteligibilityunder¡ì,thecourtbaseditsanalysisonanovelapproachinoneembodimentfoundinthespecificationofthe¡¯844patent,eventhoughtheclaimsarenotlimitedtothatspecificembodiment.[14]Thus,thecourtfoundthattheclaimsarenotrequiredtoexplicitlyrecitearesultorimprovementwherethespecificationadequatelydescr¡ì101maythereforebebasedonacombinationofthestepsrecitedinaclaimforaccomplishingaresultandthespecification¡¯sdescription,whenassessingthepatenteligibilityofcomputer-relatedpatentclaims,emphasisshouldbeplacedonthespecification¡¯sdescriptionofthestateoftheartascomparedtohowanimprovementincom(eg,tables,footnotes),pleaseaccesstheoriginalhere.

ChinaonTuesdaykickedoffafive-monthcampaignagainstunlicense,e-commercewebsites,onlineadvertisements,musicandvideostreamingwebsites,cloudstorageservicesandonlinenewsproviders,accordingtoastatementreleasedbytheNationalCopyrightAdministration(NCA).Iturgedlocalpoliceandcopyright,internetandtelecomdepartmentstostrengthensupervisionandseverelycrackdownonintellectualproper,a,StateInternetInformationOffice,theMinistryofIndustryandInformationTechnologyandtheMinistryofPublicSecurity.

´Ó´Ë£¬¸ö¸ßµ¨´óÐÄϸµÄÕÅÃô±»Í¬ÊÂÓþΪ¡°Å®ºº×Ó¡±£¬ÐÎÏóÔÚ±ðÈËÑÛÖÐÒ²Ô½·¢¸ß´ó¡£

Ñ×ÈȵÄÏļ¾£¬ÎÒÃÇÓ­À´ÁË×îºÃµÄÏà¾Û¡£

PeiHaozhenginstructsChristophReinhardt(left),,whohelpedtosetupaprotectionzoneduringtheNanjingMassacrein1937.[PhotoprovidedtoChinaDaily]Origamimasterpromotestheartformtoagrowingaudience,,inorigamiartistPeiHaozhengseyes,,fromdailyobjectstomythicalcreatures,ghjustfoldingwithnocutsorglue,nsteadofcopiesofotherartistsdesigns-andwontheInternationalOrigamiInternetOlympiadin2017,,PeifoldedanancientChinesewomanholdingamirrorfromasheetofhandmadexuanzhi(ricepaper),,theeventisseenbymany,(whitedeerplain)£­fromdailyobjectstomythicalcreatures£­intheskilledhandsofPeiHaozheng.[PhotoprovidedtoChinaDaily],JapaneseartistAkiraYoshizawa(1911-2005),regardedasthefatherofmodernorigami,helpedtoraisetheancient,wherepaperwasinventedduringtheWesternHanDynasty(206BC-AD24).AlthoughorigamiisaminorartforminChina,,,butonlythosewitharealpassionfororigamiwillmakeitintoalifelongcareer,,Peidescribeshimselfasaman,orOrychophragmusviolaceus,whichisdubbedastheflowerofpeace,hehascreatedthepurpl£­fromdailyobjectstomythicalcreatures£­intheskilledhandsofPeiHaozheng.[PhotoprovidedtoChinaDaily]Tocelebratethe100thanniversaryofthefoundingoftheCommunistPartyofChinathisyear,theartistcreatedanorigamipiecetitledYuanhangBainian(100yearsofsailing).,wherethefirstNationalCongressoftheCPCwasconcluded100yearsago,butalsotodaysvibrantsociety,,Jiangsuprovince,Peistartedfoldingpaperwhenhewasinkindergarten,,helearnedfoldingfromteachersandparents,,,,,hecameacrossadiagramwithhundredsofpatternedlinesdesignedbyRobertLang,,£­fromdailyobjectstomythicalcreatures£­intheskilledhandsofPeiHaozheng.[PhotoprovidedtoChinaDaily]Withnoonetoconsult,Peitaughthimselfthroughorigamitheorybooks,,,tur,thenasophomoreattheHuazhongAgriculturalUniversityinWuhan,Hubeiprovince,,,PeiwasinvitedtoattendtheChineseversionofSuperBrain,,,,PeitookupthechallengeofcreatingasolarpanelinorigamistyleatForwardtotheFuture,ded,£­fromdailyobjectstomythicalcreatures£­intheskilledhandsofPeiHaozheng.[PhotoprovidedtoChinaDaily]Peigothismastersdegreeinscience,,origamiisnotjustacraft,butanartthatcandelivercultureandlastforever,Peisays.

,aChinesesmartwatchmaker¨CPutianDoumaofirmhastriedofusingtheHuaweilogoanditsnamewithsomesmartwatchestoselltheminitsstoreduetowhichthelegallawsuitshaveorderedthecompanytocompensate2millionyuan(),,,bracelets,andmoresold,,suchtypeofbehav,thedefendantbeginsarguingthatsuchterm,:Theevalua,thedefendantsdefensethatthewordHuaweiusesinadescriptivemannercannotestablish,,thedefendantsuseofofficialwebsitemoneyandofficialupgrademoneyintheproductintrodu,thecourthascommandedthedefendanttocompensateforthelossofHuaweiassoonaspossible.

TheshapeofaLondonblackhacktaxiisnotdistinctiveenoughtobeeligiblefortrademarkprotection,otrademarksheldbyTheLondonTaxiCorporation(LTC)lywereitstrademarksvalidbutthatFrazer-NashResearchandEcotivehadinfringeditsrightsinthosemarksaxisLTCmanufactureddidnothaveinherentdistinctivecharacter,hattheywereinherentlydistinctive,suchasthesizeandslopingofthewindscreen,theshapeofthebonnet,thepositioningofthetaxilight,,thejudgesruledthatthosefeaturerademarksthatLTCwereassertingtodete,however,thattheHighCourtwasrighttodeterminethattherewasnotenoughevidencetoshowthattaxihirershadcometoperceivetheshapeoftresentedgraphicallycanqualifyfortrademarkprotectioniftheyarecapableofdistinguishingonecompany,wheremarksarenotinherentlydistinctive,theycanneverthelessberegisteredastrademarksifitcanbeshownthatthemarkhasacquiredadistinctivecharacterinarksandbrandstomerittrademarkprotectioninvolvesevaluatingwhattheaverageconsumerofatypeofproductperceiveswhentheyseeamark,,,saidthefactthattheCoucceptedthattheaverageconsumerforthepurposesofthelegaltesttodeterminewhetherthetrademarkwasvalidincludedpeoplewhohiredtaxis,uchpeoplewereaverageconsumersofataxi;whileitistruethatsuc,rightsholdersshouldconsiderallpotentialconsumerswhointeractwiththetrademarkedgoodswhentryingtoassesstheappropriateaverageconsumer.

°å·¿Àï´î½¨ÁËÎę̀£¬ÉèÖÃÁ˱³¾°£¬²¢¹ºÖÃÁËÒôÏ죬»¹×°ÉÏÁËÆß°Ë¸ö´ó·çÉÈ£¬»¹¹Ò×ÅÐí¶àÎåÑÕÁùÉ«µÄСÆìºÍºìµÆÁý£¬Ê®·ÖϲÇì¡£

Ñ×ÈȵÄÏļ¾£¬ÎÒÃÇÓ­À´ÁË×îºÃµÄÏà¾Û¡£

Incase(2021£©×î¸ß·¨ÖªÃñÖÕ1298ºÅrecentlyhighlightedbytheIntellectualPropertyTribunaloftheSupremePeople¡¯sCourtofChina(SPC),theSPCruledthatasettlementagreementtoapatentinfringementlawsuitconstitutedahorizontalmonopolyagreementasthescopetheagreementwasnot,WuhanTaipuTransformerSwitchCo.,Ltd.(TaipuCompany)suedShanghaiHuamingPowerEquipmentManufacturingCo.,Ltd.(HuamingCompany)forinfringingitsinventionpatententitled¡°Off-circuittap-changerwithshieldingdevice.¡±InJanuary2016,thetwopartiesre:HuamingCompanycanonlyproducecertainkindsofnon-excitationtap-changers,andotherkindsofnon-excitationtap-changerscouldonlyberesoldtodownstreamcustomersthroughTaipuCompany,andthesale,HuamingCompanyactsasamarketagentforTaipurelatedentities,andshallnotproduceoractasanagentfortheproductsofthesamecategoryofotherenterprisesonitsown,an,,HuamingCompanyfiledalawsuitinthiscasewiththeIntermediatePeople¡¯sCourtofWuhanCity,HubeiProvince,claimingthatthesettlementagreenotamonopolyagreement,¡¯sCourt,,theSupremePeople¡¯sCourtheldthattodeterminewhethertheagreementinvolvedinthecaseisinvalidduetoviolationofthemandatoryprovisionsoftheAnti-MonopolyLaw,itmustfirstdeterminewhethertheagreementinvolvedinthecaseconstitutesahorizontalmonopolyagreementexpresslyprohibitedbytheAnti-MonopolyLaw,andthende,astowhethertheagreementinvolvedinthecaseconstitutesahorizontalmonopolyagreementexpresslyprohibitedbyArticle13,paragraph1oftheAnti-MonopolyLaw,theSupremePeople¡¯sCourtheldthatHuamingC,bothpartieshavecertainmarketinfluence,andthereisacompetit,withArticles1,5and10asthecore,agreedtostoptheproductionofspecificvarietiesofcommodities,restrictthesalesofspecificvarietiesofcommodities,coordinateandfixprices,andsupplem,restrictingtheproductionandsalesvolumeofcommodities,andfixingcommoditypriceshasbeenstrengthened,anditmeetstheformalrequirementsstfArticle13oftheAnti-MonopolyLawarecommontypesoftypicalhorizontalmonopolyagreementswiththeeffectofeliminatingandrestrictingcompetition,onceagreedupon,willgenerallyeliminateandrestrictcompetitionanditca,Taipushouldbeartheburdenofproofthattheagreementinvolvedi,theevidenceinthecasealsoshowsthataftertheagreementinvolvedinthecasewassigned,theunitpriceoftheoff-circuittap-changerinthepriceguidesentbyTaiputoHuamingwasmuchhigherthanHuaming¡¯sownexternalsalespriceandthelegalrepresentativesofbothpartiesWeChatchatrecordsalsowillleadtoanincreaseinthepriceofrelatedproducts,,regardingtherelationshipbetweentheagreementinvolvedandthepatentinfringementdispute,theSupremePeople¡¯sCourtheldthatinthiscase,thetechnicaleffectofthepatentinvolvedwasmainlytoreducethecostofswitchmanufacturing,toenhancethestabilityandreliabili,Huaming¡¯srestrictedproductionandsalesofcertaintypesofoff-circuittap-changersarenot,HuamingCompanyandTaipuComparket,andusesthistodetermi,salesvolume,salestype,salesarea,,wh,buttousetheexerciseofthepatentrightasacover,infact,itpursuesdividingthesalesmarketandrestrictingtheproductionandsalesofgoodswiththeeffectoffixingprices,whichisanabuseofpatentrights,constitutesanactofexcludingandrestrictingcompetition,,thefactthatTaipuownsandexercisesthepatentrightinth,regardingthelegaleffectoftheagreement,theSupremePeople¡¯sCourtheldthatArticles1,5and10oftheagreementinvolvedviolatedtheprovisionsofArticle13oftheAnti-Mono,Taipudidnotclaimthattheagre,Articles1,nthecase,andtheotherclausesrelatetoth,theagreementcannotsurviveseverabilityafterstrippingoutthethreeclauses,,2022isavailablehere(Chineseonly).

Lastweek,theItalianSocietyofAuthorsandEditors(SIAE)saiditpartnered,forexample,asimilarprojectincollaborationwiththeLaSapienzaUniversityofRomeandthestartupBlockchainCore,,SIAEisworkingwithAlgorandtoleveragethelatter¡¯bysomeone,andtheplatformwillkeeptrackoftheroyaltiestheywouldreceive.¡°Theworldisevolving,butthefoundingmissionoftheItalianSocietyofAuthorsandPublishers,theprotectionofcreativity,doesnotchange,¡±saidSIAEGeneralManagerGaetanoBlandini.¡°OurcollaborationwithAlgorandispartofaprocessalreadystartedandisalignedwithresearchandinnovationonanationalandglobalscale.¡±CommentingonthepartnershipwithSIAE,SilvioMicali,thefounderofAlgorand,said,¡°Collaborationbetweentechnologyprovidersandforward-thinkingorganizationssuchasSIAEopensupvastopportunitiesforprogressiontowardsneweconomicmodelsthatpromoteinclusivity,transparency,andfrictionlesstransactions.¡±Blockchainisbeingseenastheperfectmat,ab,,potentially,eachpieceofcopyrightedworkcanbeassigneduniqueidentifiers,androyaltypaymentscouldbedirectlysenttotheowner¡¯,,,Ba,HTCandafewotherfirmshaveinvestedinTaiwan-basedpropertyrightsstartupBitmarkInc,,SouthKorea¡¯sCJOliveNetworks,theITdivisionofCJGroup,launchedablockchaindigitalcopyrightssystemwhichfocusesonmusicalworks.

China,likeafewothercountriesworldwide,isexperiencinganindustrialrevolutiondrivenbyArtificialIntelligence(AI)andotheremerginganddisruptivetechnologies,,Chinaisnowleadinginpatentapplication,forinnovationsrelatingtoapplicationsofAIandBigDatainfinance(¡°FinTech¡±),atleastthreeChineseplayers(,PinAn,Alibaba,andTencent)yaspectscouldenhance,unlock,exploit,andfacilitatethefindingsoftheinherentvaluesofIPs,a,AI,combinedwithDataMiningtechnologies,,,,AISupervisedLearningcanassistprofessionalvaAI/BigDatavaluationmodulesintotheirdatabases,whileothersonceachallenge,tomanypeople¡¯ssurprise,inOctober2019thetopChineseleaderssummonedahigh-levelconferencetodiscussBlockchain¡¯,,moreandmorelegalscholarsarenowstudyingtheBlockchain¡¯scharacteristicsoftimestampingandresistancetotheretroactivealterationsofdataandproposingamen,BigData,andBlockchaincould,AIandBigDataTechnologiescanconnectinformationofa,apatentvalueronceneededtocheckupIPauthorities,financialauthorities,andcommerceadministrationauthoritithepatent;,therefore,,inChinasuchriskmaybemitigatedbytheaforementionedpatentsearchserviceproviderswhoutilizeAIan,theBlockchain¡¯scharacteristicsoftimestampingandresistancetoretroactivealterationsareexpectedtoreduceownersh,theChinesegovernmentisregulatingtheBlockchain¡¯sunderlyingtechnology,,(SCA)hasbeeninoperationsince2019,andadedicatedregulation,,ronmentwheredealmanagersofIPmonetizationinChinacanfindmoretoolsorservicestodetermineamoreconvincingvaluefortheunderlyingIPsandmitigatetransactionsrisks.(,foundingSpringIPGroup,dedicatedtofosterenterprises¡¯)

Veryrecently,AmulhasbeensuccessfulinobtaininganorderfromtheFederalCourt,,aroundJanuary2020,AmullearntthatgroupoffraudstersofCanadahasblatantlycopiedthetrademarkAMULandthelogoofAmul¨CTasteofIndia,andcreatedafakeAmulprofileon,MohitRana,AkashGhosh,ChanduDas,,,shingpassingofftestbeing:i)existenceofgoodwill,ii)deceptionofpublicduetomisrepresentation,andiii),,theFederalCourtheld,thesaidDefendantsarepermanentlyrestrainedfrominfringingthetrademarkandcopyrightofthePlaintiffs,hePlaintiffswithin30daysofthedateofthisJudgment,ownershipandallrights,access,administrationandcontroloverLinkedInpages/accounts,,AmulhasbeenawardeddamagesofUSD$10,000foractionscontrarytotheTrademarksAct,USD$5,000foractionscontrarytotheCopyrightActandawardedcostsofUSD$17,733,,AmulsManagingDirectoraddedthatallthiswaspossibleonlybecausewewe,wehopesuchorderswoulddetercounterfeiters,infringers,globally,beforeappropriatingsomeoneelsesIPRwhichhasbeenbuiltwithalotofe,proudlyassociatethemselveswithAMUL,st22yearsandalsostartedexportingAmulKool,,TheTasteofIndia!,,IPLawyer,SMajumdarCo.,,IPLawyer,¨C,Indiaisk(9billionCAD$).Infact,thetrademarkAMULissopopular,,whentheIntellectualPropertyAppellateBoardaccordeditthestatusofawell-knowntrademarkinCanadarecently.

¡±*Î¥·¨ÐÐΪÈË£ºÕÅ*ʱ¼ä£º2022Äê7ÔÂ8Èյص㣺ÈËÃñÎ÷·

AmptLLC,theworldsleadingproviderofpoweroptimizersforlarge-scalephotovoltaic(PV)systems,(ITC)againstSolarEdgeTechnologies,Inc.(NASDAQ:SEDG),requestingthattheITCbantheimp,rplantstolowerthecostofenergyproductionandimproveperformanceinnewsystems;upgradeexistingsystems;enablelow-costsolarenergystoragesystems;asels,inIsrael,China,,itwouldnotbepossibleforSolarEdgetocontinuesellingthoseinfringingproductsintheUnitedStates,howevertherearenumerousothernon-infringingcomeroptimizersandrelatedproductsatitsfacilityinFortCollins,Colorado,whichispri0issuedpatents,adingproductsionandplaysafundamentalroleinloweringthecostsoflarge-scalesolarenergyproduction,saidLeventGun,llyusingour,wearestandingupforouremployees,customersandpartners,aswellastheprinciplesoffaircompetitionandr,ThiscomplaintseekstoblockSolarrEdgeisviolatingourintellectualpropertyandthat,,673,630and11,289,,Amptass,,605,498,7,719,140,10,608,437,10,886,746,11,070,062and11,070,063.

TheSupremeCourtwillhearanongoingcopyrightcasebetweenSwedishfastfashiongiantHMandpattern-makingcompanyUnicolors,ent,aswellasthefindingsofothercircuitsandtheCopyrightOfficeinholdingthattheCopyrightActrequiresadistrictcourttoseekguidancefromtheCopyrightOfficewhentherearequestionsaboutthevalidityofacopyrightregistrationbutnoevid,accusingthefastfashionbehemothofinfringingoneofitsgeometricpatterns¨Cbywayofa¡°remarkablysimilar¡±print¨C,inwhichajuryfoundthatHMhadwillfullyinfringedUnicolors¡¯scopyright-protectedpattern,andawardedthepatterncompany$846,720indamages,attorney¡¯sfees,andcosts,¡¯sappealwasitsclaimthatUnicolorslacksavalidcopyrightregistrationforthefabricpatternatthecenterofthecasebecauseUnicolorshadimpher,makingthemanappropriate¡°singleunit¡±foronecollectivecopyrightapplicationandregistration,HMclaimedthatUnicolorsactuallysoldsomeofthepatternsseparatelytodifferentcustomers¨Catdifferenttimes,thereby,makingthecompany¡¯,2020,theNinthCircuitreversedthejuryverdictandsidedwithHMonthebasisthatthereisnointent-to-defraudrequirementforreg¡ì411(b)(2)¨CwhichrequiresdistrictcourtstoasktheRegisterofCopyrightswhetherregistrationwouldhavebeenrefusediftheCopyrightOfficehadknowntheinformationwasinaccurate¨CwhenitdidnotreferthemattertotheCopyrightOfficeafterHMallegedthattheregistrationcontainsinac,andUnicolorsfiledapetitionforawritofcertiorari,¡¯spetition,theNinthCircuitgotthecasewrong,asthejudges¡¯rulingconcerningthetimelineofthepublicationoftheworkscoveredbythesingle-unitcopyrightregistrationwas¡°flawedbecausetherewasnoevidencesupporting[their]conclusionthatthedesignswereseparatelypublishedbeforecertaindesignswerecategorizedasconfinedinUnicolors¡¯registrationcertificate.¡±Withthatinmind,Unicolorsclaimedthattherewas¡°insufficientevidencetodeduceany¡ì411(b).¡±¡°Thepanel¡¯¡ì411(b)wasalsoflawed,¡±accordingtoUnicolorsbecause¡°manycourts,legislativeandadministrativeauthorities,andtheleadingcopyrighttreatisehaveuniformlyinterpretedthePrioritizingResourcesandOrganizationforIntellectualPropertyActof2008¡­tocodifythedoctrineoffraudontheCopyrightOfficeandthus,toallowinvalidationundersection411(b)onlywhentheregistrantisshowntohaveactedinbadfaithorintendedtodefraudtheCopyrightOffice.¡±LookingaheadtotheSupremeCourt¡¯sconsiderationofthecase,ractitionersthatthesection411(b)issueis¡°ripeforreview,¡±particularlygiventhatdisputesaboutcopyrightregistrationerrors¨Cwhichcanstemfrom¡°anumberoffactors,includingunclearguidanceaboutregistrationrules,asimplemisunderstandingofwhattheapplicationrequiresand,mostrelevanttotheissueathand,purposefulorknowinginaccuracies¡±¨Care¡°commoninlitigation.¡±MeanwhileFinneganattorneysSamuelEichnerandMargaretEsquenethavenotedthatingrantingcertiorari,theSupremeCourtmaybelookingto¡°resolveanapparentcircuitsplitontheissueofwhetherthereisanintent-to-defraudrequirementbeforeareferralismadetotheCopyrightOfficeunderSection411(b).¡±Atthesametime,theCourtmayalsobeaiming¡°toclarifythestrengthofacopyrightregistration¡¯spresumptivevalidityand/ortheextenttowhichtheCopyrightActrequirescourtstodefertoCopyrightOfficedeterminationsundersection411(b)(2)astowhetherinaccuracies,ifknown,wouldhavecausedtheCopyrightOfficetorefuseregistration.¡±Ultimately,EichnerandEsquenetassertthatbecauseintenttodefraudisgenerallydifficulttoprove,¡°theSupremeCourt¡¯sdecisionshouldhaveasignificantimpactonthestrengthofcopyrightregistrations¡±¨Cwhicharenowprerequisitestofilingcopyrightinfringementactions¨C¡°andtheirsusceptibilitytovalidityattacksbasedonperceivedinaccuraciesinregistrations.¡±Assuch,thedecisionhasthepotentialtoimpactcopyrightapplicationpractices.

װжʳƷ¡¢°Ù»õµÈ£¬Ê¹Óò泵ºÍ´«ËÍ´ø¸¨Öú×÷Òµ£¬¼òµ¥Ò×ÉÏÊÖ£¬ÈÕ¹¤×Ê360-480Ôª£¬ÈýÌìÒ»·¢£¬ÌìÌìÓл°üסËÞ£¬³Ô·¹×ÔÀí£¬¸ÉÂúÒ»¸öÔÂÓлïʳ²¹Öú¡£

Veryrecently,AmulhasbeensuccessfulinobtaininganorderfromtheFederalCourt,,aroundJanuary2020,AmullearntthatgroupoffraudstersofCanadahasblatantlycopiedthetrademarkAMULandthelogoofAmul¨CTasteofIndia,andcreatedafakeAmulprofileon,MohitRana,AkashGhosh,ChanduDas,,,shingpassingofftestbeing:i)existenceofgoodwill,ii)deceptionofpublicduetomisrepresentation,andiii),,theFederalCourtheld,thesaidDefendantsarepermanentlyrestrainedfrominfringingthetrademarkandcopyrightofthePlaintiffs,hePlaintiffswithin30daysofthedateofthisJudgment,ownershipandallrights,access,administrationandcontroloverLinkedInpages/accounts,,AmulhasbeenawardeddamagesofUSD$10,000foractionscontrarytotheTrademarksAct,USD$5,000foractionscontrarytotheCopyrightActandawardedcostsofUSD$17,733,,AmulsManagingDirectoraddedthatallthiswaspossibleonlybecausewewe,wehopesuchorderswoulddetercounterfeiters,infringers,globally,beforeappropriatingsomeoneelsesIPRwhichhasbeenbuiltwithalotofe,proudlyassociatethemselveswithAMUL,st22yearsandalsostartedexportingAmulKool,,TheTasteofIndia!,,IPLawyer,SMajumdarCo.,,IPLawyer,¨C,Indiaisk(9billionCAD$).Infact,thetrademarkAMULissopopular,,whentheIntellectualPropertyAppellateBoardaccordeditthestatusofawell-knowntrademarkinCanadarecently.

TheCourtofAppealinTheHaguehasupheldafir,,KPN,NokiaNokiaandKPNhaveonceagainbeensuccessfulintheongoingcaseagainstAssiaoverDSLtechnologyMaryia/ADOBESTOCKInJanuary2021,,theDistrictCourtofTheHaguefoundthatKPNhadnotinfringedEP790,,unlikeinparallelproceedings,,becauseKPNappliestheprocesslaidoutinthepatent¡¯,AssiaarguedthatitsDSLproductoperateswiththepatent¡¯,thecourtthrewouttheclaimofinfringement,¡¯sinitialvictory(caseID:C/09/571729).NokiadeliverskeyDSLtechnologycomponentstoKPN,turningoutasaninter,¡¯sEP2259456,theCourtofAppealconfirmedinMarch2021aninvaliditydecision,56(caseID:C/09/563488).Here,,whichisstandardessential,,Assiaw,theCourtofAppealnullifiedallclaimsofEP456.

µ½µÚÎåÄê°´Ô­×ܼÛ120%ÓÅÏȻعº¡£

Creatingartisacommonwayforhumanstoexpressthemselves¨Canditisusuallyprotectedbycopyrightlaws¨Cbutwhatifartificialintelligence(AI)didthesameIfawriterusedAItocompleteCaoXueqin¡¯sfamousunfinishedChinesenovelDreamoftheRedChamber,whoshouldownthecopyrightCaoXueqin,thewriter,ortheAIalgorithm¡°Sofar,thereisnolawspecificallyaddressingownershipofAI-createdwork[inChina],¡±saidLiuWenjie,alawprofessorattheCommunicationUniversityofChina.¡°Thecourtcandecidetheauthorshipofthecontentbyapplyingthegene,thiscancauseuncertainty.¡±SeverallegalexpertswhospoketothePostagreedthatartificialintelligence,atitscurrentstageofdevelopment,shouldnotbeconsidereda¡°legalperson¡±thatcanownawork.¡°,youneedtomaketheAIanindependentlegalperson,whichnotonlyhaslegalrightsbutbearslegalresponsibilities,¡±saidJyh-anLee,associateprofessoroflawattheChineseUniversityofHongKong(CUHK).TherearesignsthatAI,whichChinahaswidelyadoptedforapplicationsfromsurveillancetoeducation,ware,togetherwithhumancomposers,tocompleteFranzSchubert¡¯seighthsymphony,whileTencent,whosemusicserviceisNo1inChina,¡¯sdirectorofitsCreatorTechnologyResearchLabFranoisPachetalsorecentlywroteonhisLinkedInpagethathewasdeveloping¡°thenextgenerationofAI-assistedmusiccompositiontools¡±.Evenso,,aBeijing-basedlawfirmsuedBaiduforinfringementafteroneofthesearchgiant¡¯¡¯sdefencewasthatthearticlewascreatedbyAI,,whichinAprilheldthatonlyworkscreatedbyanaturalpersoncanbeprotectedundercopyrightlaw,butaddedthatauthorshipoftheAI-createdworkinquestionshouldstillhavebeenprotectedbylaw.¡°Thecourt¡¯sdecisiongivingauthorshiptotheuseroftheAIisonlyfromtheperspectiveofpromotingculturalcommunicationandthedevelopmentofscience,butitdidnotpointtoanylegalevidencesupportingit,¡±said,chieflawyeroftheChinaIntellectualPropertyLawyersNet.¡°ThiswasonlyasinglecaseandawayfortheBeijingInternetCourttoexplorethelegal[dilemma],butthesituationisfarfrommature.¡±Inmostcountries,AI-generatedworkisnotsubjecttocopyrightprotectionsonooneshouldownthework,notedCUHK¡¯sLee.¡°[Ithink]mostcopyrightpractitionersandscholarsagreewitheachotheronthat.¡±IfaworkproducedbyanAIalgorithmorprocess,withouttheinvolvementorcontributionofanaturalperson,doesnotqualifyasauthorship,itcouldcreateavacuumincopyrightlaw,arguedlawyerXu.¡°Alotofinfringementsalreadyhappeninsociety,,itcouldresultinamassivenumberofinfringements,forexample,fromusingthecontentwithoutchargeorpermission,¡±,AIcompaniesaresayingthetechnologywillnotreplacehumanartists,,,ifamusicianusesTencent¡¯sAIsoftwaretocomposeasong,doestheartisthavecompleteauthorshipoftheworkordoesTencentBeijing-basedDeepmusic,whichclaimstobethefirstAImusiccompanyinChina,doesnotsayinit¡°It¡¯shardtodefinewhoownsthecopyright[inthissituation],¡±saidXuKe,assistantprofessorattheschooloflawattheUniversityofInternationalBusinessandEconomics.¡°If[theuser]addssomeoriginaldataintheprocessofusingAIandproducessomeworkthatisdifferentfromothers,¡¯shardtoproveiswhethertheyenteredtheoriginaldata.¡±China¡¯,NationalPeople¡¯sCongressspokesmanZhangYesuisaidauthoritieshadputthedraftingofnewlawsrelatedtoAIinthecountry¡¯rAI-createdworkswillhelporhinderthedevelopmentofthetechnology.¡°WithoutIPprotection,wes,¡±,however,arguesthatwithoutpropercopyrightprotection,AIdevelopmentwillslow.¡°Ihope[thelegalcommunity]canaddresstheissuesoon,¡±hesaid.

¡±ÕâÑùµÄÊÂÀýÔÚ¸ÃÕòÇàÄêÍ»»÷¶ÓÔ±ÉíÉÏÿÌì¶¼ÔÚ·¢Éú¡£

ASouthAfricanjudgmentdealin,,however,(Pty)(the¡°organiser¡±)inthiscaseorganisesacharitableeventthattakestheformofasleep-out¨Cbusinessleadersareaskedfordonationsandthey¡¯rerequestedtosleepoutdoorsonawinter¡¯st(the¡°charity¡±).Intheprocessoforganisingthefirstsleep-out,theorganiserestablishedanelectronicdatabase,whichcameaboutbecauseeverydonorhadtoregisterontheorganiser¡¯¡¯tforeseenwasthatcertaincompanieswouldwanttopaybyelectronicfundstransfer(¡°EFT¡±).Toaccommodatethesecompanies,,,infact,createdbyanemployeeofthecharity,andthisemployeewasalsoresponsibleforinputtingthedonors¡¯rdidn¡¯ved,theorganiserandthecharityagreedthatalldonationswouldbepaiddirectlyintothebankaccountofthecharity,whichhadthenece,thecharitymadeuseoftheelectronicdatabase,,theorganiserarrangedfurthersleep-outs,butontheseoccasions,,thecharitystart,,erSouthAfricancopyrightlawasa¡°literarywork¡±.Thissomewhatmisleadingtermisdefinedtoinclude¡±tablesandcompilationsofdatastoredorembodiedinacomputer¡±.Thejudgewentontosaythatinordertoenjoycopyrightprotection,aliteraryworkmustbe¡°original¡±.(Pty)LtdvSaundersValveCompanyLtd,thecourtsaidthatforthepurposesofcopyright,¡°allthatisrequiredisthattheworkshouldemanatefromtheauthorhimselfandnotbecopied.¡±InHauptt/aSoftcopyvBrewersMarketingIntelligence(Pty)LtdandOthers,thecourtheldthataworkisoriginalifithasnotbeencopiedfromanexistingsource,andifitsproductionrequiredasubstantialdegreeofskill,,1978,theauthoroftheliteraryworkistheownerofthecopyrightunlessthecopyrighthasbeenassignedand,ifgeneratedbyacomputer,theauthoristhepe,,thecontributionofthecharity¡¯semployeedidnotmeettheoriginalitytest,astheformthatitsemployeehadcreatedforEFTpayerswassubstantial¡°nosubstantialdegreeofskill,judgementorlabour¡±.Thejudgewentontomakeanumberoffurtherpoints:theformforEFTpaymentswas¡°ancillary¡±tothedatabase:¡°butforitsincorporationonthewebsitetherespondentwouldnothavehadthemeanstocollectthedataitclaimstohavecollectedinthemanneritcollectedit...forthatreasonitwouldbeabsurdtoseparatethemanualformfromthewebsite.¡±eveniftheemployeehadinnovatedtheideaofEFTpayments,thisdidnotelevatethecharity¡°tothestatusofapersonwhomadearrangementsnecessaryforthecreationofthewebsite¡±.Thecharityneeded¡°theconcurrenceoftheapplicant¡±,andwithoutthisit¡°wouldnothavebeenabletocollectthedataitclaimstoown¡±.thepurposeoftheEFTinnovationwassimplytomakeitpossiblefordonorstopaybyEFTandgettaxexemptioncertificates,,soitsclaimtobeingapartnerwas¡°absurd¡±.Thejudgeconcludedthatgivingthecharitythestatusofanauthorofthedatabaseonthebasisofdatamanuallyaddedtothedatabasethatisautomaticallygeneratedfromthewebsitewouldbean¡°overbroadinterpretation¡±.Theorganiserwast(injunction).Ifthere¡¯salessontobelearnedfromthiscase,it¡¯sthis:copyrightissuesneedtobeconsideredandclarifiedrightfromthestart.

Recently,TianjinIntellectualPropertyCourtsolvedacaseinvolvingtrademarkinfringementandunfaircompetitionbymediation,inwhichthefamousautomobilecompanyMaseratiChinaCarsTradingCo.,,thedefendantofthecasehasusedMaserati¡¯sbrandname¡°,theChinesesubsidiary¡¯snameandregisteredtrademarks¡°ÂêɯÀ­µÙ¡±¡°MASERATI¡±¡°¡±onitseyeglassesmanufacturedorforsale,dtrademarksinthecategoryof¡°eyeglassesandotherrelatedtrademarks¡±.Asthecasewassettled,theplaintiff¡¯swell-knowntrademarkshavesuccessfullygainedadditionalprotectionbeyondclass.

¡¡7ÖÊÁ¿ÎÞ±£ÕÏ£¬ÔöÌíÈËÇéÕ®¡£

June14,2022announcedthat,theUnitedStatesDistrictCourtfortheCentralDistrictofCalifornia(theCourt)issuedanordergr¡¯smaterialbreachesofthepartiesJointDevelopmentandLicenseAgreement,whereonFebruary15,2022,,NetlistsDirectorofIPStrategy,said,WearepleasedthattheCourtrecognizedSamsungsfailuretoadmitrequestsforadmissions,,2022,withatrialbeginningnextyearonMay1,fcustomandspecialtymemoryproductsbringindustry-leadingperformats,inservermemory,hybridmemoryandstorageclassmemory,tocompaniesthatimplementNetlist¡¯,entsndoftenaddressfutureeventsorNetlist¡¯nsregardingfutureeventsandaresubjecttoknownandunknownrisks,uncertaintiesandotherfactorsthatcouldcauseactualresultstodiffermateri,uncertaintiesandotherfactorsinclude,amongothers:risksrelatedtoNetlistsplansforitsintellectualproperty,includingitsstrategiesformonetizing,licensing,expanding,anddefendingitspatentportfolio;risksassociatedwithpatentinfringementlitigationinitiatedbyNetlist,orbyothersagainstNetlist,aswellasthecostsandunpredictabilityofanysuchlitigation;risksassociatedwithNetlistsproductsales,includingthemarketanddemandforproductssoldbyNetlistanditsabilitytosuccessfullydevelopandlaunchnewproductsthatareattractivetothemarket;thesuccessofproduct,jointdevelopmentandlicensingpartnerships;thecompetitivelandscapeofNetlistsindustry;andgeneraleconomic,politicalandmarketconditions,includingquarantines,factoryslowdownsorshutdowns,s,expectationsandbeliefsregardingfutureeventsandaresubjecttoknownandunknownrisks,uncertaintiesandotherfactorsthatcouldcauseactualresultstodiffermateri¡¯sannualreportonForm10-KforitsmostrecentlycompletedfiscalyearfiledonMarch1,2022,,,uncertaintiesandotherfactors,theseforward-¡¯sassumptions,expectationsandbeliefsonlyasofthedatetheyaremade,andexceptasrequiredbylaw,Netlistundertakesnoobligationtoreviseorupdateanyforward-lookingstatementsforanyreason.

¡°Themostsuccessfulpartieschoosetheirbattleswisely,¡±saysTheHonorableGerardRogers,ChiefAdministrativeTrademarkJudgeattheTrademarkTrialandAppealBoard(TTAB),abodywithintheUnitedStatesPatentandTrademarkOffice(USPTO).HavingservedinvariousrolesontheTTABformorethan25years,JudgeRogersispanshavebeendeniedbytheUSPTO,,partieshavebeenknowntopushtheirluck.¡°TrialsaresometimespursuedbecausethepartieshaveissuesoutsidetheTTABthatthey¡¯regrapplingwithand,itappearstous,theythinkitwillgivethemanotherleveragepointtodealwiththeirdifferences.¡±JudgeRogerssayshehasseencaseswherepartieshavenotproperlyfollowedtheTTAB¡¯sManualofProcedure,,regulatory,anddecisionalauthoritythatisrelevanttotheTTAB.¡°Therehavebeenappealsandtrialcasesthathavebeenlostbutcouldhavebeenwon,duetoafailuretofollowtherules,¡±saysJudgeRogers.¡°Manypractitionersfailtofollowtheguidanceonwhatevidencecanbeprobative.¡±JudgeRogersaddsthatit¡°neverhurts¡±toremindstakeholderstobecognizantoftherulesthattheTTABisrequiredtoapply¡ªaswellastheissuesitmustignore¡ª,theTTABoftencannottakeintoaccountparticularsrelatingtouseofatrademarkinthemarketplace,¡°Wehavetoignorethatinformation,yetpeoplebringittousallthetime,¡±,just30percentareexparteappeals,,appealsaccountfor75percentofcasesultimatelydecidedonthemerits,sowhatmightexplainthelargeswingJudgeRogerssaysthatpetitionsforcancellationandoppositionaresimilartocourtdisputesinthatasettlementisavailableand,ifthatoptionisused,¡°fewertrialcasesrequiredispositiononthemeritsasthepartieshaveworkeditout.¡±Inasmallpercentageofcases,apartymight¡°misbehave¡±andbesanctioned,whichcouldalsoleadtothecasebeingterminated,ppositionscanbemuchmoreexpensivethanappealsfromexaminerrefusals,soalotofcasesareneverpursuedbeyondtheinitialstages,,whichcaninvolveplentyofbackandforthbetweentheparties,includingondiscoveryandmotionpractice,,incontrast,¡°whentheattorneyfilesthenoticeofappealthereisnotmuchelsetodootherthanfilethebriefs,¡±,ofteninwrittenratherthanoralform,¡°sothere¡¯snotmuchaddedexpensetohaveanattorneypursueanappeal.¡±MoreAppealsJudgeRogersnotesthattrademarkapplicationfilingswiththeUSPTOhaverisenyear-on-yearforeightyears,so¡°thismeansmoreappealsandoppositionsandtheneedtoincreasethestafftohandlethatwork.¡±ernsabouttheBoard¡¯,seResolution(ACR)procedure,,theTTABseekstoexpediteproceedingsby,amongotherthings,activelyencouragingpartiestoconsiderplacinglimitsondiscoveryandtestimony,andadoptingmoreefficientaltern,forexample,hesaysthat,whileattorneyshaveindividualresponsibilityforcasesontheirdockets,theTTAB¡¯smanagingattorneywillreassigncaseswithpendingmotionsonamoneeditsperformancetargets,saysJudgeRogers,despitealargevariationinthecomplexityofcases,2weeksofthecasebeingreadytodecide,saysJudgeRogers(readyfordecisionmeansafterallbriefingisdoneandthecaseissubmittedbyaBoardparalegaltotheChiefJudgeforassignment,orafteroralargument,ifoneisrequested).¡°Wehaverepeatedlybeatenthisgoal,¡±veragependency(fromcommencementtocompletion)ofexparteappealsforthelastfiveyearsinarow,withthatpendencymeasurefallingintrialcasesforfiveofthepastsixyears.¡°JudgeRogersexplainsthatstakeholdershavelongexpressedapreferencefortheTTABtoremain¡°amorerelaxedalternativetolitigationinfederaldistrictcourts,¡±whereextension,,,,Inc.,ntdistrictcourtlitigationbetweenthesamepartiesthatlitigatedanearliercasebeforetheTTAB,aslongasthe¡°ordinaryelements¡±,JudgeRogerssaysitsimpactontheTTABhasbeen¡°almostnone.¡±However,hedoesnotethatitwasaverypositiverulingfortrademarkownersasit¡°¡±HenotesthatmanyTTABcasesaresettledandthatevenwhentheyarenot,,headds,theissuesthattheTTABanddistrictcourtsadjudicateareoftendifferent(,thesubsequentdistrictcourtcaseverylikelywouldconsideradditionalissuesrelatingtouseinthemarketplace).¡°Therewasalotoftalkthat,becauseofthepossibilityofissuepreclusion,partiesshouldtakemorediscoveryandintroducemoreevidenceattheTTAB.¡°ButIsay:issuepreclusionisunlikelytoariseinallbuttherarestofcases,¡¯tintroducemorediscoverythanusual,anddon¡¯tincreaseyourcostsandfilealotofirrelevantevidencethatwouldhaveabearinginadistrictcourtbutwhichisnotrelevanttoouranalysis.¡±¡¯advice;,JudgeRogers,whohasbeeninhiscurrentpositionsinceNovember2010,saysthereisa¡°realvarietyandthingscancomeuponanygivenday.¡±Histimeincludesmeetingwiththeapproximately70membersoftheTTABstaff,whichincludesjudges,attorneys,thatthejudgesarecontinually,andhestressestheimportanceofworkinginharmony.¡°WeworkcloselywiththeSolicitor¡¯sOffice;theywillbeinthepositionofdefendingvariousBoarddecisionsbeforetheFederalCircuit,sowewanttoputtheminthebestpositionpossible,¡±¡¯sOffice,JudgeRogersexplains,canrelaytotheTTABtheque¡¯smostseniorjudgemaybehisprimaryrole,JudgeRog¡¯sstaffareitsbiggeststrength,saysthejudge.¡°Ifindthetimetoremindouremployeesofwhatgreatworktheydo,¡±ursandstress¡ªhisbicycle.¡°FormanyyearsIhaveriddentenmileseachwaytotheofficeandback;itprovidesabufferbetweenworkandhomelife.¡±

Manysoftware-relatedandbusinessmethod-relatedpatentshavebeeninvalidatedforbeingdirectedto¡°abstractideas.¡±OnJanuary10,2018,inFinjan,Inc.,,Inc.,theFederalCircuitaffirmedthedistrictcourt¡¯sholdingthatFinjan¡¯,154,844(¡°the¡¯844patent¡±)[1]wasnotdirectedtoa¡ì¡¯sthresholdtestforpatenteligibilityunder¡ì101is¡°whethertheclaimsfocusonthespecificassertedimprovementincomputercapabilities...or,insteadonaprocessthatqualifiesasan¡®abstractidea¡¯forwhichcomputersareinvokedmerelyasatool.¡±[2]Thecourt¡¯srecentdecisionprovidesadditionalguidanceregardingthetypesofclaimsthatconstitutespecifiofCaliforniaonAugust28,2013,forinfringementofmultiplepatentsbyBlueCoat¡¯¡¯844patentscansfilesforpotentialsecuritythreats(,viruses),createsrespectivesecurityprofileslinkedtothescannedfiles,andthenmakesthescannedfilesavailabletousers.[3]Thejudgefoundthatthe¡¯¡ì101,,amongotherrulings,thedistrictcourt¡¯¡ì101asappliedtothe¡¯,inpart,thattheassertedclaimsofthe¡¯844patentshouldbeinvalidatedbecausetheclaimswereanalogoustothoseinApple,,Inc.;[4]AffinityLabsofTex.,,LLC;[5],[6],theFederalCircuitdistinguisheditspreviousdecisionsinvalidatingclaims,inpart,bycitingbacktoacoreconceptofpatentetandingforthe¡°foundationalpatentlawprinciple:thataresult,evenaninnovativeresult,isnotitselfpatentable.¡±[7]Rather,patents¡°aregranted¡®forthediscoveryorinventionofsomepracticablemethodormeansofproducingabeneficialresultoreffect...andnotfortheresultoreffectitself.¡¯¡±[8]Akeydistinguishingfeaturethatthecourtfoundwasthattheclaimsinthe¡¯844patent¡°recitespecificsteps...thataccomplishthedesiredresult.¡±[9]Notably,the¡¯844patentdoesnotclaimeithertheresultofperformingtheclaimedmethodstepsortheimprovementsoftheclaimedmethodoverthepriorart.[10]However,thecourtstilldistinguishedtheclaimsinthe¡¯844patentfromtheinvalidatedclaimsinApple,AffinityLabs,andIntellectualVentures[11]becausethoseclaimsgenerallyreciteddesirableresultsthatwereimplementedbygenericcomputercomponentsperformingkn¡¯844patent,theFederalCircuitfoundthatthepatent¡°enablesacomputersecuritysystemtodothingsitcouldnotdobefore...allow[ing]accesstobetailoredfordifferentusersandensur[ing]thatthreatsareidentifiedbeforeafilereachesauser¡¯scomputer.¡±[12]Thisnewfunctionalitywasfoundtobesufficientlyenabledbasedonthespecificationofthe¡¯844patent,whichdistinguishedtheadvantagesof¡°behavior-based¡±virusscanningtopriorart¡°code-matching¡±¡¯844patentrecitespecificstepstoaccomplishanadvantageousresultbasedontheenablingdescriptioninthespecification.[13]Thus,thepatenteligibilityinquiryunder¡ì101endedwithdeterminingthattheclaimsweredirectedt,theFederalCircuitprovidesnewguidanceforpatenteligibilityunder¡ì,thecourtbaseditsanalysisonanovelapproachinoneembodimentfoundinthespecificationofthe¡¯844patent,eventhoughtheclaimsarenotlimitedtothatspecificembodiment.[14]Thus,thecourtfoundthattheclaimsarenotrequiredtoexplicitlyrecitearesultorimprovementwherethespecificationadequatelydescr¡ì101maythereforebebasedonacombinationofthestepsrecitedinaclaimforaccomplishingaresultandthespecification¡¯sdescription,whenassessingthepatenteligibilityofcomputer-relatedpatentclaims,emphasisshouldbeplacedonthespecification¡¯sdescriptionofthestateoftheartascomparedtohowanimprovementincom(eg,tables,footnotes),pleaseaccesstheoriginalhere.

AmptLLC,theworldsleadingproviderofpoweroptimizersforlarge-scalephotovoltaic(PV)systems,(ITC)againstSolarEdgeTechnologies,Inc.(NASDAQ:SEDG),requestingthattheITCbantheimp,rplantstolowerthecostofenergyproductionandimproveperformanceinnewsystems;upgradeexistingsystems;enablelow-costsolarenergystoragesystems;asels,inIsrael,China,,itwouldnotbepossibleforSolarEdgetocontinuesellingthoseinfringingproductsintheUnitedStates,howevertherearenumerousothernon-infringingcomeroptimizersandrelatedproductsatitsfacilityinFortCollins,Colorado,whichispri0issuedpatents,adingproductsionandplaysafundamentalroleinloweringthecostsoflarge-scalesolarenergyproduction,saidLeventGun,llyusingour,wearestandingupforouremployees,customersandpartners,aswellastheprinciplesoffaircompetitionandr,ThiscomplaintseekstoblockSolarrEdgeisviolatingourintellectualpropertyandthat,,673,630and11,289,,Amptass,,605,498,7,719,140,10,608,437,10,886,746,11,070,062and11,070,063.

Recently,(2021),afindingofunfaircompetitionrequiredmisleadinguseofthemisappropriatedtrademarkorinvolvedthefilingofamalic(Emerson)InSinkEratorfoodwastedisposalsarepopularworldwide,dwasfollowedbyamultiplefurtherregistrationsformarksincorporating¡°In-Sink-Erator¡±and/,(WaterAngels)appliedtoregistermorethan20marksincorporatingtheIn-Sink-Erator¡±mark¡±.TheapplicationwerefiledthroughXiamenXingjunIPFirm(XingjunIP),nds,suchasDOW,CALGONandDJI(awell-knownChinesebrandfordrones).,thelegalrepresentativeofWaterAngels,ap,soughtinvalidations,andpursuedadmini(-¡°OAA-Rivers¡±)in2015and,usingthesameagent,XingjunIP,¡¯MarksFactsofthecaseInMarch2020,EmersonfiledalawsuitwithXiamenIntermediatePeoplesCourtnamingWaterAngels,OAA-Rivers,ingtheapplications,andthefourthdefendantsconductinprovidingassistance,,Wate,thecourtissueditsjudgmentholdingthattheserialattemptstomisappropriatethemarksconstitutedunfaircompetitionandthatthetwocompaniesandtheirdefactocontroller,,,denticalorsimilartoErmerson¡¯strademarksandtocompensateEmersonforitsattorneysfeesandthereasonableexpensesithadincurred,andtoissueas,theappellatecourtissueditsdecision,¡°grabbing¡±anactwithinthejurisdictionoftheAnti-UnfairCompetitionLawWaterAngelsandOAA-Riversarguedthattheywereonlyengagedinfilingapplications,anacttoinitiateadministrativeprocedures,,,theiractionsshouldnotbesubjecttotheAnti-UnfairCompetitionLaw,,thecourtsheldthatthetwocompanies,inregisteringmanyidenticalorsimilarmarks,forcedEmersontodefenditslegitimaterightsandinterestsbyundertakingmultipletrademarkoppositions,invalidationpetitions,administrativelitigationandcivilproceeding,perationst,thelegalrepresentativeofWaterAngelsandOAA-Rivers,arguedthathedidnotapplyforregistrationoftheIn-Sink-Eratorrelatedtrademarksinhisownnameandthereforedidnotcommitjointinfringement,,thecompanieswereresponsiblefortheiractions,bu,inadditiontobeinglegalrepresentativeofthetwocompanies,wasalsotheexecutivedirectorandgeneralmanager,,aftertheapplicationsmadebythefirstcompanywerefoundillegal,hethensetuptarkapplicationsforitsclientsXingjunIParguedthatitsactsoffilingtheapplicationsforaclientwerenotunlawful,,itdidnotviolatethego,though,heldthatXingjunIPrepresentedthevastmajorityofthetwodefendantcompaniesinfringingapplicationsandcontinuedtofileinfringingtrademarkapplicationsforthecompaniesevenaftertheill,itsactsinrepresentingthesecompanieswereactsof,,thesamegroupofp,andthelackofanyobligationonanapplicanttodefendorjustifyitsapplicationifchallenged,itisincreasinglycommonforsquatterstochoosenottorespondtochallengesbroughtbybrandowners,ithend¡°grabbing¡±toconstituteunfaircongandcoolthesquattingphenomenon,emarkprofessionalsbecauseofconcernsthatfilingapplicationsforclientscouldgenerateliability,thisshouldnotimpactundulyonreputableagenciesthatdochoosetoabidebythecodeofprofessionalethics.

µ½µÚÎåÄê°´Ô­×ܼÛ120%ÓÅÏȻعº¡£

·¢ÏÖÒ»´Î¼Ç¾¯¸æÒ»´Î£¬¾¯¸æÂúÈý´Î£¬ÏµÍ³×ÔÐнûÑÔÈýÌ죡ÃâÔðÉùÃ÷£º¹àÄϰÙÐÕÍø£¨¹àÄÏÂÛ̳£©ÎÞ·¨100%±£Ö¤ÔÚ±¾°æ·¢²¼µÄÐÅÏ¢µÄÕæÊµÐԺͿɿ¿ÐÔ£¬Çë´ó¼ÒÎñ±Ø½øÐÐ×ÐϸµÄÕç±ð£¬½÷·ÀÉϵ±ÊÜÆ­£¡Ò»¸öÐÅÏ¢Àà°å¿éZÖØÒªµÄ¾ÍÊÇÁ½¸ö×Ö---ÕæÊµ£¡»¶Ó­Ó»Ô¾¾Ù±¨½Ò·¢Í¨¹ýµÃÒâ²éѯµ½µÄÐÅÏ¢£¬È»ºó±»ºöÓÆºÍÆÛÆ­µÄÖнéÒÔ¼°¸öÈË£¬ÌáÐÑÆäËûÒâ·Û±ÜÃâÉϵ±¡£

Synopsys,(DMCA)actionagainstLibraryTechnologies,accesstoSynopsys¡¯ssoftwareinviolationoftheDMCAandtheparties¡¯¡°spoof[ed]¡±Synopsys¡¯slicenseserversbyalteringidentifyinginformationonvariouslicenseservercomputersto¡°leadingproviderofElectronicDesignAutomation(¡°EDA¡±)solutionsforthesemiconductorindustry.¡±Itreportedlyoffersasuiteofsoftwarequalityandsecuritysolutions,includingits¡°HSPICE¡±,LibraryTechnologiesisaprivatelyheldcompanybasedinSiliconValleythat¡°developsandmarketsdesignandanalysistoolsforintegratedcircuitdesign.¡±Itssuiteoftoolsandproductsareintegratedwithandinterfaceto¡°popularchipdesignflowsincludingSynopsystools.¡±Thecomplaintcontendsthatthepartiesenteredintoan¡°EndUserLicenseandMaintenanceAgreement¡±¡°licenseseats¡±,thethree-countcomplaintavers,LibraryTechnologiesbreachedtheagreementwhenit¡°alteredtheHostIDsofitslicenseservercomputerstoimpersonateaserverauthorizedtouseSynopsysTools,inordertocircumventSynopsys¡¯accesscontrollicensekeyprotections,therebygainingaccesstomoreconcurrentusageofSynopsysToolsthanauthorized.¡±SynopsyscontendsthatLibraryTechnologiesaccessedthesoftware¡°inexcessofitslicenseover400,000times,¡±¡¯unauthorizedandunpaidforaccess,Synopsysargues,notonlybreachedtheparties¡¯,Synopsysseeksinjunctiverelief,statutoryandactualdamages,attorneys¡¯feesandlitigationcosts,anaccounting,,HerringtonSutcliffeLLP.

OnJuly11,theDelhiHCrestrainedaBengaluru-basedcakeryfromusingthenameFacebakeorFacecake,oranyotherFacebook-relatedtrademarkforitsproductsandservicesThecourtintheSnapdealcasealsodirectedDomainNameRegistrarstocreateamechanismforbrandstoseekcancellationortransferofdomainnamesthatinfringetrademarkIndiascurrentlawsthatgoverntrademarkinfringementsincludetheTrademarkAct,1999,whichwasdevelopedtocomplywiththeTRIPSagreementoftheWTOTru-basedcakeryfromusingthenameFacebakeorFacecake,,JusticeNavinChawla,whowashearingthecase,orderedthebakerytodeliverallfinishedandunfinishedproductsbearingthetrademarksimilartoMeta,theparentcompanyofFacebook,,theCourtalsoawardedINR50,,£¨DNRs£©oughttocreateamechanismviawhichtrademarkownerscouldapproachtheDNRsandsec,whileDNRsarecompaniesthatallowuserstoregisterthem,suchasGoDaddy,Namecheap,oumthathasseeninfringementcasesfiledleft,,manybrandswithnomanufacturingaddressespopulatethestreetsandcorners,,itisdifficulttotrackthesedubiousoperatorsinmostcases.

ChinesevideoplatformKuaishouhasfileda5millionyuan($705,000)lawsuitagainstDouyin,accusingitsrivalof¡°piggybacking¡±onthecompany¡¯,whichhasbeenacceptedbyBeijing¡¯sHaidianDistrictcourt,KuaishouclaimsDouyinusedKuaishou¡¯snametolinktoitsownproductpageon360MobileAssistant,¡ªknowninternationallyasTikTok¡ªofinfringingKuaishou¡¯strademarktodisplayitsownproduct,pro,KuaishouisChina¡¯,Kuaishouclaimedithadsurpassed300milliondailyactiveusersonitsChineseapp,,Douyin¡¯sparentcompany,tolddomesticmediaonWednesdaythatithadfileditsownlawsuitagainstKuaishouinMarchoversimilarissue,andislookingintoitsrival¡¯rchenginesandothersimilarplatforms,onalinformation,raisingconcernsaboutcontentqualityandimpairedfunctionality.¡°IthinkwhatDouyinhasdonecouldconstituteinfringementofKuaishoustrademarkrights,¡±,anintellectualpropertylawyeratBeijingMingtaiLawFirm,toldSixthTone.¡°IfDouyinlinksKuaishouasitskeypaidsearchterminitsadrankings,itbasicallyweakensKuaishou¡¯sconnectiontoitsusers,justasKuaishouarguesinitslawsuit.¡±Usually,third-partyserviceprovidersdon¡¯thavealegalobligationtoreviewkeywords,andit¡¯salsoimpracticaltoanalyzeeverywordinthesearchenginealgorithm,comestodisplayingsearchresults.¡°Iftherightsownerdiscoversinfringementorunfaircompetition,theycannotifytheserviceproviderandaskthemtotakenecessarymeasures,suchasdeleting,blocking,disconnectinglinks,andmore,¡±,Kuaishou,and360MobileAssistantdidnotrespondtoSixthTone¡¯,,short-v,aBeijing-basedconsultancy,averagescreentimeonshort-videoappsduringthisyear¡¯sextendedLunarNewYearholidayincreasedby27minutescomparedwiththesameperiodlastyear,withDo¡¯sovercrowdedvideo,DouyinsuedTencentfordefamationoveranarticlepublishedonthecompany¡¯,TencentandByteDance,suedeachotheroverunfaircompetition.

Ñ×ÈȵÄÏļ¾£¬ÎÒÃÇÓ­À´ÁË×îºÃµÄÏà¾Û¡£

,aChinesesmartwatchmaker¨CPutianDoumaofirmhastriedofusingtheHuaweilogoanditsnamewithsomesmartwatchestoselltheminitsstoreduetowhichthelegallawsuitshaveorderedthecompanytocompensate2millionyuan(),,,bracelets,andmoresold,,suchtypeofbehav,thedefendantbeginsarguingthatsuchterm,:Theevalua,thedefendantsdefensethatthewordHuaweiusesinadescriptivemannercannotestablish,,thedefendantsuseofofficialwebsitemoneyandofficialupgrademoneyintheproductintrodu,thecourthascommandedthedefendanttocompensateforthelossofHuaweiassoonaspossible.

Manysoftware-relatedandbusinessmethod-relatedpatentshavebeeninvalidatedforbeingdirectedto¡°abstractideas.¡±OnJanuary10,2018,inFinjan,Inc.,,Inc.,theFederalCircuitaffirmedthedistrictcourt¡¯sholdingthatFinjan¡¯,154,844(¡°the¡¯844patent¡±)[1]wasnotdirectedtoa¡ì¡¯sthresholdtestforpatenteligibilityunder¡ì101is¡°whethertheclaimsfocusonthespecificassertedimprovementincomputercapabilities...or,insteadonaprocessthatqualifiesasan¡®abstractidea¡¯forwhichcomputersareinvokedmerelyasatool.¡±[2]Thecourt¡¯srecentdecisionprovidesadditionalguidanceregardingthetypesofclaimsthatconstitutespecifiofCaliforniaonAugust28,2013,forinfringementofmultiplepatentsbyBlueCoat¡¯¡¯844patentscansfilesforpotentialsecuritythreats(,viruses),createsrespectivesecurityprofileslinkedtothescannedfiles,andthenmakesthescannedfilesavailabletousers.[3]Thejudgefoundthatthe¡¯¡ì101,,amongotherrulings,thedistrictcourt¡¯¡ì101asappliedtothe¡¯,inpart,thattheassertedclaimsofthe¡¯844patentshouldbeinvalidatedbecausetheclaimswereanalogoustothoseinApple,,Inc.;[4]AffinityLabsofTex.,,LLC;[5],[6],theFederalCircuitdistinguisheditspreviousdecisionsinvalidatingclaims,inpart,bycitingbacktoacoreconceptofpatentetandingforthe¡°foundationalpatentlawprinciple:thataresult,evenaninnovativeresult,isnotitselfpatentable.¡±[7]Rather,patents¡°aregranted¡®forthediscoveryorinventionofsomepracticablemethodormeansofproducingabeneficialresultoreffect...andnotfortheresultoreffectitself.¡¯¡±[8]Akeydistinguishingfeaturethatthecourtfoundwasthattheclaimsinthe¡¯844patent¡°recitespecificsteps...thataccomplishthedesiredresult.¡±[9]Notably,the¡¯844patentdoesnotclaimeithertheresultofperformingtheclaimedmethodstepsortheimprovementsoftheclaimedmethodoverthepriorart.[10]However,thecourtstilldistinguishedtheclaimsinthe¡¯844patentfromtheinvalidatedclaimsinApple,AffinityLabs,andIntellectualVentures[11]becausethoseclaimsgenerallyreciteddesirableresultsthatwereimplementedbygenericcomputercomponentsperformingkn¡¯844patent,theFederalCircuitfoundthatthepatent¡°enablesacomputersecuritysystemtodothingsitcouldnotdobefore...allow[ing]accesstobetailoredfordifferentusersandensur[ing]thatthreatsareidentifiedbeforeafilereachesauser¡¯scomputer.¡±[12]Thisnewfunctionalitywasfoundtobesufficientlyenabledbasedonthespecificationofthe¡¯844patent,whichdistinguishedtheadvantagesof¡°behavior-based¡±virusscanningtopriorart¡°code-matching¡±¡¯844patentrecitespecificstepstoaccomplishanadvantageousresultbasedontheenablingdescriptioninthespecification.[13]Thus,thepatenteligibilityinquiryunder¡ì101endedwithdeterminingthattheclaimsweredirectedt,theFederalCircuitprovidesnewguidanceforpatenteligibilityunder¡ì,thecourtbaseditsanalysisonanovelapproachinoneembodimentfoundinthespecificationofthe¡¯844patent,eventhoughtheclaimsarenotlimitedtothatspecificembodiment.[14]Thus,thecourtfoundthattheclaimsarenotrequiredtoexplicitlyrecitearesultorimprovementwherethespecificationadequatelydescr¡ì101maythereforebebasedonacombinationofthestepsrecitedinaclaimforaccomplishingaresultandthespecification¡¯sdescription,whenassessingthepatenteligibilityofcomputer-relatedpatentclaims,emphasisshouldbeplacedonthespecification¡¯sdescriptionofthestateoftheartascomparedtohowanimprovementincom(eg,tables,footnotes),pleaseaccesstheoriginalhere.

Recently,(2021),afindingofunfaircompetitionrequiredmisleadinguseofthemisappropriatedtrademarkorinvolvedthefilingofamalic(Emerson)InSinkEratorfoodwastedisposalsarepopularworldwide,dwasfollowedbyamultiplefurtherregistrationsformarksincorporating¡°In-Sink-Erator¡±and/,(WaterAngels)appliedtoregistermorethan20marksincorporatingtheIn-Sink-Erator¡±mark¡±.TheapplicationwerefiledthroughXiamenXingjunIPFirm(XingjunIP),nds,suchasDOW,CALGONandDJI(awell-knownChinesebrandfordrones).,thelegalrepresentativeofWaterAngels,ap,soughtinvalidations,andpursuedadmini(-¡°OAA-Rivers¡±)in2015and,usingthesameagent,XingjunIP,¡¯MarksFactsofthecaseInMarch2020,EmersonfiledalawsuitwithXiamenIntermediatePeoplesCourtnamingWaterAngels,OAA-Rivers,ingtheapplications,andthefourthdefendantsconductinprovidingassistance,,Wate,thecourtissueditsjudgmentholdingthattheserialattemptstomisappropriatethemarksconstitutedunfaircompetitionandthatthetwocompaniesandtheirdefactocontroller,,,denticalorsimilartoErmerson¡¯strademarksandtocompensateEmersonforitsattorneysfeesandthereasonableexpensesithadincurred,andtoissueas,theappellatecourtissueditsdecision,¡°grabbing¡±anactwithinthejurisdictionoftheAnti-UnfairCompetitionLawWaterAngelsandOAA-Riversarguedthattheywereonlyengagedinfilingapplications,anacttoinitiateadministrativeprocedures,,,theiractionsshouldnotbesubjecttotheAnti-UnfairCompetitionLaw,,thecourtsheldthatthetwocompanies,inregisteringmanyidenticalorsimilarmarks,forcedEmersontodefenditslegitimaterightsandinterestsbyundertakingmultipletrademarkoppositions,invalidationpetitions,administrativelitigationandcivilproceeding,perationst,thelegalrepresentativeofWaterAngelsandOAA-Rivers,arguedthathedidnotapplyforregistrationoftheIn-Sink-Eratorrelatedtrademarksinhisownnameandthereforedidnotcommitjointinfringement,,thecompanieswereresponsiblefortheiractions,bu,inadditiontobeinglegalrepresentativeofthetwocompanies,wasalsotheexecutivedirectorandgeneralmanager,,aftertheapplicationsmadebythefirstcompanywerefoundillegal,hethensetuptarkapplicationsforitsclientsXingjunIParguedthatitsactsoffilingtheapplicationsforaclientwerenotunlawful,,itdidnotviolatethego,though,heldthatXingjunIPrepresentedthevastmajorityofthetwodefendantcompaniesinfringingapplicationsandcontinuedtofileinfringingtrademarkapplicationsforthecompaniesevenaftertheill,itsactsinrepresentingthesecompanieswereactsof,,thesamegroupofp,andthelackofanyobligationonanapplicanttodefendorjustifyitsapplicationifchallenged,itisincreasinglycommonforsquatterstochoosenottorespondtochallengesbroughtbybrandowners,ithend¡°grabbing¡±toconstituteunfaircongandcoolthesquattingphenomenon,emarkprofessionalsbecauseofconcernsthatfilingapplicationsforclientscouldgenerateliability,thisshouldnotimpactundulyonreputableagenciesthatdochoosetoabidebythecodeofprofessionalethics.

Veryrecently,AmulhasbeensuccessfulinobtaininganorderfromtheFederalCourt,,aroundJanuary2020,AmullearntthatgroupoffraudstersofCanadahasblatantlycopiedthetrademarkAMULandthelogoofAmul¨CTasteofIndia,andcreatedafakeAmulprofileon,MohitRana,AkashGhosh,ChanduDas,,,shingpassingofftestbeing:i)existenceofgoodwill,ii)deceptionofpublicduetomisrepresentation,andiii),,theFederalCourtheld,thesaidDefendantsarepermanentlyrestrainedfrominfringingthetrademarkandcopyrightofthePlaintiffs,hePlaintiffswithin30daysofthedateofthisJudgment,ownershipandallrights,access,administrationandcontroloverLinkedInpages/accounts,,AmulhasbeenawardeddamagesofUSD$10,000foractionscontrarytotheTrademarksAct,USD$5,000foractionscontrarytotheCopyrightActandawardedcostsofUSD$17,733,,AmulsManagingDirectoraddedthatallthiswaspossibleonlybecausewewe,wehopesuchorderswoulddetercounterfeiters,infringers,globally,beforeappropriatingsomeoneelsesIPRwhichhasbeenbuiltwithalotofe,proudlyassociatethemselveswithAMUL,st22yearsandalsostartedexportingAmulKool,,TheTasteofIndia!,,IPLawyer,SMajumdarCo.,,IPLawyer,¨C,Indiaisk(9billionCAD$).Infact,thetrademarkAMULissopopular,,whentheIntellectualPropertyAppellateBoardaccordeditthestatusofawell-knowntrademarkinCanadarecently.

PeiHaozhenginstructsChristophReinhardt(left),,whohelpedtosetupaprotectionzoneduringtheNanjingMassacrein1937.[PhotoprovidedtoChinaDaily]Origamimasterpromotestheartformtoagrowingaudience,,inorigamiartistPeiHaozhengseyes,,fromdailyobjectstomythicalcreatures,ghjustfoldingwithnocutsorglue,nsteadofcopiesofotherartistsdesigns-andwontheInternationalOrigamiInternetOlympiadin2017,,PeifoldedanancientChinesewomanholdingamirrorfromasheetofhandmadexuanzhi(ricepaper),,theeventisseenbymany,(whitedeerplain)£­fromdailyobjectstomythicalcreatures£­intheskilledhandsofPeiHaozheng.[PhotoprovidedtoChinaDaily],JapaneseartistAkiraYoshizawa(1911-2005),regardedasthefatherofmodernorigami,helpedtoraisetheancient,wherepaperwasinventedduringtheWesternHanDynasty(206BC-AD24).AlthoughorigamiisaminorartforminChina,,,butonlythosewitharealpassionfororigamiwillmakeitintoalifelongcareer,,Peidescribeshimselfasaman,orOrychophragmusviolaceus,whichisdubbedastheflowerofpeace,hehascreatedthepurpl£­fromdailyobjectstomythicalcreatures£­intheskilledhandsofPeiHaozheng.[PhotoprovidedtoChinaDaily]Tocelebratethe100thanniversaryofthefoundingoftheCommunistPartyofChinathisyear,theartistcreatedanorigamipiecetitledYuanhangBainian(100yearsofsailing).,wherethefirstNationalCongressoftheCPCwasconcluded100yearsago,butalsotodaysvibrantsociety,,Jiangsuprovince,Peistartedfoldingpaperwhenhewasinkindergarten,,helearnedfoldingfromteachersandparents,,,,,hecameacrossadiagramwithhundredsofpatternedlinesdesignedbyRobertLang,,£­fromdailyobjectstomythicalcreatures£­intheskilledhandsofPeiHaozheng.[PhotoprovidedtoChinaDaily]Withnoonetoconsult,Peitaughthimselfthroughorigamitheorybooks,,,tur,thenasophomoreattheHuazhongAgriculturalUniversityinWuhan,Hubeiprovince,,,PeiwasinvitedtoattendtheChineseversionofSuperBrain,,,,PeitookupthechallengeofcreatingasolarpanelinorigamistyleatForwardtotheFuture,ded,£­fromdailyobjectstomythicalcreatures£­intheskilledhandsofPeiHaozheng.[PhotoprovidedtoChinaDaily]Peigothismastersdegreeinscience,,origamiisnotjustacraft,butanartthatcandelivercultureandlastforever,Peisays.

ÆäËû£º·¢½Í¹Þ¡¢ÌáÈ¡¹Þ¡¢´¢¹Þ¡¢ËÇÁÏ»ìºÏ»ú¡¢¿ÅÁ£»ú¡¢·ÛËé»ú¡¢ÄóºÏ»ú¡¢·ÖÉ¢»ú¡¢É±¾ú¹ø¡¢ÌÕ´ÉĤˮ´¦ÀíÉ豸¡¢·´ÉøÍ¸Ë®´¦Àí¡¢°ü×°»ú¡¢¹öÈà»ú¡¢¹à×°»ú¡¢Õ¶°è»úµÈµÈ±¾¹«Ë¾ËùÓÐÉ豸¾ù¿ÉÏÖ³¡ÊÔ»ú£¬±£Ö¤¼´Âò¼´Ó㬻¶Ó­¿Í»§Ç°À´Ñ¡¹º¡£

×°ÐÞ¹«Ë¾ÔÚһЩʱ¼ä¸ãµÄ´ÙÏú¡¢ÍÅÌå×°Ð޻Æäʵ»áΪÄãʡϺܶàÇ®¡£

OnJuly11,theDelhiHCrestrainedaBengaluru-basedcakeryfromusingthenameFacebakeorFacecake,oranyotherFacebook-relatedtrademarkforitsproductsandservicesThecourtintheSnapdealcasealsodirectedDomainNameRegistrarstocreateamechanismforbrandstoseekcancellationortransferofdomainnamesthatinfringetrademarkIndiascurrentlawsthatgoverntrademarkinfringementsincludetheTrademarkAct,1999,whichwasdevelopedtocomplywiththeTRIPSagreementoftheWTOTru-basedcakeryfromusingthenameFacebakeorFacecake,,JusticeNavinChawla,whowashearingthecase,orderedthebakerytodeliverallfinishedandunfinishedproductsbearingthetrademarksimilartoMeta,theparentcompanyofFacebook,,theCourtalsoawardedINR50,,£¨DNRs£©oughttocreateamechanismviawhichtrademarkownerscouldapproachtheDNRsandsec,whileDNRsarecompaniesthatallowuserstoregisterthem,suchasGoDaddy,Namecheap,oumthathasseeninfringementcasesfiledleft,,manybrandswithnomanufacturingaddressespopulatethestreetsandcorners,,itisdifficulttotrackthesedubiousoperatorsinmostcases.

OnApril6,(FCAUSLLC)anewchancetoarguethatitdidnotviolateaBluetoothstandardsorganizationstrademarkrightsbyusingtheBluetoothnamewithoutpermissionandsentthecasebacktoaSeatt,BluetoothSIGarguedFCAviolateditstrademarkrightsbymarketingtheentertainmentplatformsinFiat,Jeep,Chrysler,andothercarsasbeingBluetoothcapablewithoutgoingthroughitsverificationprocess,howeverFCAsaiditboughtthesystemsfromcompaniesthathadverifiedthemwithBluetoothSIG,andaccordingtothetrademark¡°firstsale¡±doctrine,itshouldn¡¯tbelegallyliableforinfringement.

UtahscookiecompetitioncontinuedonJuly13whenDirtyDoughandCraveCo,foundedinLoganbySawyerHemsleyandJasonMcGowan,filedalawsuitagainstDirtyDough,acookiebusinessthatstartedinTempe,Arizona,,aCrumblinsiderleftCrumbltofoundDirtyDough,whichsellsandpromotescookiesusingpackaging,decor,andpresentationthatisconfusinglysim,whosbrotherwasaCrumblemployee,toldTheHerald,youguysknowthatDirtyDoughwasalreadystartedin2018,,Ithinkwerethemostdifferent,..,,bigsupporter,Maxwellsaid,expla,allofasuddenoutofnowhere¡­wegethitwithalawsuit,,,,wellseeiftheywanttotalk¡­whatsthesolutionhereMaxwellsaid,,wereachedouttothem¡ªtoldthemweacceptedcounsel,,,anothercookiecompanythathascometoUtah,,afterCrumbldeniedanapplicationbyCravesfoundertobecomeaCrumblfranchisee,Cravebegansellingandpromotingitscopycatgourmetcookies,Crumblscomplaintreadsbeforealletailsofthevaluablegoodwill,reputation,ontobecomeaCrumblefranchiseeorthatCraveisinviolationofanyofCrumblsallegedtrademarks,tradedress,orotherintellectualpropertyrights,rattemptbyathreatenedcompetitortousealawsuittostiflefairandfreecompetitionanddenyconsumersachoiceofproducts,Englishsaidinastatementto,,orelsewhywouldnttheytalkwithusorsendacease-and-desistletter,,,Maxwellsaid,,hesaid,,Crumblsaidtheyareprotectingtheirsuccess:Asafranchisorof30,000+CrumblCrewmembers,1,000+FranchisePartners,andhundredsofCrumblHQemployees,wewillalwaystakeseriouslyourroleinbuildingandprotectingthecompanyanditstrademarksthatweveallworkedsohardtocreatetogether.

ËïºéÏãºÍËýµÄ¼ôÖ½×÷Æ·×÷Ϊ½­ËÕÊ¡ËïºéÏãÏçÍÁÈ˲Ŵóʦʾ·¶´óʦ¹¤×÷ÊÒ´´°ìÈË£¬¶àÄêÀ´£¬ËïºéÏã´´×÷ÁË¡¶Î÷Óμǡ·¡¶ÖйúÃΡ·µÈϵÁмôÖ½ÒÔ¼°¡¶°Ùº×ͬ´º¡·µÈ£¬×÷Æ·¶à´Î»ñµÃ¹ú¼Ò¡¢¹ú¼Ê´ó½±¡£

ChinahasoutpacedtheUnitedStatesinthenumberofworldwideartificialintelligence-relatedpatentapplications,accordingtoanewreportissuedbytheChinaIndustrialControlSystemsCyberEmergencyResponseteam,,,712AI-relatedpatentapplications,rankingfirstinChinaforthesecondconsecutiveyear,followedbyTencent(4,115),MicrosoftChina(3,978),Inspur(3,755)andHuawei(3,656).ThereportshowedthatBaiduisthepatentapplicationleaderinseveralkeyareasofAI,includingthedeeplearning(1,429),naturallanguageprocessing(938)andspeechrecognition(933).Sofar,AI-enabledtechnologieshavebeenappliedinseveralsectors,suchasfinance,healthcare,omywillleapfrom$2trillionin2018to$,($)AIcoreindustryby2030,whrialupgrading,andthecountrysstrategicplanforAIoffersabroadspacef,fromtheperspectiveofapplicants,enterprisessuchasBatablishintellectualpropertysystemsrelatedtoAI,aswellasintroducehigh-leveltalents,,vice-presidentofTencent,saidatthesixthWorldInternetConferenceinWuzhen,Zhejiangprovince,thatthecompanyhasfiledover3,000AIpatentappli,particularlyinthefieldofAI,saidZhuWei,seniormanagingdirectorandchairmanofAccentureChina,whilenotingChinesecompanieshavedemonstratedgreatdeterminationtodiger,butalsogivefullplaytothevalueofAI,saidHongJing,founderofGaochengCapital,whoindicatedthatAIcanbeappliedinallwalksoflife,,chairmanandCEOofSinovationVentures,aleadingventurecapitalfirm,saidChinaandtheUSareleadingthefourthindustrialrevolutionbroughtbyAIthathasard,,otherwise,$,a44percentincreaseover2018,accordingtotheconsultancyInternationalDataCorporation.

°²ÅŸøÎÒÃǵÄÉè¼ÆÊ¦ÎÒ»¹ÊDZíʾ»Ò³£»Ò³£µÄÂúÒâµÎ£¬¼ÒÀï×ÜÌå¸ñ¾Ö¸Ä¶¯²»Ëã´ó£¬µ«ÕæµÄÊǰÑÎÒ¼ÒµÄËùÓпռ䶼ÀûÓõ½ÁË£¬·½°¸»ù±¾ÊÇÒ»´Î¾Íͨ¹ýÁË£¬°ÖÂèÒ²¾õµÃºÜ²»´í¡£

Óλ÷¶Ó±ãÒËÖ÷ÒªÊÇÈ˹¤·ÑµÍ¡¢²ÄÁϲ¹¤ÒÕ͵¹¤¼õÁÏ£¬ÈôÓλ÷¶ÓÓÃÆ·Åƹ«Ë¾µÄ¹¤ÈËÓë²ÄÁÏÒÔ¼°¹¤ÒÕÊ©¹¤ÊµÖÊÉϲ¢²»±ãÒË¡£

TheSupremeCourtwillhearanongoingcopyrightcasebetweenSwedishfastfashiongiantHMandpattern-makingcompanyUnicolors,ent,aswellasthefindingsofothercircuitsandtheCopyrightOfficeinholdingthattheCopyrightActrequiresadistrictcourttoseekguidancefromtheCopyrightOfficewhentherearequestionsaboutthevalidityofacopyrightregistrationbutnoevid,accusingthefastfashionbehemothofinfringingoneofitsgeometricpatterns¨Cbywayofa¡°remarkablysimilar¡±print¨C,inwhichajuryfoundthatHMhadwillfullyinfringedUnicolors¡¯scopyright-protectedpattern,andawardedthepatterncompany$846,720indamages,attorney¡¯sfees,andcosts,¡¯sappealwasitsclaimthatUnicolorslacksavalidcopyrightregistrationforthefabricpatternatthecenterofthecasebecauseUnicolorshadimpher,makingthemanappropriate¡°singleunit¡±foronecollectivecopyrightapplicationandregistration,HMclaimedthatUnicolorsactuallysoldsomeofthepatternsseparatelytodifferentcustomers¨Catdifferenttimes,thereby,makingthecompany¡¯,2020,theNinthCircuitreversedthejuryverdictandsidedwithHMonthebasisthatthereisnointent-to-defraudrequirementforreg¡ì411(b)(2)¨CwhichrequiresdistrictcourtstoasktheRegisterofCopyrightswhetherregistrationwouldhavebeenrefusediftheCopyrightOfficehadknowntheinformationwasinaccurate¨CwhenitdidnotreferthemattertotheCopyrightOfficeafterHMallegedthattheregistrationcontainsinac,andUnicolorsfiledapetitionforawritofcertiorari,¡¯spetition,theNinthCircuitgotthecasewrong,asthejudges¡¯rulingconcerningthetimelineofthepublicationoftheworkscoveredbythesingle-unitcopyrightregistrationwas¡°flawedbecausetherewasnoevidencesupporting[their]conclusionthatthedesignswereseparatelypublishedbeforecertaindesignswerecategorizedasconfinedinUnicolors¡¯registrationcertificate.¡±Withthatinmind,Unicolorsclaimedthattherewas¡°insufficientevidencetodeduceany¡ì411(b).¡±¡°Thepanel¡¯¡ì411(b)wasalsoflawed,¡±accordingtoUnicolorsbecause¡°manycourts,legislativeandadministrativeauthorities,andtheleadingcopyrighttreatisehaveuniformlyinterpretedthePrioritizingResourcesandOrganizationforIntellectualPropertyActof2008¡­tocodifythedoctrineoffraudontheCopyrightOfficeandthus,toallowinvalidationundersection411(b)onlywhentheregistrantisshowntohaveactedinbadfaithorintendedtodefraudtheCopyrightOffice.¡±LookingaheadtotheSupremeCourt¡¯sconsiderationofthecase,ractitionersthatthesection411(b)issueis¡°ripeforreview,¡±particularlygiventhatdisputesaboutcopyrightregistrationerrors¨Cwhichcanstemfrom¡°anumberoffactors,includingunclearguidanceaboutregistrationrules,asimplemisunderstandingofwhattheapplicationrequiresand,mostrelevanttotheissueathand,purposefulorknowinginaccuracies¡±¨Care¡°commoninlitigation.¡±MeanwhileFinneganattorneysSamuelEichnerandMargaretEsquenethavenotedthatingrantingcertiorari,theSupremeCourtmaybelookingto¡°resolveanapparentcircuitsplitontheissueofwhetherthereisanintent-to-defraudrequirementbeforeareferralismadetotheCopyrightOfficeunderSection411(b).¡±Atthesametime,theCourtmayalsobeaiming¡°toclarifythestrengthofacopyrightregistration¡¯spresumptivevalidityand/ortheextenttowhichtheCopyrightActrequirescourtstodefertoCopyrightOfficedeterminationsundersection411(b)(2)astowhetherinaccuracies,ifknown,wouldhavecausedtheCopyrightOfficetorefuseregistration.¡±Ultimately,EichnerandEsquenetassertthatbecauseintenttodefraudisgenerallydifficulttoprove,¡°theSupremeCourt¡¯sdecisionshouldhaveasignificantimpactonthestrengthofcopyrightregistrations¡±¨Cwhicharenowprerequisitestofilingcopyrightinfringementactions¨C¡°andtheirsusceptibilitytovalidityattacksbasedonperceivedinaccuraciesinregistrations.¡±Assuch,thedecisionhasthepotentialtoimpactcopyrightapplicationpractices.

TheCantonFair,oneoftheworldslargesttradeshowsthatkickedoffonThursdayinGuangzhou,SouthChinasGuangdongProvince,islocatedinthePazhouarea,agrowingindustrialclusterofinformationtechnology,artificialintelligence,industrialInternetandotherinnovativetechnologies,whereover30,000companieshavesettled,includingAlibaba,Tencent,Xiaomi,,laboratoriesarealsomovingintotheregiontoenhanceresearchanddevelopment(RD).PazhouLab,orAIDEGuangdongProvinceLab(GZ),nomyfortheGuangdong-HongKong-MacaoGreaterBayArea,andvowstobeahubofscienceandtechnologyinnovation,YuanZiwei,apublicityagentofthePazhouLab,,whichcansolvethecoreproblemsofintelligentsystems,,vicedirectoroftheBeijingEconomicOperationAssociation,toldtheGlobalTimesthattheconstructionoflaboratoriesandindustrialparkswillhelpGuangdong,andShenzheninparticular,addressitsshortcomingsineducationandresearch,thussupportingGua,HanJiuqiang,aprofessorofXianJiaotongUniversity,wasoneoftheexperts,,aspeoplesconsumptionlevelishigher,resultinginmorepursuitanddemandforniche,personalizedproducts,,,wehavetohavemachinesandrobotsthatcandodifferentthingsatthesametime,andthatrequiresalotmorefro,,allsmartdevicestodayarenotreallysmart,becausethesemachinesandrobotsareonlycapableoflearning,,forexample,isverygoodatplayingchess,,,ontheotherhand,telligent,,butitstillneedstimetorealizeinindustrialproduction,,ofwhichindependentlydevelopedandproducedintelligentsteelprocessingequipmenthavebeenwidelyusedincivilengineeringfieldssuchashighways,,America,theMiddleEast,SoutheastAsia,SouthAfricaandotherinternationalmarkets,,,whichisthecoreofthesmartmachineryandequipment,,utilitymodelpatentsandsoftwarecopyrightinthefieldofintelligentconstruction,tmentaregreatburdensforenterprises,,theoriginalinnovationofhigh-techinthesmartfield,suchasthethirdgenerationofthesemiconductor,AIandmechanicalautomation,isquitedifficult,,resourcesinmanyfieldsofindustry,,supporttheoreticalresearch,andfinally,completetheprocessfromtheorytoindustrialpractice,ZhangXiaorong,directoroftheBeijing-basedCutting-EdgeTechnologyResearchInstitute,,andmakethecountryconcentrateonresearch,,whatChinaneedstostrengthenisitstheoreticalresearch.

¡±Íõ¾ê¼á¶¨µØËµ¡£

AmptLLC,theworldsleadingproviderofpoweroptimizersforlarge-scalephotovoltaic(PV)systems,(ITC)againstSolarEdgeTechnologies,Inc.(NASDAQ:SEDG),requestingthattheITCbantheimp,rplantstolowerthecostofenergyproductionandimproveperformanceinnewsystems;upgradeexistingsystems;enablelow-costsolarenergystoragesystems;asels,inIsrael,China,,itwouldnotbepossibleforSolarEdgetocontinuesellingthoseinfringingproductsintheUnitedStates,howevertherearenumerousothernon-infringingcomeroptimizersandrelatedproductsatitsfacilityinFortCollins,Colorado,whichispri0issuedpatents,adingproductsionandplaysafundamentalroleinloweringthecostsoflarge-scalesolarenergyproduction,saidLeventGun,llyusingour,wearestandingupforouremployees,customersandpartners,aswellastheprinciplesoffaircompetitionandr,ThiscomplaintseekstoblockSolarrEdgeisviolatingourintellectualpropertyandthat,,673,630and11,289,,Amptass,,605,498,7,719,140,10,608,437,10,886,746,11,070,062and11,070,063.

OnJuly11,theDelhiHCrestrainedaBengaluru-basedcakeryfromusingthenameFacebakeorFacecake,oranyotherFacebook-relatedtrademarkforitsproductsandservicesThecourtintheSnapdealcasealsodirectedDomainNameRegistrarstocreateamechanismforbrandstoseekcancellationortransferofdomainnamesthatinfringetrademarkIndiascurrentlawsthatgoverntrademarkinfringementsincludetheTrademarkAct,1999,whichwasdevelopedtocomplywiththeTRIPSagreementoftheWTOTru-basedcakeryfromusingthenameFacebakeorFacecake,,JusticeNavinChawla,whowashearingthecase,orderedthebakerytodeliverallfinishedandunfinishedproductsbearingthetrademarksimilartoMeta,theparentcompanyofFacebook,,theCourtalsoawardedINR50,,£¨DNRs£©oughttocreateamechanismviawhichtrademarkownerscouldapproachtheDNRsandsec,whileDNRsarecompaniesthatallowuserstoregisterthem,suchasGoDaddy,Namecheap,oumthathasseeninfringementcasesfiledleft,,manybrandswithnomanufacturingaddressespopulatethestreetsandcorners,,itisdifficulttotrackthesedubiousoperatorsinmostcases.

TheSupremeCourtwillhearanongoingcopyrightcasebetweenSwedishfastfashiongiantHMandpattern-makingcompanyUnicolors,ent,aswellasthefindingsofothercircuitsandtheCopyrightOfficeinholdingthattheCopyrightActrequiresadistrictcourttoseekguidancefromtheCopyrightOfficewhentherearequestionsaboutthevalidityofacopyrightregistrationbutnoevid,accusingthefastfashionbehemothofinfringingoneofitsgeometricpatterns¨Cbywayofa¡°remarkablysimilar¡±print¨C,inwhichajuryfoundthatHMhadwillfullyinfringedUnicolors¡¯scopyright-protectedpattern,andawardedthepatterncompany$846,720indamages,attorney¡¯sfees,andcosts,¡¯sappealwasitsclaimthatUnicolorslacksavalidcopyrightregistrationforthefabricpatternatthecenterofthecasebecauseUnicolorshadimpher,makingthemanappropriate¡°singleunit¡±foronecollectivecopyrightapplicationandregistration,HMclaimedthatUnicolorsactuallysoldsomeofthepatternsseparatelytodifferentcustomers¨Catdifferenttimes,thereby,makingthecompany¡¯,2020,theNinthCircuitreversedthejuryverdictandsidedwithHMonthebasisthatthereisnointent-to-defraudrequirementforreg¡ì411(b)(2)¨CwhichrequiresdistrictcourtstoasktheRegisterofCopyrightswhetherregistrationwouldhavebeenrefusediftheCopyrightOfficehadknowntheinformationwasinaccurate¨CwhenitdidnotreferthemattertotheCopyrightOfficeafterHMallegedthattheregistrationcontainsinac,andUnicolorsfiledapetitionforawritofcertiorari,¡¯spetition,theNinthCircuitgotthecasewrong,asthejudges¡¯rulingconcerningthetimelineofthepublicationoftheworkscoveredbythesingle-unitcopyrightregistrationwas¡°flawedbecausetherewasnoevidencesupporting[their]conclusionthatthedesignswereseparatelypublishedbeforecertaindesignswerecategorizedasconfinedinUnicolors¡¯registrationcertificate.¡±Withthatinmind,Unicolorsclaimedthattherewas¡°insufficientevidencetodeduceany¡ì411(b).¡±¡°Thepanel¡¯¡ì411(b)wasalsoflawed,¡±accordingtoUnicolorsbecause¡°manycourts,legislativeandadministrativeauthorities,andtheleadingcopyrighttreatisehaveuniformlyinterpretedthePrioritizingResourcesandOrganizationforIntellectualPropertyActof2008¡­tocodifythedoctrineoffraudontheCopyrightOfficeandthus,toallowinvalidationundersection411(b)onlywhentheregistrantisshowntohaveactedinbadfaithorintendedtodefraudtheCopyrightOffice.¡±LookingaheadtotheSupremeCourt¡¯sconsiderationofthecase,ractitionersthatthesection411(b)issueis¡°ripeforreview,¡±particularlygiventhatdisputesaboutcopyrightregistrationerrors¨Cwhichcanstemfrom¡°anumberoffactors,includingunclearguidanceaboutregistrationrules,asimplemisunderstandingofwhattheapplicationrequiresand,mostrelevanttotheissueathand,purposefulorknowinginaccuracies¡±¨Care¡°commoninlitigation.¡±MeanwhileFinneganattorneysSamuelEichnerandMargaretEsquenethavenotedthatingrantingcertiorari,theSupremeCourtmaybelookingto¡°resolveanapparentcircuitsplitontheissueofwhetherthereisanintent-to-defraudrequirementbeforeareferralismadetotheCopyrightOfficeunderSection411(b).¡±Atthesametime,theCourtmayalsobeaiming¡°toclarifythestrengthofacopyrightregistration¡¯spresumptivevalidityand/ortheextenttowhichtheCopyrightActrequirescourtstodefertoCopyrightOfficedeterminationsundersection411(b)(2)astowhetherinaccuracies,ifknown,wouldhavecausedtheCopyrightOfficetorefuseregistration.¡±Ultimately,EichnerandEsquenetassertthatbecauseintenttodefraudisgenerallydifficulttoprove,¡°theSupremeCourt¡¯sdecisionshouldhaveasignificantimpactonthestrengthofcopyrightregistrations¡±¨Cwhicharenowprerequisitestofilingcopyrightinfringementactions¨C¡°andtheirsusceptibilitytovalidityattacksbasedonperceivedinaccuraciesinregistrations.¡±Assuch,thedecisionhasthepotentialtoimpactcopyrightapplicationpractices.

Summary:ChieflawyerXuXinmingactingfortheplaintiffs,FuruiStainlessSteelWaterTowerFactoryofXinchengDistrict,HuaiYuanCounty,(HuaiyuanFuruiFactory)anFuruiShowerEquipmentCo.,Ltd(ZhongshanFraeCompany).OnJuly11,2014,BeijingFirstIntermediatePeoplesCourthandeddowndecisionnumber4321quashingthedecisi¸£Èð(Furui)trademarkandorderedth,,Europe,,2004,HuaiyuanFuruiFactorywasestablishedinXinchengDistrict,HuaiyuanCounty,¸£Èð(Furui)brandedproductssuchaswatertowers,pressurewatertanks,solarwaterheaters,¸£Èð(Furui)¸£Èð(Furui)trademark,HuaiyuanFuruiFactoryappliedforregistrationnumber7405468ofthe¸£Èð(Furui)trademarkwiththeStateTrademarkOfficeunderthespecificuseofgoodsinclass11:watertowers,pressurewatertanks,solarwaterheaters,etc,.Withinthestatutorytimelimitpermittedforobjections,ZhongshanFraeCompanyfiledanobjectionagainstHuaiyu,2012,theStateTradem,20,2013,ZhongshanFraeCompanyappliedtotheTrademarkReviewandAdjudicationBoardtoreviewtheirdecisionandaskedthattheStateTrademarkOfficenotapprovetheapplicationforregistrationofthe¸£Èð(Furui)trademarkbyHuaiyuanFuruiFactoryonthebasisthattheirproducts,salescontracts,advertising,marketingandotherforeignmarketactivitiesusewords¸£ÈðFraeandimagesandassuch,irtradenamerightsthroughpreemptivelyregisteringthe¸£Èð(Furui),2014,TheTrademarkReviewandAdjudicationBoardupheldtheclaimsofZhongshanFraeCompanyandruledthatthe¸£Èð(Furui)ethemandaftercomparingseveral,chosetoretainXuXinming,theChiefLawyeroftheChinaIntellectualPropertyLawyersNet().Aftercarefullyresearchingthecase,LawyerXufiledalawsuitattheBeijingFirstIntermediatePeoplesCourtonthebasisthatthemainevidencesubmittedbyZhongshanFraeCom:onofthe¸£Èð(Furui),theplaintiffswerenotawareofthetradenameofZhongshanFraeCompanyanditwasnotpossiblethatZhongshanFraeCompany,sinceinception,HuaiyuanFuruiFactoryhasbeenusingthemark¸£Èð(Furui)onallitsproducts,therefore,HuaiyuanFuruiFactoryhadabonafide,legitimaterighttohavethe¸£Èð(Furui),HuaiyuanFuruiFactoryhasusedthe¸£Èð(Furui),theplaintiffhasestablishedabusinessintheoperationofwatertowers,pressurewatertanks,solarwaterheaters,¸£Èð(Furui)and¸£Èð(Furui),the¸£Èð(Furui)mngshanFraeCompanyinthe¸£Èð(Furui),¸£Èð(Furui)markwerentinfluencedbyorexcludedbytheuseofthes,ZhongshanFraeCompanyhardlyeverusedtheChinesetradename¸£Èð£¨Furui£©,therearbetweendifferentgoodswhilstthetradenameisusedtoidentifytheenterprise,¸£Èð(Furui),the¸£Èð(Furui)markhasbeenlinkedtoHuaiyuanFuruiFactoryanditisunlikelythatt,thefirsta,Chineseleg,theplaintiffsandZhongshanFraeCompanybothusedthesametradename¸£Èð(Furui)whiletheplaintiffsalsoused¸£Èð(Furui)¸£Èð(Furui)markfirst,theninaccordancewiththeabovelegalprinciple,theTradciplewhenitoverruledtheplaintiffsapplicationforregistrationofthe¸£Èð(Furui),theTrademark,2014,theBeijingFirstIntermediatePeoplesCourtheldapublichearingofthiscaseandonJuly11,2014,iewandAdjudicationBoardandorderedittoreconsiderthecasefromthebeginning.

ÔçÉÏ7µãÍõ¾ê¾Íµ½Á˺½ÔËÐ¡ÇøÖµÊØµã£¬Ã¿ÌìµÄ¹¤×÷¾ÍÊÇÅŲ顢²âΡ¢µÇ¼Ç¡¢Ïû¶¾£¬ËäÖܶø¸´Ê¼£¬µ«Ò²±ØÐë¼þ¼þÂäʵ£¬²»ÄÜÊè©һÈË¡£

UtahscookiecompetitioncontinuedonJuly13whenDirtyDoughandCraveCo,foundedinLoganbySawyerHemsleyandJasonMcGowan,filedalawsuitagainstDirtyDough,acookiebusinessthatstartedinTempe,Arizona,,aCrumblinsiderleftCrumbltofoundDirtyDough,whichsellsandpromotescookiesusingpackaging,decor,andpresentationthatisconfusinglysim,whosbrotherwasaCrumblemployee,toldTheHerald,youguysknowthatDirtyDoughwasalreadystartedin2018,,Ithinkwerethemostdifferent,..,,bigsupporter,Maxwellsaid,expla,allofasuddenoutofnowhere¡­wegethitwithalawsuit,,,,wellseeiftheywanttotalk¡­whatsthesolutionhereMaxwellsaid,,wereachedouttothem¡ªtoldthemweacceptedcounsel,,,anothercookiecompanythathascometoUtah,,afterCrumbldeniedanapplicationbyCravesfoundertobecomeaCrumblfranchisee,Cravebegansellingandpromotingitscopycatgourmetcookies,Crumblscomplaintreadsbeforealletailsofthevaluablegoodwill,reputation,ontobecomeaCrumblefranchiseeorthatCraveisinviolationofanyofCrumblsallegedtrademarks,tradedress,orotherintellectualpropertyrights,rattemptbyathreatenedcompetitortousealawsuittostiflefairandfreecompetitionanddenyconsumersachoiceofproducts,Englishsaidinastatementto,,orelsewhywouldnttheytalkwithusorsendacease-and-desistletter,,,Maxwellsaid,,hesaid,,Crumblsaidtheyareprotectingtheirsuccess:Asafranchisorof30,000+CrumblCrewmembers,1,000+FranchisePartners,andhundredsofCrumblHQemployees,wewillalwaystakeseriouslyourroleinbuildingandprotectingthecompanyanditstrademarksthatweveallworkedsohardtocreatetogether.

Clearingtheaironlabyrinthinesubject-mattereligibilitystandardsforcomputer-implementedinventions(CIIs),a,,thecourt,whilesettinganewtest,rejected,forthesecondtime,aproblem-solutionapproachtoclaimconstructionfollowedbytheCanadianIntellectualPropertyOffice(CIPO)entsfindingtwoCanadianPatentApplicantsnumbered2,695,130and2,695,146aspatentineligibleundersections2and27(8)(IPIC),anIPpolicyadvocacyorganization,intervenedintheappealproceedings,affiinesinventiontoincludeanynewandusefulart,process,machine,(8),however,,2000SCC66,theSupremeCourtofCanadaclarifiedthatbeforeassessingsubject-mattereligibility,essentialeleme,whereinonlythoseelementsinclaimsthatwerenecessarytosolveth,,CIPOintroducedaPracticeNote,titledExaminationPracticeRespectingComputer-ImplementedInventions,whichindicatedthatifacomputercomponentisfoundtobeanessentialelement,,iftheessentialelementslackanyphysicality,(AttorneyGeneral),2020FC837,CIPOintroducedanewPracticeNoteinNovember2020,titledPatentableSubject-MatterunderthePatentAct,whichnotedthatinordertobepatent-eligible,thecomputercomponentsmustcooperatewithotherelementsoftheclaimedinvention,andthatactualinventioncations,bothtitledColorSelectionSystem,filedbyBenjaminMooreCo.,icalequationthatmodeledhumanpsychologicalperceptionstocolor,associatingacoloremotionscoretovariouscolorsinadatabase,andselecti,bothpatentapplicationswererejectedbyExaminersforencompassingnon-statutorysubject-matter,,theExaminer,uponpurposivelyconstruingtheclaims,,asnotedbytheExaminer,includedcalculatinghumanpsychophysicalperceptionvaluestocolorelementsbasedonmathematicalmodels,andothe,eviewedbyathree-memberPatentAppealBoard,,theApplicantreliedonFreeWorldTrustinemphasizingthatcomputercomponentscau,theApplicantclaimed,theApplicantconcededthatnoattemptwasmadetosolveac,however,concludedthatidentifyingamathematicalcorrelationbetweencolorsandhumanemotiveresponsestoaidcolorselectionwasnotatechnicalproblemforsubject-matterconsiderations,andcompsionerofPatents1981,FCA204,thatuseofcomputersforconduct,theBoardagreedwiththeExaminerandnotedthattheessentialelements,,theAppellantchallengedtheCommissionersclaimcons,Appellantargued,wouldhavebeenidentifyingclaimelementsthathaveamater,theCommissionerhadincorrectlyconcludedthattheremainingcationssuchasidentifyingadjacencyofcolorpairs,storingthecolorlibrary,,,,thePracticeN,theCommissionersapproachofconsideringonlythenovelelementsintheclaimsasessenti,theofficeoftheAttorneyGeneralofCanada(AGC)incorrectbutsoughttoremittheapplicationsbacktotheCommissi,theRespondentarguedthatjudicialinterventionwouldbeprematureastheCommissionerdidnothavetheopportunitytoconsidertheAppeyhavingtheexpert,theRespondentcontendedthata,implementingascientificprincipleormathematicaltheoremonagen,IPIC,generallyalignedwiththeAppellantspositionandca,CIPOstendencyo,gdetrimentaltoCIIs,ntedworldwide,,notingmaterialeffecnon-essentialandallegi,theIntervenorrequestedthecourttore-cessiontotheproblem-so,includingWhirlpoolCorpvCamcoInc,2000SCC67,FreeWorldTrust,andCanada(AttorneyGeneral),2011FCA328thecourtheldthatnoneofthedecisionssuggestaproblem-solutionapproach,andins,wheretheproblem-solutionapproachwasdiscredited,andaddedthatpracticalapplicationofs,theproblem-solutionapproach,consideringonlynovelaspectsofclaimsinsubject-matteranalysis,andholdingcomputercomponentsasnon-essentialfornotsolvingacomputerproblem,ectmatter,thecourtacceptedtheframeworksuggestedbytheIntervenor,isasfollows:Purposivelyconstruetheclaim;Askwhethertheconstruedclaimasawholeconsistsofonlyamerescientificprincipleorabstracttheorem,orwhetheritcomprisesapracticalapplicationthatemploysascientificprincipleorabstracttheorem;andIftheconstruedclaimcomprisesapracticalapplication,assesstheconstruedclaimfortheremainingpatentabilitycriteria:statutorycategoriesandjudicialexclusions,aswellasnovelty,obviousness,ifyingessentialclaimelements,thecourthasdirectedthatclaimsshouldbeassessed,CIPOsrequirementthatapplicationsinvolvingCIIsmu,CIPOspracticeoflimitingthesubject-matterassessmentonlytonovelele,abrightlinetowardscon

PlayboyEnterprisesInternationalIncexpresseditsappreciationforthefairnessandefficiencyofChinasjudicialauthoritiesinthehandlingofintellectualpropertycasesaftertheUScompanysvictoryinacampaignagainsttheillegaluseinChinaofoneofitstrademarks,sCourtruledthatthedefendantShanghaiBaotuInvestmentandManagementLtdsrepeatedinfringementofPlayboy,saidWilliamRosoff,managingpartneroftheBeijingofficeofAkinGumpStraussHauerFeldLLP,theUSlawfirmrepresentingPlayboy,tostealPlayboylegalsystemwillprotecttherightsofIPholders,,thecapitalofAnhuiprovince,,themanagingpartnerofBeijingLawjayPartnersandoneofPlayboyslocalcounselsinthelawsuit,saidtheHefeiintermediatecourthasahistoryofhandlinglitigationcases,citingthecaseofLousCourtrankedthecaseamongChinasauthorizationtousethePlayboyICONbrand,presentingalicenseagreementandtwosshareholder,LinXiance,andwithHongKongICONDesignerBrandsLtdandanotherlocalcompanyin2012,ayafixedsumand,inreturn,SINOwasallowedtoholdhalfofHongKongICON,asSINOonlypaidaportionoftheupfrontpaymentagreedon,andfailedtopaytherest,udicialVerificationCenterandtherelevantrulesonevidence,thecourtrefusedtoacceptthelegitimacyofeithertheso-calledtrademarklicenseagreementandthetwopurportedauthorizationlettersthatShanghaiBaotupresentedtothecourtinsupportofitsclaimtohaveobtainedpermissiontousePlayboy,anditisaveryimportantmarketforthecompany,$,includingadministrativeandcriminalenforcement,toprotecttherightsandinterestsofPlayboyslegitimatelicenseesanddistributorsinChina.

TheCantonFair,oneoftheworldslargesttradeshowsthatkickedoffonThursdayinGuangzhou,SouthChinasGuangdongProvince,islocatedinthePazhouarea,agrowingindustrialclusterofinformationtechnology,artificialintelligence,industrialInternetandotherinnovativetechnologies,whereover30,000companieshavesettled,includingAlibaba,Tencent,Xiaomi,,laboratoriesarealsomovingintotheregiontoenhanceresearchanddevelopment(RD).PazhouLab,orAIDEGuangdongProvinceLab(GZ),nomyfortheGuangdong-HongKong-MacaoGreaterBayArea,andvowstobeahubofscienceandtechnologyinnovation,YuanZiwei,apublicityagentofthePazhouLab,,whichcansolvethecoreproblemsofintelligentsystems,,vicedirectoroftheBeijingEconomicOperationAssociation,toldtheGlobalTimesthattheconstructionoflaboratoriesandindustrialparkswillhelpGuangdong,andShenzheninparticular,addressitsshortcomingsineducationandresearch,thussupportingGua,HanJiuqiang,aprofessorofXianJiaotongUniversity,wasoneoftheexperts,,aspeoplesconsumptionlevelishigher,resultinginmorepursuitanddemandforniche,personalizedproducts,,,wehavetohavemachinesandrobotsthatcandodifferentthingsatthesametime,andthatrequiresalotmorefro,,allsmartdevicestodayarenotreallysmart,becausethesemachinesandrobotsareonlycapableoflearning,,forexample,isverygoodatplayingchess,,,ontheotherhand,telligent,,butitstillneedstimetorealizeinindustrialproduction,,ofwhichindependentlydevelopedandproducedintelligentsteelprocessingequipmenthavebeenwidelyusedincivilengineeringfieldssuchashighways,,America,theMiddleEast,SoutheastAsia,SouthAfricaandotherinternationalmarkets,,,whichisthecoreofthesmartmachineryandequipment,,utilitymodelpatentsandsoftwarecopyrightinthefieldofintelligentconstruction,tmentaregreatburdensforenterprises,,theoriginalinnovationofhigh-techinthesmartfield,suchasthethirdgenerationofthesemiconductor,AIandmechanicalautomation,isquitedifficult,,resourcesinmanyfieldsofindustry,,supporttheoreticalresearch,andfinally,completetheprocessfromtheorytoindustrialpractice,ZhangXiaorong,directoroftheBeijing-basedCutting-EdgeTechnologyResearchInstitute,,andmakethecountryconcentrateonresearch,,whatChinaneedstostrengthenisitstheoreticalresearch.

,aChinesesmartwatchmaker¨CPutianDoumaofirmhastriedofusingtheHuaweilogoanditsnamewithsomesmartwatchestoselltheminitsstoreduetowhichthelegallawsuitshaveorderedthecompanytocompensate2millionyuan(),,,bracelets,andmoresold,,suchtypeofbehav,thedefendantbeginsarguingthatsuchterm,:Theevalua,thedefendantsdefensethatthewordHuaweiusesinadescriptivemannercannotestablish,,thedefendantsuseofofficialwebsitemoneyandofficialupgrademoneyintheproductintrodu,thecourthascommandedthedefendanttocompensateforthelossofHuaweiassoonaspossible.

¡°Themostsuccessfulpartieschoosetheirbattleswisely,¡±saysTheHonorableGerardRogers,ChiefAdministrativeTrademarkJudgeattheTrademarkTrialandAppealBoard(TTAB),abodywithintheUnitedStatesPatentandTrademarkOffice(USPTO).HavingservedinvariousrolesontheTTABformorethan25years,JudgeRogersispanshavebeendeniedbytheUSPTO,,partieshavebeenknowntopushtheirluck.¡°TrialsaresometimespursuedbecausethepartieshaveissuesoutsidetheTTABthatthey¡¯regrapplingwithand,itappearstous,theythinkitwillgivethemanotherleveragepointtodealwiththeirdifferences.¡±JudgeRogerssayshehasseencaseswherepartieshavenotproperlyfollowedtheTTAB¡¯sManualofProcedure,,regulatory,anddecisionalauthoritythatisrelevanttotheTTAB.¡°Therehavebeenappealsandtrialcasesthathavebeenlostbutcouldhavebeenwon,duetoafailuretofollowtherules,¡±saysJudgeRogers.¡°Manypractitionersfailtofollowtheguidanceonwhatevidencecanbeprobative.¡±JudgeRogersaddsthatit¡°neverhurts¡±toremindstakeholderstobecognizantoftherulesthattheTTABisrequiredtoapply¡ªaswellastheissuesitmustignore¡ª,theTTABoftencannottakeintoaccountparticularsrelatingtouseofatrademarkinthemarketplace,¡°Wehavetoignorethatinformation,yetpeoplebringittousallthetime,¡±,just30percentareexparteappeals,,appealsaccountfor75percentofcasesultimatelydecidedonthemerits,sowhatmightexplainthelargeswingJudgeRogerssaysthatpetitionsforcancellationandoppositionaresimilartocourtdisputesinthatasettlementisavailableand,ifthatoptionisused,¡°fewertrialcasesrequiredispositiononthemeritsasthepartieshaveworkeditout.¡±Inasmallpercentageofcases,apartymight¡°misbehave¡±andbesanctioned,whichcouldalsoleadtothecasebeingterminated,ppositionscanbemuchmoreexpensivethanappealsfromexaminerrefusals,soalotofcasesareneverpursuedbeyondtheinitialstages,,whichcaninvolveplentyofbackandforthbetweentheparties,includingondiscoveryandmotionpractice,,incontrast,¡°whentheattorneyfilesthenoticeofappealthereisnotmuchelsetodootherthanfilethebriefs,¡±,ofteninwrittenratherthanoralform,¡°sothere¡¯snotmuchaddedexpensetohaveanattorneypursueanappeal.¡±MoreAppealsJudgeRogersnotesthattrademarkapplicationfilingswiththeUSPTOhaverisenyear-on-yearforeightyears,so¡°thismeansmoreappealsandoppositionsandtheneedtoincreasethestafftohandlethatwork.¡±ernsabouttheBoard¡¯,seResolution(ACR)procedure,,theTTABseekstoexpediteproceedingsby,amongotherthings,activelyencouragingpartiestoconsiderplacinglimitsondiscoveryandtestimony,andadoptingmoreefficientaltern,forexample,hesaysthat,whileattorneyshaveindividualresponsibilityforcasesontheirdockets,theTTAB¡¯smanagingattorneywillreassigncaseswithpendingmotionsonamoneeditsperformancetargets,saysJudgeRogers,despitealargevariationinthecomplexityofcases,2weeksofthecasebeingreadytodecide,saysJudgeRogers(readyfordecisionmeansafterallbriefingisdoneandthecaseissubmittedbyaBoardparalegaltotheChiefJudgeforassignment,orafteroralargument,ifoneisrequested).¡°Wehaverepeatedlybeatenthisgoal,¡±veragependency(fromcommencementtocompletion)ofexparteappealsforthelastfiveyearsinarow,withthatpendencymeasurefallingintrialcasesforfiveofthepastsixyears.¡°JudgeRogersexplainsthatstakeholdershavelongexpressedapreferencefortheTTABtoremain¡°amorerelaxedalternativetolitigationinfederaldistrictcourts,¡±whereextension,,,,Inc.,ntdistrictcourtlitigationbetweenthesamepartiesthatlitigatedanearliercasebeforetheTTAB,aslongasthe¡°ordinaryelements¡±,JudgeRogerssaysitsimpactontheTTABhasbeen¡°almostnone.¡±However,hedoesnotethatitwasaverypositiverulingfortrademarkownersasit¡°¡±HenotesthatmanyTTABcasesaresettledandthatevenwhentheyarenot,,headds,theissuesthattheTTABanddistrictcourtsadjudicateareoftendifferent(,thesubsequentdistrictcourtcaseverylikelywouldconsideradditionalissuesrelatingtouseinthemarketplace).¡°Therewasalotoftalkthat,becauseofthepossibilityofissuepreclusion,partiesshouldtakemorediscoveryandintroducemoreevidenceattheTTAB.¡°ButIsay:issuepreclusionisunlikelytoariseinallbuttherarestofcases,¡¯tintroducemorediscoverythanusual,anddon¡¯tincreaseyourcostsandfilealotofirrelevantevidencethatwouldhaveabearinginadistrictcourtbutwhichisnotrelevanttoouranalysis.¡±¡¯advice;,JudgeRogers,whohasbeeninhiscurrentpositionsinceNovember2010,saysthereisa¡°realvarietyandthingscancomeuponanygivenday.¡±Histimeincludesmeetingwiththeapproximately70membersoftheTTABstaff,whichincludesjudges,attorneys,thatthejudgesarecontinually,andhestressestheimportanceofworkinginharmony.¡°WeworkcloselywiththeSolicitor¡¯sOffice;theywillbeinthepositionofdefendingvariousBoarddecisionsbeforetheFederalCircuit,sowewanttoputtheminthebestpositionpossible,¡±¡¯sOffice,JudgeRogersexplains,canrelaytotheTTABtheque¡¯smostseniorjudgemaybehisprimaryrole,JudgeRog¡¯sstaffareitsbiggeststrength,saysthejudge.¡°Ifindthetimetoremindouremployeesofwhatgreatworktheydo,¡±ursandstress¡ªhisbicycle.¡°FormanyyearsIhaveriddentenmileseachwaytotheofficeandback;itprovidesabufferbetweenworkandhomelife.¡±

OnJuly11,theDelhiHCrestrainedaBengaluru-basedcakeryfromusingthenameFacebakeorFacecake,oranyotherFacebook-relatedtrademarkforitsproductsandservicesThecourtintheSnapdealcasealsodirectedDomainNameRegistrarstocreateamechanismforbrandstoseekcancellationortransferofdomainnamesthatinfringetrademarkIndiascurrentlawsthatgoverntrademarkinfringementsincludetheTrademarkAct,1999,whichwasdevelopedtocomplywiththeTRIPSagreementoftheWTOTru-basedcakeryfromusingthenameFacebakeorFacecake,,JusticeNavinChawla,whowashearingthecase,orderedthebakerytodeliverallfinishedandunfinishedproductsbearingthetrademarksimilartoMeta,theparentcompanyofFacebook,,theCourtalsoawardedINR50,,£¨DNRs£©oughttocreateamechanismviawhichtrademarkownerscouldapproachtheDNRsandsec,whileDNRsarecompaniesthatallowuserstoregisterthem,suchasGoDaddy,Namecheap,oumthathasseeninfringementcasesfiledleft,,manybrandswithnomanufacturingaddressespopulatethestreetsandcorners,,itisdifficulttotrackthesedubiousoperatorsinmostcases.

UtahscookiecompetitioncontinuedonJuly13whenDirtyDoughandCraveCo,foundedinLoganbySawyerHemsleyandJasonMcGowan,filedalawsuitagainstDirtyDough,acookiebusinessthatstartedinTempe,Arizona,,aCrumblinsiderleftCrumbltofoundDirtyDough,whichsellsandpromotescookiesusingpackaging,decor,andpresentationthatisconfusinglysim,whosbrotherwasaCrumblemployee,toldTheHerald,youguysknowthatDirtyDoughwasalreadystartedin2018,,Ithinkwerethemostdifferent,..,,bigsupporter,Maxwellsaid,expla,allofasuddenoutofnowhere¡­wegethitwithalawsuit,,,,wellseeiftheywanttotalk¡­whatsthesolutionhereMaxwellsaid,,wereachedouttothem¡ªtoldthemweacceptedcounsel,,,anothercookiecompanythathascometoUtah,,afterCrumbldeniedanapplicationbyCravesfoundertobecomeaCrumblfranchisee,Cravebegansellingandpromotingitscopycatgourmetcookies,Crumblscomplaintreadsbeforealletailsofthevaluablegoodwill,reputation,ontobecomeaCrumblefranchiseeorthatCraveisinviolationofanyofCrumblsallegedtrademarks,tradedress,orotherintellectualpropertyrights,rattemptbyathreatenedcompetitortousealawsuittostiflefairandfreecompetitionanddenyconsumersachoiceofproducts,Englishsaidinastatementto,,orelsewhywouldnttheytalkwithusorsendacease-and-desistletter,,,Maxwellsaid,,hesaid,,Crumblsaidtheyareprotectingtheirsuccess:Asafranchisorof30,000+CrumblCrewmembers,1,000+FranchisePartners,andhundredsofCrumblHQemployees,wewillalwaystakeseriouslyourroleinbuildingandprotectingthecompanyanditstrademarksthatweveallworkedsohardtocreatetogether.

DebevoisePlimptonLLPhassecuredavictoryforDiamondHandsConsulting(DHC)intheSouthernDistrictofNewYorkonJuly20whenJudgeRonnieAbramsgrantedDHCsmotionsforpreliminaryinjuncocialmediaplatformsandwebsites,wherecryptocurrencyenthusiastscangathertodiscusstokens,platforms,,anditsforumsbecamefamouswiththeriseofmemecoinslikeDogecoininearly2021,garne¨CayearafterDHCsfirstuseofitstrademark¨Cthreeco-conspiratorsfromNewYork,Wisconsin,andNorthCarolinabeganacompetingseriesofforumsusingtheexactsamename,andtwodefendantsultimatelylaunchedaninfringingSatoshiStreetBetscryptocurrencyunderthemoniker$,JudgeRonnieAbramsissuedpreliminaryinjunctionsagainstallthreedefendantsonJuly20,findingthatDHChadestablishedalikelihoodofsuccessonthemeritsastoitsclaimsandspecificallyholdingthatDHCsrightsintheSatoshiStreetBetsbrandforprovidingcryptocurrencyinformationserviceseseincommerceoftheSatoshiStreetBetstrademarkpriortoanyofthedefendants(eventhoug),$SSB,JudgeAbramsalsoorderedthedefendantstoturnoveralloftheirinfringingsocialmediaaccountsforthedurationofthelitigation,anddeclinedtorequireanybond.

ASouthAfricanjudgmentdealin,,however,(Pty)(the¡°organiser¡±)inthiscaseorganisesacharitableeventthattakestheformofasleep-out¨Cbusinessleadersareaskedfordonationsandthey¡¯rerequestedtosleepoutdoorsonawinter¡¯st(the¡°charity¡±).Intheprocessoforganisingthefirstsleep-out,theorganiserestablishedanelectronicdatabase,whichcameaboutbecauseeverydonorhadtoregisterontheorganiser¡¯¡¯tforeseenwasthatcertaincompanieswouldwanttopaybyelectronicfundstransfer(¡°EFT¡±).Toaccommodatethesecompanies,,,infact,createdbyanemployeeofthecharity,andthisemployeewasalsoresponsibleforinputtingthedonors¡¯rdidn¡¯ved,theorganiserandthecharityagreedthatalldonationswouldbepaiddirectlyintothebankaccountofthecharity,whichhadthenece,thecharitymadeuseoftheelectronicdatabase,,theorganiserarrangedfurthersleep-outs,butontheseoccasions,,thecharitystart,,erSouthAfricancopyrightlawasa¡°literarywork¡±.Thissomewhatmisleadingtermisdefinedtoinclude¡±tablesandcompilationsofdatastoredorembodiedinacomputer¡±.Thejudgewentontosaythatinordertoenjoycopyrightprotection,aliteraryworkmustbe¡°original¡±.(Pty)LtdvSaundersValveCompanyLtd,thecourtsaidthatforthepurposesofcopyright,¡°allthatisrequiredisthattheworkshouldemanatefromtheauthorhimselfandnotbecopied.¡±InHauptt/aSoftcopyvBrewersMarketingIntelligence(Pty)LtdandOthers,thecourtheldthataworkisoriginalifithasnotbeencopiedfromanexistingsource,andifitsproductionrequiredasubstantialdegreeofskill,,1978,theauthoroftheliteraryworkistheownerofthecopyrightunlessthecopyrighthasbeenassignedand,ifgeneratedbyacomputer,theauthoristhepe,,thecontributionofthecharity¡¯semployeedidnotmeettheoriginalitytest,astheformthatitsemployeehadcreatedforEFTpayerswassubstantial¡°nosubstantialdegreeofskill,judgementorlabour¡±.Thejudgewentontomakeanumberoffurtherpoints:theformforEFTpaymentswas¡°ancillary¡±tothedatabase:¡°butforitsincorporationonthewebsitetherespondentwouldnothavehadthemeanstocollectthedataitclaimstohavecollectedinthemanneritcollectedit...forthatreasonitwouldbeabsurdtoseparatethemanualformfromthewebsite.¡±eveniftheemployeehadinnovatedtheideaofEFTpayments,thisdidnotelevatethecharity¡°tothestatusofapersonwhomadearrangementsnecessaryforthecreationofthewebsite¡±.Thecharityneeded¡°theconcurrenceoftheapplicant¡±,andwithoutthisit¡°wouldnothavebeenabletocollectthedataitclaimstoown¡±.thepurposeoftheEFTinnovationwassimplytomakeitpossiblefordonorstopaybyEFTandgettaxexemptioncertificates,,soitsclaimtobeingapartnerwas¡°absurd¡±.Thejudgeconcludedthatgivingthecharitythestatusofanauthorofthedatabaseonthebasisofdatamanuallyaddedtothedatabasethatisautomaticallygeneratedfromthewebsitewouldbean¡°overbroadinterpretation¡±.Theorganiserwast(injunction).Ifthere¡¯salessontobelearnedfromthiscase,it¡¯sthis:copyrightissuesneedtobeconsideredandclarifiedrightfromthestart.

ÒòΪÎÒÃÇÒ²ºÜˬ¿ì£¬±¨¼Û³öÀ´´ó¸Å¿´ÁËһϣ¬´òÁ˸öÕÛ£¬Ã»ÎÊÌâ¸ôÌì¾Í°ÑºÏͬǩÁË£¬ÎÒ¶¼¾õµÃÎÒÃÇÕâЧÂÊÕæµÄÊǸܸܵġ£

2016Ä꣬Öì±û·åͶ×ÊÊ®¶àÍòÔª£¬Ôھɴ岿µÄÎ÷²à½¨Æð200ƽ·½Ã×µÄÁÙʱ»î¶¯°å·¿×÷Ϊ¡°ÎÄÒÕС»áÌá±£¬Ð¡»áÌó¤ÓжþÊ®ÁùÆßÃ×£¬¿íÓа˾ÅÃ×£¬ÉèÓиüÒÂÊÒ¡¢Ë®ÄàÎę̀£¬Îę̀ÉÏÓÐºìµØÌº£¬ÎèÌ¨Ç°Ãæ°Ú·Å×ÅÕûÆëµÄ¼òÒ×Ô²µÊ£¬¿É¹©300¶àÈ˹ۿ´½ÚÄ¿¡£

13.ÈâÆ¤¶³£¬Qµ¯½îµÀÈëζ£¬É«Ïãζ¾ã¼Ñ£¡Ð¡ÇÏÃÅ£º1¡¢ÈâÆ¤ÄÚ²à»áÓÐÉÙÁ¿·ÊÈ⣬´Ó¿Ú¸ÐÉϽ²¿É²»È¥µô£¬´Ó½¡¿µ½Ç¶È¿¼ÂÇ¿ÉÈ¥µô£¬Õâ¸ö¿ÉËæ¸öÈËϲºÃ¾ö¶¨£»Àûµ¶¿ÉÖ±½Ó½«ÉúµÄ·ÊÈâ¸îµô£¬Èç¹ûµ¶²»·æÀû»òÕßµ¶¹¦²î£¬¿É½«Õû¿éÈâÆ¤ÖóÊì±äÉ«À̳ö£¬ÉÔÁÀÁ¹¿ÉÇáËÉÇеô·ÊÈâ¡£

Thoseplansarelikelytobedraftedbytheinternet¡¯sglobaldomainnameorganisation,theInternetCorporationforAssignedNamesandNumbers(ICANN),aftertheEuropeanDataProtectionBoard(EDPB)effectivelysaiditneedstogobacktothedrawingboardtomakeitsrulesaroundthecollectionanduseofWHOISdatacompliantwiththeGeneralDataProtectionRegulation(GDPR).TheWHOISsystemInformationthatservestoidentifythepeoplebehinddomainnameregistrationsispublishedontheWHOISsystem,internet,butisalsousedbylredawebsiteofferingcounterfeitgoodswhichinfringetheirtrademarkrights,orsi,theanydomainnameregistrarstotakeaconservativeapproachtotheemptedtoenforcethetermsofitscontractualagreementwithadomainn,domainnameregistrarEPAGDomainservicessuccessfullyfoughtoffabidfromICANNtoforceittocollectthepersonaldataoftechnicalandadmctionofthecontactinformationwasnecessary,,theEDPBrespondedtoICANNscallformoreguauthor(8-page/737KBPDF):ICANNneedstodefineitsspecifiedpurposesandlawfulbasisforprocessingpersonaldataandshouldnotconflatethiswiththelegitimateinterestsandpurposesofthirdpartieswhomaysubsequentlyseekaccesstothedata;thatthereisnobasisforICANNtoinsistupontheprovisionofadditionalinformationonadministrativeandtechnicalcontactsfromregistrants;thatthefactthatregistrantsmaybelegalpersonsdoesnottakeWHOISoutsidethescopeofGDPRwhereICANNisprocessingpersonaldatarelatingtoindividualswithinthoseorganisations,andthereforethepersonaldataofsuchindividualsshouldnotbemadepublicallyavailablebydefault;thatICANNisrequiredtologaccesstopersonaldata,butdoesnotnecessarilyneedtoactivelycommunicate(push)thisloginformationtoregistrantsorthirdparties;thatICANNhasfailedtojustifywhyitisnecessarytoretainpersonaldatafortwoyearsposttheexpiryofthedomainnameregistration,and;thatcodesofconductorcertificatesofaccreditationarevoluntaryaneconta,theArticle29WorkingParty,hasbeenofferingguidancetoICANNonhowt,includingincreasedtransparencyobligations,havenowbroughtthisissuetoaheadandtheEDPBletterisclearinitsmessagethatICANNnessedinthecontextofWHOISmaybemadeavailabletothirdpartieswhohavealegitimateinterestinaccessingthedata,providedthoseinterestsarenotoverriddenbytheinterestsorfundamentalrightsandfreedomsofthedatasubject,andprovidedsafeguardsareputinplacet,thiswillnotnecessarilymeanthatICANNmustactivelynotifythedatasubjectsconcernedthattheirinformationhasbeenaccessed,andbywhom,alaWHOISsearchtofindoutwhoisbehindaninfringingsite,withoutnotifyingthtimatestakeholderstogainaccesstopersonaldataconcerningregistrantsbutalsocontainsappropriatesafeguards,testakeholdersmaystillgainaccesstoWHOISdata,andthatregis,itislikelythatanynewmodelwillinvolvemoretime,effortandexpenseforrightholdersseekingaccesstosuchinformation,whichuptonowhasbeenfreelyandreadilyavailabletothem.

ASouthAfricanjudgmentdealin,,however,(Pty)(the¡°organiser¡±)inthiscaseorganisesacharitableeventthattakestheformofasleep-out¨Cbusinessleadersareaskedfordonationsandthey¡¯rerequestedtosleepoutdoorsonawinter¡¯st(the¡°charity¡±).Intheprocessoforganisingthefirstsleep-out,theorganiserestablishedanelectronicdatabase,whichcameaboutbecauseeverydonorhadtoregisterontheorganiser¡¯¡¯tforeseenwasthatcertaincompanieswouldwanttopaybyelectronicfundstransfer(¡°EFT¡±).Toaccommodatethesecompanies,,,infact,createdbyanemployeeofthecharity,andthisemployeewasalsoresponsibleforinputtingthedonors¡¯rdidn¡¯ved,theorganiserandthecharityagreedthatalldonationswouldbepaiddirectlyintothebankaccountofthecharity,whichhadthenece,thecharitymadeuseoftheelectronicdatabase,,theorganiserarrangedfurthersleep-outs,butontheseoccasions,,thecharitystart,,erSouthAfricancopyrightlawasa¡°literarywork¡±.Thissomewhatmisleadingtermisdefinedtoinclude¡±tablesandcompilationsofdatastoredorembodiedinacomputer¡±.Thejudgewentontosaythatinordertoenjoycopyrightprotection,aliteraryworkmustbe¡°original¡±.(Pty)LtdvSaundersValveCompanyLtd,thecourtsaidthatforthepurposesofcopyright,¡°allthatisrequiredisthattheworkshouldemanatefromtheauthorhimselfandnotbecopied.¡±InHauptt/aSoftcopyvBrewersMarketingIntelligence(Pty)LtdandOthers,thecourtheldthataworkisoriginalifithasnotbeencopiedfromanexistingsource,andifitsproductionrequiredasubstantialdegreeofskill,,1978,theauthoroftheliteraryworkistheownerofthecopyrightunlessthecopyrighthasbeenassignedand,ifgeneratedbyacomputer,theauthoristhepe,,thecontributionofthecharity¡¯semployeedidnotmeettheoriginalitytest,astheformthatitsemployeehadcreatedforEFTpayerswassubstantial¡°nosubstantialdegreeofskill,judgementorlabour¡±.Thejudgewentontomakeanumberoffurtherpoints:theformforEFTpaymentswas¡°ancillary¡±tothedatabase:¡°butforitsincorporationonthewebsitetherespondentwouldnothavehadthemeanstocollectthedataitclaimstohavecollectedinthemanneritcollectedit...forthatreasonitwouldbeabsurdtoseparatethemanualformfromthewebsite.¡±eveniftheemployeehadinnovatedtheideaofEFTpayments,thisdidnotelevatethecharity¡°tothestatusofapersonwhomadearrangementsnecessaryforthecreationofthewebsite¡±.Thecharityneeded¡°theconcurrenceoftheapplicant¡±,andwithoutthisit¡°wouldnothavebeenabletocollectthedataitclaimstoown¡±.thepurposeoftheEFTinnovationwassimplytomakeitpossiblefordonorstopaybyEFTandgettaxexemptioncertificates,,soitsclaimtobeingapartnerwas¡°absurd¡±.Thejudgeconcludedthatgivingthecharitythestatusofanauthorofthedatabaseonthebasisofdatamanuallyaddedtothedatabasethatisautomaticallygeneratedfromthewebsitewouldbean¡°overbroadinterpretation¡±.Theorganiserwast(injunction).Ifthere¡¯salessontobelearnedfromthiscase,it¡¯sthis:copyrightissuesneedtobeconsideredandclarifiedrightfromthestart.

×°ÐÞ¹«Ë¾ÔÚһЩʱ¼ä¸ãµÄ´ÙÏú¡¢ÍÅÌå×°Ð޻Æäʵ»áΪÄãʡϺܶàÇ®¡£

AmptLLC,theworldsleadingproviderofpoweroptimizersforlarge-scalephotovoltaic(PV)systems,(ITC)againstSolarEdgeTechnologies,Inc.(NASDAQ:SEDG),requestingthattheITCbantheimp,rplantstolowerthecostofenergyproductionandimproveperformanceinnewsystems;upgradeexistingsystems;enablelow-costsolarenergystoragesystems;asels,inIsrael,China,,itwouldnotbepossibleforSolarEdgetocontinuesellingthoseinfringingproductsintheUnitedStates,howevertherearenumerousothernon-infringingcomeroptimizersandrelatedproductsatitsfacilityinFortCollins,Colorado,whichispri0issuedpatents,adingproductsionandplaysafundamentalroleinloweringthecostsoflarge-scalesolarenergyproduction,saidLeventGun,llyusingour,wearestandingupforouremployees,customersandpartners,aswellastheprinciplesoffaircompetitionandr,ThiscomplaintseekstoblockSolarrEdgeisviolatingourintellectualpropertyandthat,,673,630and11,289,,Amptass,,605,498,7,719,140,10,608,437,10,886,746,11,070,062and11,070,063.

UtahscookiecompetitioncontinuedonJuly13whenDirtyDoughandCraveCo,foundedinLoganbySawyerHemsleyandJasonMcGowan,filedalawsuitagainstDirtyDough,acookiebusinessthatstartedinTempe,Arizona,,aCrumblinsiderleftCrumbltofoundDirtyDough,whichsellsandpromotescookiesusingpackaging,decor,andpresentationthatisconfusinglysim,whosbrotherwasaCrumblemployee,toldTheHerald,youguysknowthatDirtyDoughwasalreadystartedin2018,,Ithinkwerethemostdifferent,..,,bigsupporter,Maxwellsaid,expla,allofasuddenoutofnowhere¡­wegethitwithalawsuit,,,,wellseeiftheywanttotalk¡­whatsthesolutionhereMaxwellsaid,,wereachedouttothem¡ªtoldthemweacceptedcounsel,,,anothercookiecompanythathascometoUtah,,afterCrumbldeniedanapplicationbyCravesfoundertobecomeaCrumblfranchisee,Cravebegansellingandpromotingitscopycatgourmetcookies,Crumblscomplaintreadsbeforealletailsofthevaluablegoodwill,reputation,ontobecomeaCrumblefranchiseeorthatCraveisinviolationofanyofCrumblsallegedtrademarks,tradedress,orotherintellectualpropertyrights,rattemptbyathreatenedcompetitortousealawsuittostiflefairandfreecompetitionanddenyconsumersachoiceofproducts,Englishsaidinastatementto,,orelsewhywouldnttheytalkwithusorsendacease-and-desistletter,,,Maxwellsaid,,hesaid,,Crumblsaidtheyareprotectingtheirsuccess:Asafranchisorof30,000+CrumblCrewmembers,1,000+FranchisePartners,andhundredsofCrumblHQemployees,wewillalwaystakeseriouslyourroleinbuildingandprotectingthecompanyanditstrademarksthatweveallworkedsohardtocreatetogether.

2016Äê5ÔµÄÒ»Ì죬ÏàijÏÂÒ¹°à»Ø¼Ò;Öб»Ò»Ä°ÉúÄÐ×ÓÇ¿±©¡£

UtahscookiecompetitioncontinuedonJuly13whenDirtyDoughandCraveCo,foundedinLoganbySawyerHemsleyandJasonMcGowan,filedalawsuitagainstDirtyDough,acookiebusinessthatstartedinTempe,Arizona,,aCrumblinsiderleftCrumbltofoundDirtyDough,whichsellsandpromotescookiesusingpackaging,decor,andpresentationthatisconfusinglysim,whosbrotherwasaCrumblemployee,toldTheHerald,youguysknowthatDirtyDoughwasalreadystartedin2018,,Ithinkwerethemostdifferent,..,,bigsupporter,Maxwellsaid,expla,allofasuddenoutofnowhere¡­wegethitwithalawsuit,,,,wellseeiftheywanttotalk¡­whatsthesolutionhereMaxwellsaid,,wereachedouttothem¡ªtoldthemweacceptedcounsel,,,anothercookiecompanythathascometoUtah,,afterCrumbldeniedanapplicationbyCravesfoundertobecomeaCrumblfranchisee,Cravebegansellingandpromotingitscopycatgourmetcookies,Crumblscomplaintreadsbeforealletailsofthevaluablegoodwill,reputation,ontobecomeaCrumblefranchiseeorthatCraveisinviolationofanyofCrumblsallegedtrademarks,tradedress,orotherintellectualpropertyrights,rattemptbyathreatenedcompetitortousealawsuittostiflefairandfreecompetitionanddenyconsumersachoiceofproducts,Englishsaidinastatementto,,orelsewhywouldnttheytalkwithusorsendacease-and-desistletter,,,Maxwellsaid,,hesaid,,Crumblsaidtheyareprotectingtheirsuccess:Asafranchisorof30,000+CrumblCrewmembers,1,000+FranchisePartners,andhundredsofCrumblHQemployees,wewillalwaystakeseriouslyourroleinbuildingandprotectingthecompanyanditstrademarksthatweveallworkedsohardtocreatetogether.

OnJuly11,theDelhiHCrestrainedaBengaluru-basedcakeryfromusingthenameFacebakeorFacecake,oranyotherFacebook-relatedtrademarkforitsproductsandservicesThecourtintheSnapdealcasealsodirectedDomainNameRegistrarstocreateamechanismforbrandstoseekcancellationortransferofdomainnamesthatinfringetrademarkIndiascurrentlawsthatgoverntrademarkinfringementsincludetheTrademarkAct,1999,whichwasdevelopedtocomplywiththeTRIPSagreementoftheWTOTru-basedcakeryfromusingthenameFacebakeorFacecake,,JusticeNavinChawla,whowashearingthecase,orderedthebakerytodeliverallfinishedandunfinishedproductsbearingthetrademarksimilartoMeta,theparentcompanyofFacebook,,theCourtalsoawardedINR50,,£¨DNRs£©oughttocreateamechanismviawhichtrademarkownerscouldapproachtheDNRsandsec,whileDNRsarecompaniesthatallowuserstoregisterthem,suchasGoDaddy,Namecheap,oumthathasseeninfringementcasesfiledleft,,manybrandswithnomanufacturingaddressespopulatethestreetsandcorners,,itisdifficulttotrackthesedubiousoperatorsinmostcases.

Ñ×ÈȵÄÏļ¾£¬ÎÒÃÇÓ­À´ÁË×îºÃµÄÏà¾Û¡£

OnMay3,2022,theAdministrativeConferenceoftheUnitedStates(ACUS)announcedthattheUnitedStatesPatentandTrademarkOffice(USPTO)hadengagedACUStoconductanindependentstudyintotheissuesassociatedwith,andthedesignof,(May3,2022)TheACUSinvitespubliccommentsonthestudy,whichareduebyJuly5,,however,,concernshavebeenraisedthatthecostofpatentlitigationinfederalcourtdeterssmall-andmedium-sizedenterprises,includingthoseownedbytraditionallyunderrepresentedgroups,,theDepartmentofCommerceinvestigate,thenDirectoroftheUSPTODavidKapposissuedaFederalRegisternoticeseekingpubliccommentsonwhethertheUnit(,2012)ThenoticeofthisnewstudycomesnearlyayearafterabipartisangroupofsixsenatorssentalettertotheCommissionerforPatents,,2021letter,SenatorsChristopherCoons(D-DE)JohnCornynIII(R-TX)ThomasCotton(R-AR)MazieHirono(D-HI)PatrickLeahy(D-VT)andThomasTillis(R-NC)referencedthe2012FederalRegisternoticeandstatedthattheUSPTOhadnotfolloweduponthatdthatthestudybeprovidedtotheSenateJudiciaryCommitteenolaterthanDecember31,ctanindependentsurveyandanalysisofissuesassoc:;tentcourt;,structure,andinternalorganizationofapotentialsmallclaimspatentcourt,includingwhetheritshouldbeestablishedwithintheArticleIIIfederalcourts,asorwithinanArticleIcourt,orasanadministrativetribunal;,appointment,management,andoversightofofficialswhopresideoverproceedingsinapotentialsmallclaimspatentcourt;,whetherparticipationinsuchproceedingswouldbemandatoryorvoluntary,andwhetherpartiescanremovecasestoanotheradministrativetribunalorfederalcourt;urt,including,asrelevant,pleadings,discovery,andalternativedisputeresolution;vide;;/,thereisabroadrangeofpossibilit,andhowitisstructured,willimpactpatentholdersandaccusedinfringersalike.

TheshapeofaLondonblackhacktaxiisnotdistinctiveenoughtobeeligiblefortrademarkprotection,otrademarksheldbyTheLondonTaxiCorporation(LTC)lywereitstrademarksvalidbutthatFrazer-NashResearchandEcotivehadinfringeditsrightsinthosemarksaxisLTCmanufactureddidnothaveinherentdistinctivecharacter,hattheywereinherentlydistinctive,suchasthesizeandslopingofthewindscreen,theshapeofthebonnet,thepositioningofthetaxilight,,thejudgesruledthatthosefeaturerademarksthatLTCwereassertingtodete,however,thattheHighCourtwasrighttodeterminethattherewasnotenoughevidencetoshowthattaxihirershadcometoperceivetheshapeoftresentedgraphicallycanqualifyfortrademarkprotectioniftheyarecapableofdistinguishingonecompany,wheremarksarenotinherentlydistinctive,theycanneverthelessberegisteredastrademarksifitcanbeshownthatthemarkhasacquiredadistinctivecharacterinarksandbrandstomerittrademarkprotectioninvolvesevaluatingwhattheaverageconsumerofatypeofproductperceiveswhentheyseeamark,,,saidthefactthattheCoucceptedthattheaverageconsumerforthepurposesofthelegaltesttodeterminewhetherthetrademarkwasvalidincludedpeoplewhohiredtaxis,uchpeoplewereaverageconsumersofataxi;whileitistruethatsuc,rightsholdersshouldconsiderallpotentialconsumerswhointeractwiththetrademarkedgoodswhentryingtoassesstheappropriateaverageconsumer.

TheSupremeCourtwillhearanongoingcopyrightcasebetweenSwedishfastfashiongiantHMandpattern-makingcompanyUnicolors,ent,aswellasthefindingsofothercircuitsandtheCopyrightOfficeinholdingthattheCopyrightActrequiresadistrictcourttoseekguidancefromtheCopyrightOfficewhentherearequestionsaboutthevalidityofacopyrightregistrationbutnoevid,accusingthefastfashionbehemothofinfringingoneofitsgeometricpatterns¨Cbywayofa¡°remarkablysimilar¡±print¨C,inwhichajuryfoundthatHMhadwillfullyinfringedUnicolors¡¯scopyright-protectedpattern,andawardedthepatterncompany$846,720indamages,attorney¡¯sfees,andcosts,¡¯sappealwasitsclaimthatUnicolorslacksavalidcopyrightregistrationforthefabricpatternatthecenterofthecasebecauseUnicolorshadimpher,makingthemanappropriate¡°singleunit¡±foronecollectivecopyrightapplicationandregistration,HMclaimedthatUnicolorsactuallysoldsomeofthepatternsseparatelytodifferentcustomers¨Catdifferenttimes,thereby,makingthecompany¡¯,2020,theNinthCircuitreversedthejuryverdictandsidedwithHMonthebasisthatthereisnointent-to-defraudrequirementforreg¡ì411(b)(2)¨CwhichrequiresdistrictcourtstoasktheRegisterofCopyrightswhetherregistrationwouldhavebeenrefusediftheCopyrightOfficehadknowntheinformationwasinaccurate¨CwhenitdidnotreferthemattertotheCopyrightOfficeafterHMallegedthattheregistrationcontainsinac,andUnicolorsfiledapetitionforawritofcertiorari,¡¯spetition,theNinthCircuitgotthecasewrong,asthejudges¡¯rulingconcerningthetimelineofthepublicationoftheworkscoveredbythesingle-unitcopyrightregistrationwas¡°flawedbecausetherewasnoevidencesupporting[their]conclusionthatthedesignswereseparatelypublishedbeforecertaindesignswerecategorizedasconfinedinUnicolors¡¯registrationcertificate.¡±Withthatinmind,Unicolorsclaimedthattherewas¡°insufficientevidencetodeduceany¡ì411(b).¡±¡°Thepanel¡¯¡ì411(b)wasalsoflawed,¡±accordingtoUnicolorsbecause¡°manycourts,legislativeandadministrativeauthorities,andtheleadingcopyrighttreatisehaveuniformlyinterpretedthePrioritizingResourcesandOrganizationforIntellectualPropertyActof2008¡­tocodifythedoctrineoffraudontheCopyrightOfficeandthus,toallowinvalidationundersection411(b)onlywhentheregistrantisshowntohaveactedinbadfaithorintendedtodefraudtheCopyrightOffice.¡±LookingaheadtotheSupremeCourt¡¯sconsiderationofthecase,ractitionersthatthesection411(b)issueis¡°ripeforreview,¡±particularlygiventhatdisputesaboutcopyrightregistrationerrors¨Cwhichcanstemfrom¡°anumberoffactors,includingunclearguidanceaboutregistrationrules,asimplemisunderstandingofwhattheapplicationrequiresand,mostrelevanttotheissueathand,purposefulorknowinginaccuracies¡±¨Care¡°commoninlitigation.¡±MeanwhileFinneganattorneysSamuelEichnerandMargaretEsquenethavenotedthatingrantingcertiorari,theSupremeCourtmaybelookingto¡°resolveanapparentcircuitsplitontheissueofwhetherthereisanintent-to-defraudrequirementbeforeareferralismadetotheCopyrightOfficeunderSection411(b).¡±Atthesametime,theCourtmayalsobeaiming¡°toclarifythestrengthofacopyrightregistration¡¯spresumptivevalidityand/ortheextenttowhichtheCopyrightActrequirescourtstodefertoCopyrightOfficedeterminationsundersection411(b)(2)astowhetherinaccuracies,ifknown,wouldhavecausedtheCopyrightOfficetorefuseregistration.¡±Ultimately,EichnerandEsquenetassertthatbecauseintenttodefraudisgenerallydifficulttoprove,¡°theSupremeCourt¡¯sdecisionshouldhaveasignificantimpactonthestrengthofcopyrightregistrations¡±¨Cwhicharenowprerequisitestofilingcopyrightinfringementactions¨C¡°andtheirsusceptibilitytovalidityattacksbasedonperceivedinaccuraciesinregistrations.¡±Assuch,thedecisionhasthepotentialtoimpactcopyrightapplicationpractices.

TheshapeofaLondonblackhacktaxiisnotdistinctiveenoughtobeeligiblefortrademarkprotection,otrademarksheldbyTheLondonTaxiCorporation(LTC)lywereitstrademarksvalidbutthatFrazer-NashResearchandEcotivehadinfringeditsrightsinthosemarksaxisLTCmanufactureddidnothaveinherentdistinctivecharacter,hattheywereinherentlydistinctive,suchasthesizeandslopingofthewindscreen,theshapeofthebonnet,thepositioningofthetaxilight,,thejudgesruledthatthosefeaturerademarksthatLTCwereassertingtodete,however,thattheHighCourtwasrighttodeterminethattherewasnotenoughevidencetoshowthattaxihirershadcometoperceivetheshapeoftresentedgraphicallycanqualifyfortrademarkprotectioniftheyarecapableofdistinguishingonecompany,wheremarksarenotinherentlydistinctive,theycanneverthelessberegisteredastrademarksifitcanbeshownthatthemarkhasacquiredadistinctivecharacterinarksandbrandstomerittrademarkprotectioninvolvesevaluatingwhattheaverageconsumerofatypeofproductperceiveswhentheyseeamark,,,saidthefactthattheCoucceptedthattheaverageconsumerforthepurposesofthelegaltesttodeterminewhetherthetrademarkwasvalidincludedpeoplewhohiredtaxis,uchpeoplewereaverageconsumersofataxi;whileitistruethatsuc,rightsholdersshouldconsiderallpotentialconsumerswhointeractwiththetrademarkedgoodswhentryingtoassesstheappropriateaverageconsumer.

ͨ¹ý¼ìÑé±È¶Ô£¬ºÜ¿ìÈ·ÈÏ·¸×ïÏÓÒÉÈËΪ¸ÕÐÌÂúÊͷŵÄÀîij£¬×îÖÕ½«ÀîijÉþÖ®ÒÔ·¨¡£

Withanincreaseinpopulationsothebasicneedoffood,theuseofchemica,13June2021:Withanincreaseinpopulationsothebasicneedoffood,theuseofchemicasandimplementationofdifferentkindsofsustainableagriculturalpracticesamongfarmersIndia¡¯d500LakhMetricTonnes(LMT),(FAO),theconsumptionoffertilizerssuchasnitrogenous,potash,andphosphatefertilizerstoucheda,theGreenrevolutionwasam,thereisnospecifictrendinfertilizersconsumption(UreaPhosphaticandPotassic(PK),India¡¯sfertilizerconsumptionwascloseto500LakhMetricTonnes,roblemsExcessiveuseofchemicalfertilizerswillresultinsoilacidification,heavymetalspollution,soilcompaction,,theplantsandsoilwillbedegradediffertilizersarenotusedjudiciously.

¿ÉÊÇ£¬µ±ÌìÏÂÎçÁ½µã£¬ÔÚº½ÔËÐ¡ÇøÃſڣ¬ÒÀÈ»³öÏÖÁËÍõ¾êµÄÉíÓ°¡£

InresponsetoacomplaintfiledbytheleadingSpanishfootballleagueLaLiga,thecountrysNationalPolicehascarriedoutalarge-scaleope,leadingtothedismantlin,top-tierSpanishfootballleagueLaL,LaLiga¡¯spremiumcontentiswidely¡¯thopetovisitthemall,¡¯phoneseffectivelybecamespyingdevicesthatcouldlistentotheirsurroundingsand,whenLaLigamatcheswereidentified,,LaLigawashitwitha250,000eurofinebySpain¡¯sdataprotectionagencyAEPDbutthecompanyvowedtocontinuefighting¡°thisveryseriousscourgethatispiracy¡±.LaLigakeptitswordandanoperationjustannouncedbylocalpolicerevealsthatcommLigainJanuary2022,Spain¡¯sNationalPolicelaunchedaninvestigationintoapsSpainincludingSeville,Malaga,Cordoba,Zaragoza,Valladolid,Murcia,PalmadeMallorca,Gij¨®n,Madrid,Vigo,LasPalmas,tandermatcheswerebeingplayed,and166barswereidentifiedasbeinginvolvedinthefraudulentdisplayofcopyrightedcontent.¡°Asaresultof[theoperation],theentireinfrastructurethatallowedtheillegalviewingofpaidmultimediacontentwasdismantled,withtheidentificationofthoseresponsibleandthecessationoftheillegalservicetheyprovided,¡±alargenumberofpiracy-configureddevicesincludingAmazonFiresticks,genericAndroidboxes,ntellectualpropertyinfringementcrimes.

Clearingtheaironlabyrinthinesubject-mattereligibilitystandardsforcomputer-implementedinventions(CIIs),a,,thecourt,whilesettinganewtest,rejected,forthesecondtime,aproblem-solutionapproachtoclaimconstructionfollowedbytheCanadianIntellectualPropertyOffice(CIPO)entsfindingtwoCanadianPatentApplicantsnumbered2,695,130and2,695,146aspatentineligibleundersections2and27(8)(IPIC),anIPpolicyadvocacyorganization,intervenedintheappealproceedings,affiinesinventiontoincludeanynewandusefulart,process,machine,(8),however,,2000SCC66,theSupremeCourtofCanadaclarifiedthatbeforeassessingsubject-mattereligibility,essentialeleme,whereinonlythoseelementsinclaimsthatwerenecessarytosolveth,,CIPOintroducedaPracticeNote,titledExaminationPracticeRespectingComputer-ImplementedInventions,whichindicatedthatifacomputercomponentisfoundtobeanessentialelement,,iftheessentialelementslackanyphysicality,(AttorneyGeneral),2020FC837,CIPOintroducedanewPracticeNoteinNovember2020,titledPatentableSubject-MatterunderthePatentAct,whichnotedthatinordertobepatent-eligible,thecomputercomponentsmustcooperatewithotherelementsoftheclaimedinvention,andthatactualinventioncations,bothtitledColorSelectionSystem,filedbyBenjaminMooreCo.,icalequationthatmodeledhumanpsychologicalperceptionstocolor,associatingacoloremotionscoretovariouscolorsinadatabase,andselecti,bothpatentapplicationswererejectedbyExaminersforencompassingnon-statutorysubject-matter,,theExaminer,uponpurposivelyconstruingtheclaims,,asnotedbytheExaminer,includedcalculatinghumanpsychophysicalperceptionvaluestocolorelementsbasedonmathematicalmodels,andothe,eviewedbyathree-memberPatentAppealBoard,,theApplicantreliedonFreeWorldTrustinemphasizingthatcomputercomponentscau,theApplicantclaimed,theApplicantconcededthatnoattemptwasmadetosolveac,however,concludedthatidentifyingamathematicalcorrelationbetweencolorsandhumanemotiveresponsestoaidcolorselectionwasnotatechnicalproblemforsubject-matterconsiderations,andcompsionerofPatents1981,FCA204,thatuseofcomputersforconduct,theBoardagreedwiththeExaminerandnotedthattheessentialelements,,theAppellantchallengedtheCommissionersclaimcons,Appellantargued,wouldhavebeenidentifyingclaimelementsthathaveamater,theCommissionerhadincorrectlyconcludedthattheremainingcationssuchasidentifyingadjacencyofcolorpairs,storingthecolorlibrary,,,,thePracticeN,theCommissionersapproachofconsideringonlythenovelelementsintheclaimsasessenti,theofficeoftheAttorneyGeneralofCanada(AGC)incorrectbutsoughttoremittheapplicationsbacktotheCommissi,theRespondentarguedthatjudicialinterventionwouldbeprematureastheCommissionerdidnothavetheopportunitytoconsidertheAppeyhavingtheexpert,theRespondentcontendedthata,implementingascientificprincipleormathematicaltheoremonagen,IPIC,generallyalignedwiththeAppellantspositionandca,CIPOstendencyo,gdetrimentaltoCIIs,ntedworldwide,,notingmaterialeffecnon-essentialandallegi,theIntervenorrequestedthecourttore-cessiontotheproblem-so,includingWhirlpoolCorpvCamcoInc,2000SCC67,FreeWorldTrust,andCanada(AttorneyGeneral),2011FCA328thecourtheldthatnoneofthedecisionssuggestaproblem-solutionapproach,andins,wheretheproblem-solutionapproachwasdiscredited,andaddedthatpracticalapplicationofs,theproblem-solutionapproach,consideringonlynovelaspectsofclaimsinsubject-matteranalysis,andholdingcomputercomponentsasnon-essentialfornotsolvingacomputerproblem,ectmatter,thecourtacceptedtheframeworksuggestedbytheIntervenor,isasfollows:Purposivelyconstruetheclaim;Askwhethertheconstruedclaimasawholeconsistsofonlyamerescientificprincipleorabstracttheorem,orwhetheritcomprisesapracticalapplicationthatemploysascientificprincipleorabstracttheorem;andIftheconstruedclaimcomprisesapracticalapplication,assesstheconstruedclaimfortheremainingpatentabilitycriteria:statutorycategoriesandjudicialexclusions,aswellasnovelty,obviousness,ifyingessentialclaimelements,thecourthasdirectedthatclaimsshouldbeassessed,CIPOsrequirementthatapplicationsinvolvingCIIsmu,CIPOspracticeoflimitingthesubject-matterassessmentonlytonovelele,abrightlinetowardscon

Fairuseisacommondefenceintrademarkinfringementactions,withajurisprudentialbasisthatatrademarkownercannotexclusivelymonopoliseadescriptiash(Ç໨½·)caseandtheSupremePeople¡®sCourt¡¯strialintheJapanesehoneysuckle(½ðÒø»¨):Wherearegisteredtrademarkcontainsthegenericname,depictionormodelnumberofthegoodconcerned,directlydesignatesthequality,mainrawmaterials,function,intendedpurpose,weight,quantityorothercharacteristicofthegoodorcontainsaplacename,theholderoftheexclusiverighttousetheregisteredtradem,thereisnospecificionsConcerningtheTrialofCivilTrademarkDisputeCasesof2006statesthatanactoffairuseofatrademarkisrequiredtosatisfythefollowingconditions:(1)theuseisingoodfaith;(2)itisnotusedasatrademarkforonesowngoods;and(3),somecourtswillalsoc,itisnecessarytocomprehensivelyconsiderthefameofatrademarkandtheuserspurp,inthe2021greenprickleyashcase,theSichuanHighCourtheldthattheChinesecharactersforgreenprickleyashintheallegedinfringingmarkwereanobjectivedescriptionoftheseasoningcontainedinaspecialfishhotpotdish,anghaiandJiangsu,,theallegedinfringerdisplayednosubjectiveintentiontofree-rideonthetrademark,,fontsizeandprominencetodeterminewhetheritconstitutestrademarkuse,(µÂÖݰǼ¦)case,thecourtheldthattheChinesecharactersforDezhoubraisedchickenusedontheallegedinfringinggoodsweredistinctiveandprominent,aneupperleftcornerofthegoodsandwassignificantlysmallerthanthecharactersforDezhoubraisedchicken,themannerofuseindicatedthatitwasnotsimplytodescribethatitsbraisedchickenwassourcedfromDezhou,¡ãCcase,heardin2016and2018,thecourtatfirstinstanceheldthat85¡ãCwasprominentlyusedinaconspicuouslocationontheouterpackagingoftheallegedinfringingproduct,exceedingthelimitoffairuse,,theappealscourtheldthatalthoughthetypesizeontheexternalpackagingoftheallegedinfringingproductwaslargerthanothersurroundingtexts,thecharacters85¡ã,ribethefeaturesofth(·ôר¼Ò)case,thecourtheldthattheavailableevideemark,itwasrejectedbytheTr,thecontestedpointinthecasewaswhethertheuseofSkinExpertinfringedtheexclusiverighttousetheregisteredtrademarkFuExpert(·òר¼Ò,pronouncedinChineseidenticallytoSkinExpert)ratherthanwhethertheinfringingmarkcouldberegisteredasatrademark,,theShanghaicourtheldthatthemannerofuseoftheallegedinfringinggreenprickleyashfish(Ç໨½·Óã)hadtheeffectofidentifyingthesourceoftheservice,whileusercommentsintheDianpingapp,usedasevidenceinthecase,showedconsumersreliedonthemarktodeterminewhetherthemerchantsprovidingthecateringservicewerethesame,ic,,itcanbegleanedthat,eveninthesamecase,ofcomprehensiveconsiderationaftertakingintoaccounttheusersintention,,itmustconsiderwhetherthedefendantwillinvokefairuseandpayattentiontocollectingandpreparingpertinentevidence,suchaswhethertheinfringerhadthemaliciousintentoffree-riding,theusewasfairandproper,activitiesand,wherethereisapriorregisteredtrademark,stresscomplianceinusetowardoffrisksoftrademarkinfringement.

QingYuNian,apopularChinesecostumedramaadaptedfromtheChinesewebnovelofthesamename,hasbeenaccusedbyChinesenetizensofplagiarizingcontentfromthefantasynovelseriesTheTwelveKingdoms(1992)ofdialoguefromQingYuNianthat,tonotbediscouragedevenwhenencounteringdisaster,tocorrectinjusticewithoutfear,donotyieldandflatterthemonstersintheJapanesenovelisbeingcomparedtoQingYuNianstobeunyieldingwhenabusedbyothers,tonottobefrustratedwhendisastersoccur,ifanythingisunfair,befearlessincorrectingit,,themeaningandstructureofbothareverysimilar,,itdefinitelyborrowedsomeideasfromTheTwelveKingdoms,buttocallitplagiarism,Idoubtit,,eventheirlogicandstructurearethesameandyousayitsnotplagiarismpostedanothernetizenwhoconfrontedQi,butifthetakenbithasbeenwashedthoroughly,andhasnodramaticsimilarities,andthebithappenstobelessimportantandhaslessfunctionwhenevaluatingitintheentirework,then,itisnoteasytodefineitasplagiarism,said,alawyerspecializingincopyrightlaw,,theconceptofanovel,filmandTVscript;,,thelawprotectsexpression,,sometimescanbeconfusinganddependsontheparticularcase,,QingYuNianisawell-ratedalternativehistorynovelthatte,theworkwasadaptedintoa46-episodeTVdramastarringfamousactorssuchasZhangRuoyun,ChenDaomingandXiaoZhan,acontr,theIPhasbee,iftheplagiarismscandalgainsground,willtherebeasecondseasonPleasedontcancelit,IliketheTVdramaalot,Tanni,afanoftheshowinBeijing,,theofficialproductionteamfortheshowannouncedthatasecondseasonisindevelopmentandwilllikelyairin2022.

AUScourthasruledthatrecipescannotbeprotectedbycopyright,,EasternDivisionruledthatalthoughcopyrightcan,insomecircumstances,protectthelayoutofarecipebook,,¡ªKetchuptoUsandTomaydo-Tomadhho¡ª,CarrollpurchasedMoore¡¯,accordingtothejudgment,wassubjecttoasharepurchaseagreementthatcontainedcertaincovenants,MooreandGeorgeVozary,oneofthenameddefendantsinthecaseandaformerTomaydo-Tomadhhoemployee,openedanotherrestaurantinCleveland,,,,thecourtsaid:¡°Theidentificationo,recipesarefunctionaldirectionsforachievingaresultandareexcludedfromcopyrightprotection.¡±Whilethecourtaddedthatalthoughcopyrightprotection¡°mayextendtoarecipebookorcookbooktotheextentitisacompilation¡±,itaddedthatinthiscasethereis¡°simplynoallegationthatdefendantsinfringedonthelayoutorothercreativeexpressioncontainedintherecipebook¡±.:¡°Assetforthabove...therecipesthemselvesarenotcopyrightableand,thus,anyuseoftherecipesisnotinfringement.¡±

¡°ÕâÀïÃæÓÐÑΡ¢»¨½·¡¢°Ë½ÇÒ»¹²ÓÐ8ÖÖµ÷ÁÏ£¬ÎªÊ²Ã´Òª³´ÄØ£¬¾ÍÊdz´ÊìÒÔºóëçÖÆµÄʱºòÈÝÒ×Èëζ¡£

TheCourtofAppealinTheHaguehasupheldafir,,KPN,NokiaNokiaandKPNhaveonceagainbeensuccessfulintheongoingcaseagainstAssiaoverDSLtechnologyMaryia/ADOBESTOCKInJanuary2021,,theDistrictCourtofTheHaguefoundthatKPNhadnotinfringedEP790,,unlikeinparallelproceedings,,becauseKPNappliestheprocesslaidoutinthepatent¡¯,AssiaarguedthatitsDSLproductoperateswiththepatent¡¯,thecourtthrewouttheclaimofinfringement,¡¯sinitialvictory(caseID:C/09/571729).NokiadeliverskeyDSLtechnologycomponentstoKPN,turningoutasaninter,¡¯sEP2259456,theCourtofAppealconfirmedinMarch2021aninvaliditydecision,56(caseID:C/09/563488).Here,,whichisstandardessential,,Assiaw,theCourtofAppealnullifiedallclaimsofEP456.

Ñ×ÈȵÄÏļ¾£¬ÎÒÃÇÓ­À´ÁË×îºÃµÄÏà¾Û¡£

Manysoftware-relatedandbusinessmethod-relatedpatentshavebeeninvalidatedforbeingdirectedto¡°abstractideas.¡±OnJanuary10,2018,inFinjan,Inc.,,Inc.,theFederalCircuitaffirmedthedistrictcourt¡¯sholdingthatFinjan¡¯,154,844(¡°the¡¯844patent¡±)[1]wasnotdirectedtoa¡ì¡¯sthresholdtestforpatenteligibilityunder¡ì101is¡°whethertheclaimsfocusonthespecificassertedimprovementincomputercapabilities...or,insteadonaprocessthatqualifiesasan¡®abstractidea¡¯forwhichcomputersareinvokedmerelyasatool.¡±[2]Thecourt¡¯srecentdecisionprovidesadditionalguidanceregardingthetypesofclaimsthatconstitutespecifiofCaliforniaonAugust28,2013,forinfringementofmultiplepatentsbyBlueCoat¡¯¡¯844patentscansfilesforpotentialsecuritythreats(,viruses),createsrespectivesecurityprofileslinkedtothescannedfiles,andthenmakesthescannedfilesavailabletousers.[3]Thejudgefoundthatthe¡¯¡ì101,,amongotherrulings,thedistrictcourt¡¯¡ì101asappliedtothe¡¯,inpart,thattheassertedclaimsofthe¡¯844patentshouldbeinvalidatedbecausetheclaimswereanalogoustothoseinApple,,Inc.;[4]AffinityLabsofTex.,,LLC;[5],[6],theFederalCircuitdistinguisheditspreviousdecisionsinvalidatingclaims,inpart,bycitingbacktoacoreconceptofpatentetandingforthe¡°foundationalpatentlawprinciple:thataresult,evenaninnovativeresult,isnotitselfpatentable.¡±[7]Rather,patents¡°aregranted¡®forthediscoveryorinventionofsomepracticablemethodormeansofproducingabeneficialresultoreffect...andnotfortheresultoreffectitself.¡¯¡±[8]Akeydistinguishingfeaturethatthecourtfoundwasthattheclaimsinthe¡¯844patent¡°recitespecificsteps...thataccomplishthedesiredresult.¡±[9]Notably,the¡¯844patentdoesnotclaimeithertheresultofperformingtheclaimedmethodstepsortheimprovementsoftheclaimedmethodoverthepriorart.[10]However,thecourtstilldistinguishedtheclaimsinthe¡¯844patentfromtheinvalidatedclaimsinApple,AffinityLabs,andIntellectualVentures[11]becausethoseclaimsgenerallyreciteddesirableresultsthatwereimplementedbygenericcomputercomponentsperformingkn¡¯844patent,theFederalCircuitfoundthatthepatent¡°enablesacomputersecuritysystemtodothingsitcouldnotdobefore...allow[ing]accesstobetailoredfordifferentusersandensur[ing]thatthreatsareidentifiedbeforeafilereachesauser¡¯scomputer.¡±[12]Thisnewfunctionalitywasfoundtobesufficientlyenabledbasedonthespecificationofthe¡¯844patent,whichdistinguishedtheadvantagesof¡°behavior-based¡±virusscanningtopriorart¡°code-matching¡±¡¯844patentrecitespecificstepstoaccomplishanadvantageousresultbasedontheenablingdescriptioninthespecification.[13]Thus,thepatenteligibilityinquiryunder¡ì101endedwithdeterminingthattheclaimsweredirectedt,theFederalCircuitprovidesnewguidanceforpatenteligibilityunder¡ì,thecourtbaseditsanalysisonanovelapproachinoneembodimentfoundinthespecificationofthe¡¯844patent,eventhoughtheclaimsarenotlimitedtothatspecificembodiment.[14]Thus,thecourtfoundthattheclaimsarenotrequiredtoexplicitlyrecitearesultorimprovementwherethespecificationadequatelydescr¡ì101maythereforebebasedonacombinationofthestepsrecitedinaclaimforaccomplishingaresultandthespecification¡¯sdescription,whenassessingthepatenteligibilityofcomputer-relatedpatentclaims,emphasisshouldbeplacedonthespecification¡¯sdescriptionofthestateoftheartascomparedtohowanimprovementincom(eg,tables,footnotes),pleaseaccesstheoriginalhere.

½ûÖ¹ÔÚÈËÐеÀÉÏÍ£·Å»ú¶¯³µ£»µ«ÊÇ£¬ÒÀÕÕ±¾·¨µÚÈýÊ®ÈýÌõ¹æ¶¨Ê©»®µÄÍ£³µ²´Î»³ýÍâ¡£

OnNovember27,2017,theSupremeCourtheardoralargume,¡¯sEnergyGroup,LLC(OilsStates).TheissueraisedinOilStatescallsintoquestionthePatentTrialandAppealsBoard¡¯s(PTAB)authoritytoconductInterPartesReviews(IPRs).PriortoenactmentoftheAmericaInventsAct(AIA)in2011,patentpractitionersthoughtthattheUSPTOwasissuingtoomany¡°bad¡±,CongresscreatedIPRswhichwereintendedtobealessexpensiveandquicker(comparedtodistrictcourtlitigation),over7,000IPRpetitionshave%,giventhesestatistics,IPRsarenotverypopularwith,thepatentatissue,,179,053,wasdieene¡¯¡¯scounterclaimedthatthepatentwasinvalidforlackofnoveltyoveraCanadianpatentpublishedbythesameinventormorethanoneyearbeforethe¡®¡¯salsofiledapetitionforaninterpartesreviewattheUSPTOchallengingthepatentabilityoftwoofthepatent¡¯¡¯,May1,,May4,n:¡°Whetherinterpartesreview-anadversarialprocessusedbythePatentandTrademarkOffice(PTO)toanalyzethevalidityofexistingpatents-violatestheConstitutionbyextinguishingprivatepropertyrightsthroughanon-ArticleIIIforumwithoutajury.¡±OilStatesarguedthatincreatingIPRs,CongressimproperlyintrudedontheseparationofpowersbygivingArticl¡°litigation-likeadversarialproceeding¡±betweenprivatepartiesandis,therefore,,patentsareprivatepropertyrightsthatforcenturieshavebeenadjudicatedbycourts,¡°meaningful¡±ArticleIIIsupervisionbecausetheFederalCircuitgivesdeferencetothePTABandonlyreviewsitsfindingstodeterminewhethertheyaresupportedby¡°substantialevidence.¡±Thus,OilStatesconcludedthatuntenuredAPJsappoin,OilSt,patentvaliditydisputeswerehistoricallytriedbeforejurieswhoresolvedquestionsoffact,Greene¡¯spointedoutthattheConstitutiongivesCongressthepowertoprovideforpatents¡°oftheproperscopetopromote¡®theProgressofScienceandtheusefulArts.¡¯¡±,¡ì8,,becauseCongresshastheconstitutionalauthoritytopromulgatestatutesgoverningpatentrights,apatentisapublicrightaccordingtoGreene¡¯s¡°integrallyrelatedtoparticularFederalGovernmentaction.¡±Greene¡¯sarguedthatbecausepatentsarepublicrights,,accordingtoGreene¡¯s,IPRsaresubjecttoreviewbyanArticleIIItribunalbecausepate¡¯salsoarguedthatIPRsarenottrulyjudicialinnaturebecause,interalia,theyonlyconsiderpatentabilitybasedonanarrowsubsetofissues;namely,¡ì¡ì,IPRssimplyallowtheUSPTOt¡¯salsopointedoutthattheUSPTOhashadtherighttocorrecterrorswithpatentsfordecadesbymeansofreissues,interferenceproceedings,,Greene¡¯sarguedthatIPRsaremerelyanothermeansfortheUSPTOtohaveasecondlookatapa,Greene¡¯spointedouttheCourtne,Greene¡¯sarg,25supportingRespondentGreene¡¯msthathavebeeninvalidatedinhepreviouslydecidedcasesindistrictcourt,butalsosurprisingbecauseitcouldbeconstruedasaconcessionbyOilState¡¯sdecisionisexpectedt,,ifapatentsconveysapublicright,thestatusquoisexpectedtobemaintained.

TheSupremeCourtwillhearanongoingcopyrightcasebetweenSwedishfastfashiongiantHMandpattern-makingcompanyUnicolors,ent,aswellasthefindingsofothercircuitsandtheCopyrightOfficeinholdingthattheCopyrightActrequiresadistrictcourttoseekguidancefromtheCopyrightOfficewhentherearequestionsaboutthevalidityofacopyrightregistrationbutnoevid,accusingthefastfashionbehemothofinfringingoneofitsgeometricpatterns¨Cbywayofa¡°remarkablysimilar¡±print¨C,inwhichajuryfoundthatHMhadwillfullyinfringedUnicolors¡¯scopyright-protectedpattern,andawardedthepatterncompany$846,720indamages,attorney¡¯sfees,andcosts,¡¯sappealwasitsclaimthatUnicolorslacksavalidcopyrightregistrationforthefabricpatternatthecenterofthecasebecauseUnicolorshadimpher,makingthemanappropriate¡°singleunit¡±foronecollectivecopyrightapplicationandregistration,HMclaimedthatUnicolorsactuallysoldsomeofthepatternsseparatelytodifferentcustomers¨Catdifferenttimes,thereby,makingthecompany¡¯,2020,theNinthCircuitreversedthejuryverdictandsidedwithHMonthebasisthatthereisnointent-to-defraudrequirementforreg¡ì411(b)(2)¨CwhichrequiresdistrictcourtstoasktheRegisterofCopyrightswhetherregistrationwouldhavebeenrefusediftheCopyrightOfficehadknowntheinformationwasinaccurate¨CwhenitdidnotreferthemattertotheCopyrightOfficeafterHMallegedthattheregistrationcontainsinac,andUnicolorsfiledapetitionforawritofcertiorari,¡¯spetition,theNinthCircuitgotthecasewrong,asthejudges¡¯rulingconcerningthetimelineofthepublicationoftheworkscoveredbythesingle-unitcopyrightregistrationwas¡°flawedbecausetherewasnoevidencesupporting[their]conclusionthatthedesignswereseparatelypublishedbeforecertaindesignswerecategorizedasconfinedinUnicolors¡¯registrationcertificate.¡±Withthatinmind,Unicolorsclaimedthattherewas¡°insufficientevidencetodeduceany¡ì411(b).¡±¡°Thepanel¡¯¡ì411(b)wasalsoflawed,¡±accordingtoUnicolorsbecause¡°manycourts,legislativeandadministrativeauthorities,andtheleadingcopyrighttreatisehaveuniformlyinterpretedthePrioritizingResourcesandOrganizationforIntellectualPropertyActof2008¡­tocodifythedoctrineoffraudontheCopyrightOfficeandthus,toallowinvalidationundersection411(b)onlywhentheregistrantisshowntohaveactedinbadfaithorintendedtodefraudtheCopyrightOffice.¡±LookingaheadtotheSupremeCourt¡¯sconsiderationofthecase,ractitionersthatthesection411(b)issueis¡°ripeforreview,¡±particularlygiventhatdisputesaboutcopyrightregistrationerrors¨Cwhichcanstemfrom¡°anumberoffactors,includingunclearguidanceaboutregistrationrules,asimplemisunderstandingofwhattheapplicationrequiresand,mostrelevanttotheissueathand,purposefulorknowinginaccuracies¡±¨Care¡°commoninlitigation.¡±MeanwhileFinneganattorneysSamuelEichnerandMargaretEsquenethavenotedthatingrantingcertiorari,theSupremeCourtmaybelookingto¡°resolveanapparentcircuitsplitontheissueofwhetherthereisanintent-to-defraudrequirementbeforeareferralismadetotheCopyrightOfficeunderSection411(b).¡±Atthesametime,theCourtmayalsobeaiming¡°toclarifythestrengthofacopyrightregistration¡¯spresumptivevalidityand/ortheextenttowhichtheCopyrightActrequirescourtstodefertoCopyrightOfficedeterminationsundersection411(b)(2)astowhetherinaccuracies,ifknown,wouldhavecausedtheCopyrightOfficetorefuseregistration.¡±Ultimately,EichnerandEsquenetassertthatbecauseintenttodefraudisgenerallydifficulttoprove,¡°theSupremeCourt¡¯sdecisionshouldhaveasignificantimpactonthestrengthofcopyrightregistrations¡±¨Cwhicharenowprerequisitestofilingcopyrightinfringementactions¨C¡°andtheirsusceptibilitytovalidityattacksbasedonperceivedinaccuraciesinregistrations.¡±Assuch,thedecisionhasthepotentialtoimpactcopyrightapplicationpractices.

InresponsetoacomplaintfiledbytheleadingSpanishfootballleagueLaLiga,thecountrysNationalPolicehascarriedoutalarge-scaleope,leadingtothedismantlin,top-tierSpanishfootballleagueLaL,LaLiga¡¯spremiumcontentiswidely¡¯thopetovisitthemall,¡¯phoneseffectivelybecamespyingdevicesthatcouldlistentotheirsurroundingsand,whenLaLigamatcheswereidentified,,LaLigawashitwitha250,000eurofinebySpain¡¯sdataprotectionagencyAEPDbutthecompanyvowedtocontinuefighting¡°thisveryseriousscourgethatispiracy¡±.LaLigakeptitswordandanoperationjustannouncedbylocalpolicerevealsthatcommLigainJanuary2022,Spain¡¯sNationalPolicelaunchedaninvestigationintoapsSpainincludingSeville,Malaga,Cordoba,Zaragoza,Valladolid,Murcia,PalmadeMallorca,Gij¨®n,Madrid,Vigo,LasPalmas,tandermatcheswerebeingplayed,and166barswereidentifiedasbeinginvolvedinthefraudulentdisplayofcopyrightedcontent.¡°Asaresultof[theoperation],theentireinfrastructurethatallowedtheillegalviewingofpaidmultimediacontentwasdismantled,withtheidentificationofthoseresponsibleandthecessationoftheillegalservicetheyprovided,¡±alargenumberofpiracy-configureddevicesincludingAmazonFiresticks,genericAndroidboxes,ntellectualpropertyinfringementcrimes.

Clearingtheaironlabyrinthinesubject-mattereligibilitystandardsforcomputer-implementedinventions(CIIs),a,,thecourt,whilesettinganewtest,rejected,forthesecondtime,aproblem-solutionapproachtoclaimconstructionfollowedbytheCanadianIntellectualPropertyOffice(CIPO)entsfindingtwoCanadianPatentApplicantsnumbered2,695,130and2,695,146aspatentineligibleundersections2and27(8)(IPIC),anIPpolicyadvocacyorganization,intervenedintheappealproceedings,affiinesinventiontoincludeanynewandusefulart,process,machine,(8),however,,2000SCC66,theSupremeCourtofCanadaclarifiedthatbeforeassessingsubject-mattereligibility,essentialeleme,whereinonlythoseelementsinclaimsthatwerenecessarytosolveth,,CIPOintroducedaPracticeNote,titledExaminationPracticeRespectingComputer-ImplementedInventions,whichindicatedthatifacomputercomponentisfoundtobeanessentialelement,,iftheessentialelementslackanyphysicality,(AttorneyGeneral),2020FC837,CIPOintroducedanewPracticeNoteinNovember2020,titledPatentableSubject-MatterunderthePatentAct,whichnotedthatinordertobepatent-eligible,thecomputercomponentsmustcooperatewithotherelementsoftheclaimedinvention,andthatactualinventioncations,bothtitledColorSelectionSystem,filedbyBenjaminMooreCo.,icalequationthatmodeledhumanpsychologicalperceptionstocolor,associatingacoloremotionscoretovariouscolorsinadatabase,andselecti,bothpatentapplicationswererejectedbyExaminersforencompassingnon-statutorysubject-matter,,theExaminer,uponpurposivelyconstruingtheclaims,,asnotedbytheExaminer,includedcalculatinghumanpsychophysicalperceptionvaluestocolorelementsbasedonmathematicalmodels,andothe,eviewedbyathree-memberPatentAppealBoard,,theApplicantreliedonFreeWorldTrustinemphasizingthatcomputercomponentscau,theApplicantclaimed,theApplicantconcededthatnoattemptwasmadetosolveac,however,concludedthatidentifyingamathematicalcorrelationbetweencolorsandhumanemotiveresponsestoaidcolorselectionwasnotatechnicalproblemforsubject-matterconsiderations,andcompsionerofPatents1981,FCA204,thatuseofcomputersforconduct,theBoardagreedwiththeExaminerandnotedthattheessentialelements,,theAppellantchallengedtheCommissionersclaimcons,Appellantargued,wouldhavebeenidentifyingclaimelementsthathaveamater,theCommissionerhadincorrectlyconcludedthattheremainingcationssuchasidentifyingadjacencyofcolorpairs,storingthecolorlibrary,,,,thePracticeN,theCommissionersapproachofconsideringonlythenovelelementsintheclaimsasessenti,theofficeoftheAttorneyGeneralofCanada(AGC)incorrectbutsoughttoremittheapplicationsbacktotheCommissi,theRespondentarguedthatjudicialinterventionwouldbeprematureastheCommissionerdidnothavetheopportunitytoconsidertheAppeyhavingtheexpert,theRespondentcontendedthata,implementingascientificprincipleormathematicaltheoremonagen,IPIC,generallyalignedwiththeAppellantspositionandca,CIPOstendencyo,gdetrimentaltoCIIs,ntedworldwide,,notingmaterialeffecnon-essentialandallegi,theIntervenorrequestedthecourttore-cessiontotheproblem-so,includingWhirlpoolCorpvCamcoInc,2000SCC67,FreeWorldTrust,andCanada(AttorneyGeneral),2011FCA328thecourtheldthatnoneofthedecisionssuggestaproblem-solutionapproach,andins,wheretheproblem-solutionapproachwasdiscredited,andaddedthatpracticalapplicationofs,theproblem-solutionapproach,consideringonlynovelaspectsofclaimsinsubject-matteranalysis,andholdingcomputercomponentsasnon-essentialfornotsolvingacomputerproblem,ectmatter,thecourtacceptedtheframeworksuggestedbytheIntervenor,isasfollows:Purposivelyconstruetheclaim;Askwhethertheconstruedclaimasawholeconsistsofonlyamerescientificprincipleorabstracttheorem,orwhetheritcomprisesapracticalapplicationthatemploysascientificprincipleorabstracttheorem;andIftheconstruedclaimcomprisesapracticalapplication,assesstheconstruedclaimfortheremainingpatentabilitycriteria:statutorycategoriesandjudicialexclusions,aswellasnovelty,obviousness,ifyingessentialclaimelements,thecourthasdirectedthatclaimsshouldbeassessed,CIPOsrequirementthatapplicationsinvolvingCIIsmu,CIPOspracticeoflimitingthesubject-matterassessmentonlytonovelele,abrightlinetowardscon

AmptLLC,theworldsleadingproviderofpoweroptimizersforlarge-scalephotovoltaic(PV)systems,(ITC)againstSolarEdgeTechnologies,Inc.(NASDAQ:SEDG),requestingthattheITCbantheimp,rplantstolowerthecostofenergyproductionandimproveperformanceinnewsystems;upgradeexistingsystems;enablelow-costsolarenergystoragesystems;asels,inIsrael,China,,itwouldnotbepossibleforSolarEdgetocontinuesellingthoseinfringingproductsintheUnitedStates,howevertherearenumerousothernon-infringingcomeroptimizersandrelatedproductsatitsfacilityinFortCollins,Colorado,whichispri0issuedpatents,adingproductsionandplaysafundamentalroleinloweringthecostsoflarge-scalesolarenergyproduction,saidLeventGun,llyusingour,wearestandingupforouremployees,customersandpartners,aswellastheprinciplesoffaircompetitionandr,ThiscomplaintseekstoblockSolarrEdgeisviolatingourintellectualpropertyandthat,,673,630and11,289,,Amptass,,605,498,7,719,140,10,608,437,10,886,746,11,070,062and11,070,063.

Ifyouinvestincreativity,youllendupwithamuchstrongerb,whatanawfulnameIfyoudid,,,yourlocation,,thegreaterthechancet,distinctivename,,youllendupwithamuchstrongerb,doyourresearchandmakesureyourcho,youmightnotwanttonameyourproductafteratermthatisassociatedwithaglobaldisease.[Sorry,ifIdashedyourhopesofnamingyournewwidgetEBOLA.]TataMotors,thelargestautomobilecompanyinIndia,rofessionalsportsfigures,,protectabletrademark:,anexperiencedtrademarkattorneycanassistyouwithamorethoroughsearch,includingsourcesfromfederalregistrations,statetrademarkregistrations,tradepublications,onlineresources,redcancreatewh,makesu,,however,rmatradem,forbestclearanceresults,tthatsomeyahoohasthedomainyouwantandissuddenlywillingtosellitfor$50,,makesureyourmarkdoesntstinkbecauseithasanotherun,andmakesureyourmarkisnotgoingtobeassociatedwiths,,C,andisevenratedbyIFCasoneofTheTenCoolestCarsinMovieHistoryforitsappearanceintheaction-horrormovieDeathProof(2007),andmanyconsumerscouldassociatethenewZICAcarwiththosenegativeconnotationsinvastcontrastirstnameofPortugueseoriginthattranslatestoJamesinEnglish.

AChinesewebauthorhasbecomethetargetofabacklashfromnetizensonSaturday¡¯,authorofthepopularnovelMyHeroicHusband,whichisbeingadaptedforTV¨Cbecamethetargetofinte,anotherwebauthor,Qiyingjun,postedonChina¡¯sTwitter-likeSinaWeibothatshesuffered¡°verbalsexualharassment¡±from¡°somemaleauthors¡±¡¯spostsayingsheshouldrevealthenamesofth,doubtingtheveracityofQiyingjun¡¯tknowthatherpostwouldcreatesuchabigwaveonsocialmedia,,000yuan($4,633),manyChinesenetizensshowedsympathyforQiyingjunsaying¡°asawoman,shehastherighttospeak¡±whileother,hetoldmediathatthenovelwasmainlytargetedatmalereadersandthat¡°thenoveldoesnotneedfemalereadersatall.¡±ThislatterstatementbecameahottopicofdiscussionamongChinesenetizens,manyofwhombegancallingforaboycottofhiswork¨C,scheduledtobereleasedin2021,tellsthestoryaboutamanwholiveswithhisparents-in-lawandhelpshiswifewithherbusiness,ow¡°avictimofcyberviolence.¡±Hedeniedtheaccusationsthathewaay.,aBeijing-basedlawyerspecializinginintellectualpropertyrights,toldtheGlobalTimesonSundaythatwhiletheshow¡¯sproducerswillnotbeabletopursuealegalcaseagainstFennudexiangjiaoforcausingabacklashagainsttheshow,hiscommentsstillindicateamoraldeficiencythatcausednegativesocialimpact.¡°Asapublicfigure,writersneedtoconsciouslyassumecertainsocialresponsibilities,andexpressrationalandobjectivespeech,¡±,vicechairmanoftheChinaSexologyAssociation,echoedXu¡¯sviewthatauthorsaspublicfiguresneedtobeawareofgenderequalityinsteadofonlyemphasizingoneside.¡°Sometimes,apublicapologyisaneffectivewaytoquellpublicopinion,¡±saidPeng.

¡°ÒÔǰÎÒÃÇÕâ¸öµØ·½ÊǸö¾É´å²¿£¬ÒòΪÁ½´åºÏ²¢£¬×÷Ϊ¼¯Ìå×ʲú¾Í¿ÕÁ˳öÀ´¡£

Lastweek,theItalianSocietyofAuthorsandEditors(SIAE)saiditpartnered,forexample,asimilarprojectincollaborationwiththeLaSapienzaUniversityofRomeandthestartupBlockchainCore,,SIAEisworkingwithAlgorandtoleveragethelatter¡¯bysomeone,andtheplatformwillkeeptrackoftheroyaltiestheywouldreceive.¡°Theworldisevolving,butthefoundingmissionoftheItalianSocietyofAuthorsandPublishers,theprotectionofcreativity,doesnotchange,¡±saidSIAEGeneralManagerGaetanoBlandini.¡°OurcollaborationwithAlgorandispartofaprocessalreadystartedandisalignedwithresearchandinnovationonanationalandglobalscale.¡±CommentingonthepartnershipwithSIAE,SilvioMicali,thefounderofAlgorand,said,¡°Collaborationbetweentechnologyprovidersandforward-thinkingorganizationssuchasSIAEopensupvastopportunitiesforprogressiontowardsneweconomicmodelsthatpromoteinclusivity,transparency,andfrictionlesstransactions.¡±Blockchainisbeingseenastheperfectmat,ab,,potentially,eachpieceofcopyrightedworkcanbeassigneduniqueidentifiers,androyaltypaymentscouldbedirectlysenttotheowner¡¯,,,Ba,HTCandafewotherfirmshaveinvestedinTaiwan-basedpropertyrightsstartupBitmarkInc,,SouthKorea¡¯sCJOliveNetworks,theITdivisionofCJGroup,launchedablockchaindigitalcopyrightssystemwhichfocusesonmusicalworks.

TheSupremeCourtwillhearanongoingcopyrightcasebetweenSwedishfastfashiongiantHMandpattern-makingcompanyUnicolors,ent,aswellasthefindingsofothercircuitsandtheCopyrightOfficeinholdingthattheCopyrightActrequiresadistrictcourttoseekguidancefromtheCopyrightOfficewhentherearequestionsaboutthevalidityofacopyrightregistrationbutnoevid,accusingthefastfashionbehemothofinfringingoneofitsgeometricpatterns¨Cbywayofa¡°remarkablysimilar¡±print¨C,inwhichajuryfoundthatHMhadwillfullyinfringedUnicolors¡¯scopyright-protectedpattern,andawardedthepatterncompany$846,720indamages,attorney¡¯sfees,andcosts,¡¯sappealwasitsclaimthatUnicolorslacksavalidcopyrightregistrationforthefabricpatternatthecenterofthecasebecauseUnicolorshadimpher,makingthemanappropriate¡°singleunit¡±foronecollectivecopyrightapplicationandregistration,HMclaimedthatUnicolorsactuallysoldsomeofthepatternsseparatelytodifferentcustomers¨Catdifferenttimes,thereby,makingthecompany¡¯,2020,theNinthCircuitreversedthejuryverdictandsidedwithHMonthebasisthatthereisnointent-to-defraudrequirementforreg¡ì411(b)(2)¨CwhichrequiresdistrictcourtstoasktheRegisterofCopyrightswhetherregistrationwouldhavebeenrefusediftheCopyrightOfficehadknowntheinformationwasinaccurate¨CwhenitdidnotreferthemattertotheCopyrightOfficeafterHMallegedthattheregistrationcontainsinac,andUnicolorsfiledapetitionforawritofcertiorari,¡¯spetition,theNinthCircuitgotthecasewrong,asthejudges¡¯rulingconcerningthetimelineofthepublicationoftheworkscoveredbythesingle-unitcopyrightregistrationwas¡°flawedbecausetherewasnoevidencesupporting[their]conclusionthatthedesignswereseparatelypublishedbeforecertaindesignswerecategorizedasconfinedinUnicolors¡¯registrationcertificate.¡±Withthatinmind,Unicolorsclaimedthattherewas¡°insufficientevidencetodeduceany¡ì411(b).¡±¡°Thepanel¡¯¡ì411(b)wasalsoflawed,¡±accordingtoUnicolorsbecause¡°manycourts,legislativeandadministrativeauthorities,andtheleadingcopyrighttreatisehaveuniformlyinterpretedthePrioritizingResourcesandOrganizationforIntellectualPropertyActof2008¡­tocodifythedoctrineoffraudontheCopyrightOfficeandthus,toallowinvalidationundersection411(b)onlywhentheregistrantisshowntohaveactedinbadfaithorintendedtodefraudtheCopyrightOffice.¡±LookingaheadtotheSupremeCourt¡¯sconsiderationofthecase,ractitionersthatthesection411(b)issueis¡°ripeforreview,¡±particularlygiventhatdisputesaboutcopyrightregistrationerrors¨Cwhichcanstemfrom¡°anumberoffactors,includingunclearguidanceaboutregistrationrules,asimplemisunderstandingofwhattheapplicationrequiresand,mostrelevanttotheissueathand,purposefulorknowinginaccuracies¡±¨Care¡°commoninlitigation.¡±MeanwhileFinneganattorneysSamuelEichnerandMargaretEsquenethavenotedthatingrantingcertiorari,theSupremeCourtmaybelookingto¡°resolveanapparentcircuitsplitontheissueofwhetherthereisanintent-to-defraudrequirementbeforeareferralismadetotheCopyrightOfficeunderSection411(b).¡±Atthesametime,theCourtmayalsobeaiming¡°toclarifythestrengthofacopyrightregistration¡¯spresumptivevalidityand/ortheextenttowhichtheCopyrightActrequirescourtstodefertoCopyrightOfficedeterminationsundersection411(b)(2)astowhetherinaccuracies,ifknown,wouldhavecausedtheCopyrightOfficetorefuseregistration.¡±Ultimately,EichnerandEsquenetassertthatbecauseintenttodefraudisgenerallydifficulttoprove,¡°theSupremeCourt¡¯sdecisionshouldhaveasignificantimpactonthestrengthofcopyrightregistrations¡±¨Cwhicharenowprerequisitestofilingcopyrightinfringementactions¨C¡°andtheirsusceptibilitytovalidityattacksbasedonperceivedinaccuraciesinregistrations.¡±Assuch,thedecisionhasthepotentialtoimpactcopyrightapplicationpractices.

·¢ÏÖÒ»´Î¼Ç¾¯¸æÒ»´Î£¬¾¯¸æÂúÈý´Î£¬ÏµÍ³×ÔÐнûÑÔÈýÌ죡ÃâÔðÉùÃ÷£º¹àÄϰÙÐÕÍø£¨¹àÄÏÂÛ̳£©ÎÞ·¨100%±£Ö¤ÔÚ±¾°æ·¢²¼µÄÐÅÏ¢µÄÕæÊµÐԺͿɿ¿ÐÔ£¬Çë´ó¼ÒÎñ±Ø½øÐÐ×ÐϸµÄÕç±ð£¬½÷·ÀÉϵ±ÊÜÆ­£¡Ò»¸öÐÅÏ¢Àà°å¿éZÖØÒªµÄ¾ÍÊÇÁ½¸ö×Ö---ÕæÊµ£¡»¶Ó­Ó»Ô¾¾Ù±¨½Ò·¢Í¨¹ýµÃÒâ²éѯµ½µÄÐÅÏ¢£¬È»ºó±»ºöÓÆºÍÆÛÆ­µÄÖнéÒÔ¼°¸öÈË£¬ÌáÐÑÆäËûÒâ·Û±ÜÃâÉϵ±¡£

°²ÅŸøÎÒÃǵÄÉè¼ÆÊ¦ÎÒ»¹ÊDZíʾ»Ò³£»Ò³£µÄÂúÒâµÎ£¬¼ÒÀï×ÜÌå¸ñ¾Ö¸Ä¶¯²»Ëã´ó£¬µ«ÕæµÄÊǰÑÎÒ¼ÒµÄËùÓпռ䶼ÀûÓõ½ÁË£¬·½°¸»ù±¾ÊÇÒ»´Î¾Íͨ¹ýÁË£¬°ÖÂèÒ²¾õµÃºÜ²»´í¡£

InresponsetoacomplaintfiledbytheleadingSpanishfootballleagueLaLiga,thecountrysNationalPolicehascarriedoutalarge-scaleope,leadingtothedismantlin,top-tierSpanishfootballleagueLaL,LaLiga¡¯spremiumcontentiswidely¡¯thopetovisitthemall,¡¯phoneseffectivelybecamespyingdevicesthatcouldlistentotheirsurroundingsand,whenLaLigamatcheswereidentified,,LaLigawashitwitha250,000eurofinebySpain¡¯sdataprotectionagencyAEPDbutthecompanyvowedtocontinuefighting¡°thisveryseriousscourgethatispiracy¡±.LaLigakeptitswordandanoperationjustannouncedbylocalpolicerevealsthatcommLigainJanuary2022,Spain¡¯sNationalPolicelaunchedaninvestigationintoapsSpainincludingSeville,Malaga,Cordoba,Zaragoza,Valladolid,Murcia,PalmadeMallorca,Gij¨®n,Madrid,Vigo,LasPalmas,tandermatcheswerebeingplayed,and166barswereidentifiedasbeinginvolvedinthefraudulentdisplayofcopyrightedcontent.¡°Asaresultof[theoperation],theentireinfrastructurethatallowedtheillegalviewingofpaidmultimediacontentwasdismantled,withtheidentificationofthoseresponsibleandthecessationoftheillegalservicetheyprovided,¡±alargenumberofpiracy-configureddevicesincludingAmazonFiresticks,genericAndroidboxes,ntellectualpropertyinfringementcrimes.

PeiHaozhenginstructsChristophReinhardt(left),,whohelpedtosetupaprotectionzoneduringtheNanjingMassacrein1937.[PhotoprovidedtoChinaDaily]Origamimasterpromotestheartformtoagrowingaudience,,inorigamiartistPeiHaozhengseyes,,fromdailyobjectstomythicalcreatures,ghjustfoldingwithnocutsorglue,nsteadofcopiesofotherartistsdesigns-andwontheInternationalOrigamiInternetOlympiadin2017,,PeifoldedanancientChinesewomanholdingamirrorfromasheetofhandmadexuanzhi(ricepaper),,theeventisseenbymany,(whitedeerplain)£­fromdailyobjectstomythicalcreatures£­intheskilledhandsofPeiHaozheng.[PhotoprovidedtoChinaDaily],JapaneseartistAkiraYoshizawa(1911-2005),regardedasthefatherofmodernorigami,helpedtoraisetheancient,wherepaperwasinventedduringtheWesternHanDynasty(206BC-AD24).AlthoughorigamiisaminorartforminChina,,,butonlythosewitharealpassionfororigamiwillmakeitintoalifelongcareer,,Peidescribeshimselfasaman,orOrychophragmusviolaceus,whichisdubbedastheflowerofpeace,hehascreatedthepurpl£­fromdailyobjectstomythicalcreatures£­intheskilledhandsofPeiHaozheng.[PhotoprovidedtoChinaDaily]Tocelebratethe100thanniversaryofthefoundingoftheCommunistPartyofChinathisyear,theartistcreatedanorigamipiecetitledYuanhangBainian(100yearsofsailing).,wherethefirstNationalCongressoftheCPCwasconcluded100yearsago,butalsotodaysvibrantsociety,,Jiangsuprovince,Peistartedfoldingpaperwhenhewasinkindergarten,,helearnedfoldingfromteachersandparents,,,,,hecameacrossadiagramwithhundredsofpatternedlinesdesignedbyRobertLang,,£­fromdailyobjectstomythicalcreatures£­intheskilledhandsofPeiHaozheng.[PhotoprovidedtoChinaDaily]Withnoonetoconsult,Peitaughthimselfthroughorigamitheorybooks,,,tur,thenasophomoreattheHuazhongAgriculturalUniversityinWuhan,Hubeiprovince,,,PeiwasinvitedtoattendtheChineseversionofSuperBrain,,,,PeitookupthechallengeofcreatingasolarpanelinorigamistyleatForwardtotheFuture,ded,£­fromdailyobjectstomythicalcreatures£­intheskilledhandsofPeiHaozheng.[PhotoprovidedtoChinaDaily]Peigothismastersdegreeinscience,,origamiisnotjustacraft,butanartthatcandelivercultureandlastforever,Peisays.

Astheproverbsays,wheninRome,,agoodChinesenameforforeignbrandwouldbemucheasierforthelocalconsumerstoremember,,BMWiscalled±¦Âí(baoma)inChina,,±¦Âí,foreignbrandownerswouldhaveconscious,onethingtobeoftenoverlookedis,аÙÂ×(xinbailun)intimeandcontinuingusageofthisunregisteredtrademark,NewBalancewaslatersuedbyZhouLelun,theregistrantofthetrademarkаÙÂ×,,withacompensationof5millionyuan(aboutUSD738thousand).Itwasnot,itcontinuedtousetheChinesenameaftersomeoneelsehadalreadyregisteredthisChinesenameastrademark,,,attentionshallbepaidtothecompositionofthemarktobeapplied,,theforeign-languagem,,warningtheforeigntrademarkownernotonlyregistershisChinesecharactermarkinuse,,(es)(es)inwhi(es)againstpotentialtrademarksquattersinwhichthegoods/servicesarecloselyconnectedwiththecoregoods/,Class9(sunglasses),Class14(jewelry)¡¢Class18(bags)andClass25(clothes)alwayssharethesamemarketingchannel,andtrademarksquattingfrequentlyhappensamongtheseclasses.(Tobecontinued)

TheshapeofaLondonblackhacktaxiisnotdistinctiveenoughtobeeligiblefortrademarkprotection,otrademarksheldbyTheLondonTaxiCorporation(LTC)lywereitstrademarksvalidbutthatFrazer-NashResearchandEcotivehadinfringeditsrightsinthosemarksaxisLTCmanufactureddidnothaveinherentdistinctivecharacter,hattheywereinherentlydistinctive,suchasthesizeandslopingofthewindscreen,theshapeofthebonnet,thepositioningofthetaxilight,,thejudgesruledthatthosefeaturerademarksthatLTCwereassertingtodete,however,thattheHighCourtwasrighttodeterminethattherewasnotenoughevidencetoshowthattaxihirershadcometoperceivetheshapeoftresentedgraphicallycanqualifyfortrademarkprotectioniftheyarecapableofdistinguishingonecompany,wheremarksarenotinherentlydistinctive,theycanneverthelessberegisteredastrademarksifitcanbeshownthatthemarkhasacquiredadistinctivecharacterinarksandbrandstomerittrademarkprotectioninvolvesevaluatingwhattheaverageconsumerofatypeofproductperceiveswhentheyseeamark,,,saidthefactthattheCoucceptedthattheaverageconsumerforthepurposesofthelegaltesttodeterminewhetherthetrademarkwasvalidincludedpeoplewhohiredtaxis,uchpeoplewereaverageconsumersofataxi;whileitistruethatsuc,rightsholdersshouldconsiderallpotentialconsumerswhointeractwiththetrademarkedgoodswhentryingtoassesstheappropriateaverageconsumer.

China¡¯($)in2018,a,onlinegamesandonlinevideosarethethreemajorpillarsofthecountry¡¯sinternetcopyrightindustry,,$,¡¯sonlinecomicsenjoyedasignificant53-percentyearlygrowthlastyear,,¡¯sonlineliteraturemarketlastyear,,China¡¯sonlineliteraturewebsitesexpandedintheoverseasmarketovertheyear,,theforeignlanguageeditionsofnearly70Chineseonlineworksgainedmorethan10millionviews,lastyear,,,thecountry¡¯sonlinelive-streamingindustryenteredanadjustmentphasein2018,asthelivestreamingofonlinegamesstoodoutwithamarketofover14billionyuan.

Õò¶«ÉçÇøÇàÄêÍ»»÷¶ÓÔ±ÕÔÀÚ£¬»ý¼«Ö÷¶¯ÒªÇóÌæÄêÁä½Ï´óµÄÀÏͬ־ֵҹ°à¡£

June14,2022announcedthat,theUnitedStatesDistrictCourtfortheCentralDistrictofCalifornia(theCourt)issuedanordergr¡¯smaterialbreachesofthepartiesJointDevelopmentandLicenseAgreement,whereonFebruary15,2022,,NetlistsDirectorofIPStrategy,said,WearepleasedthattheCourtrecognizedSamsungsfailuretoadmitrequestsforadmissions,,2022,withatrialbeginningnextyearonMay1,fcustomandspecialtymemoryproductsbringindustry-leadingperformats,inservermemory,hybridmemoryandstorageclassmemory,tocompaniesthatimplementNetlist¡¯,entsndoftenaddressfutureeventsorNetlist¡¯nsregardingfutureeventsandaresubjecttoknownandunknownrisks,uncertaintiesandotherfactorsthatcouldcauseactualresultstodiffermateri,uncertaintiesandotherfactorsinclude,amongothers:risksrelatedtoNetlistsplansforitsintellectualproperty,includingitsstrategiesformonetizing,licensing,expanding,anddefendingitspatentportfolio;risksassociatedwithpatentinfringementlitigationinitiatedbyNetlist,orbyothersagainstNetlist,aswellasthecostsandunpredictabilityofanysuchlitigation;risksassociatedwithNetlistsproductsales,includingthemarketanddemandforproductssoldbyNetlistanditsabilitytosuccessfullydevelopandlaunchnewproductsthatareattractivetothemarket;thesuccessofproduct,jointdevelopmentandlicensingpartnerships;thecompetitivelandscapeofNetlistsindustry;andgeneraleconomic,politicalandmarketconditions,includingquarantines,factoryslowdownsorshutdowns,s,expectationsandbeliefsregardingfutureeventsandaresubjecttoknownandunknownrisks,uncertaintiesandotherfactorsthatcouldcauseactualresultstodiffermateri¡¯sannualreportonForm10-KforitsmostrecentlycompletedfiscalyearfiledonMarch1,2022,,,uncertaintiesandotherfactors,theseforward-¡¯sassumptions,expectationsandbeliefsonlyasofthedatetheyaremade,andexceptasrequiredbylaw,Netlistundertakesnoobligationtoreviseorupdateanyforward-lookingstatementsforanyreason.

Manysoftware-relatedandbusinessmethod-relatedpatentshavebeeninvalidatedforbeingdirectedto¡°abstractideas.¡±OnJanuary10,2018,inFinjan,Inc.,,Inc.,theFederalCircuitaffirmedthedistrictcourt¡¯sholdingthatFinjan¡¯,154,844(¡°the¡¯844patent¡±)[1]wasnotdirectedtoa¡ì¡¯sthresholdtestforpatenteligibilityunder¡ì101is¡°whethertheclaimsfocusonthespecificassertedimprovementincomputercapabilities...or,insteadonaprocessthatqualifiesasan¡®abstractidea¡¯forwhichcomputersareinvokedmerelyasatool.¡±[2]Thecourt¡¯srecentdecisionprovidesadditionalguidanceregardingthetypesofclaimsthatconstitutespecifiofCaliforniaonAugust28,2013,forinfringementofmultiplepatentsbyBlueCoat¡¯¡¯844patentscansfilesforpotentialsecuritythreats(,viruses),createsrespectivesecurityprofileslinkedtothescannedfiles,andthenmakesthescannedfilesavailabletousers.[3]Thejudgefoundthatthe¡¯¡ì101,,amongotherrulings,thedistrictcourt¡¯¡ì101asappliedtothe¡¯,inpart,thattheassertedclaimsofthe¡¯844patentshouldbeinvalidatedbecausetheclaimswereanalogoustothoseinApple,,Inc.;[4]AffinityLabsofTex.,,LLC;[5],[6],theFederalCircuitdistinguisheditspreviousdecisionsinvalidatingclaims,inpart,bycitingbacktoacoreconceptofpatentetandingforthe¡°foundationalpatentlawprinciple:thataresult,evenaninnovativeresult,isnotitselfpatentable.¡±[7]Rather,patents¡°aregranted¡®forthediscoveryorinventionofsomepracticablemethodormeansofproducingabeneficialresultoreffect...andnotfortheresultoreffectitself.¡¯¡±[8]Akeydistinguishingfeaturethatthecourtfoundwasthattheclaimsinthe¡¯844patent¡°recitespecificsteps...thataccomplishthedesiredresult.¡±[9]Notably,the¡¯844patentdoesnotclaimeithertheresultofperformingtheclaimedmethodstepsortheimprovementsoftheclaimedmethodoverthepriorart.[10]However,thecourtstilldistinguishedtheclaimsinthe¡¯844patentfromtheinvalidatedclaimsinApple,AffinityLabs,andIntellectualVentures[11]becausethoseclaimsgenerallyreciteddesirableresultsthatwereimplementedbygenericcomputercomponentsperformingkn¡¯844patent,theFederalCircuitfoundthatthepatent¡°enablesacomputersecuritysystemtodothingsitcouldnotdobefore...allow[ing]accesstobetailoredfordifferentusersandensur[ing]thatthreatsareidentifiedbeforeafilereachesauser¡¯scomputer.¡±[12]Thisnewfunctionalitywasfoundtobesufficientlyenabledbasedonthespecificationofthe¡¯844patent,whichdistinguishedtheadvantagesof¡°behavior-based¡±virusscanningtopriorart¡°code-matching¡±¡¯844patentrecitespecificstepstoaccomplishanadvantageousresultbasedontheenablingdescriptioninthespecification.[13]Thus,thepatenteligibilityinquiryunder¡ì101endedwithdeterminingthattheclaimsweredirectedt,theFederalCircuitprovidesnewguidanceforpatenteligibilityunder¡ì,thecourtbaseditsanalysisonanovelapproachinoneembodimentfoundinthespecificationofthe¡¯844patent,eventhoughtheclaimsarenotlimitedtothatspecificembodiment.[14]Thus,thecourtfoundthattheclaimsarenotrequiredtoexplicitlyrecitearesultorimprovementwherethespecificationadequatelydescr¡ì101maythereforebebasedonacombinationofthestepsrecitedinaclaimforaccomplishingaresultandthespecification¡¯sdescription,whenassessingthepatenteligibilityofcomputer-relatedpatentclaims,emphasisshouldbeplacedonthespecification¡¯sdescriptionofthestateoftheartascomparedtohowanimprovementincom(eg,tables,footnotes),pleaseaccesstheoriginalhere.

¾Ù±¨Õß½±ÀøÐ¡ºì»¨£¡ÂÛ̳µÄ´¿¾»£¬ÐèҪÿһ¸ö¹àÄϰÙÐÕÍø£¨¹àÄÏÂÛ̳£©¹²Í¬µÄŬÁ¦£¡·²ÊÇ·¢²¼Ðé¼ÙÐÅÏ¢µÄÒ»¾­²é³ö**ID£¡Çë×ÔÖØ£¡ÆäËûδ¾¡ÊÂÏî¼°¹æ¶¨£¬Çë×ñÕÕ¡¾¹àÄϰÙÐÕÍø¹ÜÀí¹æ¶¨¡¿2022Äê5ÔÂ1ÈÕÖÆ¶©²¢Ö´ÐÐ

WhileraisingdoubtsoverChinasintellectualpropertylawsandpractices,theU,guaranteeingfullprotectionforintellectualpropertyrightsonlineisadifficulttask,yetthegovernmenthastakenm,bytheendoflastyearChinahadabout731millioninternetusers,andthetotalvalueofinternetcopyrightsexceeded560billionyuan($;;¡ê).Butonlinepiracy,too,hasgrownwiththeinternetindustry,,bec,withtheonlinegameindustrybeingworth180billionyuan,,,amarketresearchandconsultingcompany,showthatin2015and2016,,respectively,,despitesomedrawbacksinitsIPRlawsandpractices,ha,governmentdepartmentssuchastheNationalCopyrightAdministrationandtheMinistryofIndustryandInformationTechnologyhavebeenleadingacampaigncalledSwordNettocombatonlinepiracyinliterature,music,,,establishingafoolproofsystemforprotectingonlinecopyrighthasbecomeanimportanttaskforthegovernment,,10mainstreammediaoutletsandwebsitestogetherformedanassociationattheNat,makingrulesandnegotiatingprices,,000websites,includingBaidu,Youkuand18otherhighlyinfluentialvideowebsites,,thankstostrengthenedIPRprotection,,issuedbytheInternationalFederationofthePhonographicIndustry,saysthedigitalgicalandculturalinnovationsandcreations,,betterIPRprotectionwillboostthemobileinternet,theinternetofthingsandotherrelatedsectors,includingartificialintelligence,cherattheStateAdministrationofPress,Publication,Radio,FilmandTelevisionofChina.

¡°Themostsuccessfulpartieschoosetheirbattleswisely,¡±saysTheHonorableGerardRogers,ChiefAdministrativeTrademarkJudgeattheTrademarkTrialandAppealBoard(TTAB),abodywithintheUnitedStatesPatentandTrademarkOffice(USPTO).HavingservedinvariousrolesontheTTABformorethan25years,JudgeRogersispanshavebeendeniedbytheUSPTO,,partieshavebeenknowntopushtheirluck.¡°TrialsaresometimespursuedbecausethepartieshaveissuesoutsidetheTTABthatthey¡¯regrapplingwithand,itappearstous,theythinkitwillgivethemanotherleveragepointtodealwiththeirdifferences.¡±JudgeRogerssayshehasseencaseswherepartieshavenotproperlyfollowedtheTTAB¡¯sManualofProcedure,,regulatory,anddecisionalauthoritythatisrelevanttotheTTAB.¡°Therehavebeenappealsandtrialcasesthathavebeenlostbutcouldhavebeenwon,duetoafailuretofollowtherules,¡±saysJudgeRogers.¡°Manypractitionersfailtofollowtheguidanceonwhatevidencecanbeprobative.¡±JudgeRogersaddsthatit¡°neverhurts¡±toremindstakeholderstobecognizantoftherulesthattheTTABisrequiredtoapply¡ªaswellastheissuesitmustignore¡ª,theTTABoftencannottakeintoaccountparticularsrelatingtouseofatrademarkinthemarketplace,¡°Wehavetoignorethatinformation,yetpeoplebringittousallthetime,¡±,just30percentareexparteappeals,,appealsaccountfor75percentofcasesultimatelydecidedonthemerits,sowhatmightexplainthelargeswingJudgeRogerssaysthatpetitionsforcancellationandoppositionaresimilartocourtdisputesinthatasettlementisavailableand,ifthatoptionisused,¡°fewertrialcasesrequiredispositiononthemeritsasthepartieshaveworkeditout.¡±Inasmallpercentageofcases,apartymight¡°misbehave¡±andbesanctioned,whichcouldalsoleadtothecasebeingterminated,ppositionscanbemuchmoreexpensivethanappealsfromexaminerrefusals,soalotofcasesareneverpursuedbeyondtheinitialstages,,whichcaninvolveplentyofbackandforthbetweentheparties,includingondiscoveryandmotionpractice,,incontrast,¡°whentheattorneyfilesthenoticeofappealthereisnotmuchelsetodootherthanfilethebriefs,¡±,ofteninwrittenratherthanoralform,¡°sothere¡¯snotmuchaddedexpensetohaveanattorneypursueanappeal.¡±MoreAppealsJudgeRogersnotesthattrademarkapplicationfilingswiththeUSPTOhaverisenyear-on-yearforeightyears,so¡°thismeansmoreappealsandoppositionsandtheneedtoincreasethestafftohandlethatwork.¡±ernsabouttheBoard¡¯,seResolution(ACR)procedure,,theTTABseekstoexpediteproceedingsby,amongotherthings,activelyencouragingpartiestoconsiderplacinglimitsondiscoveryandtestimony,andadoptingmoreefficientaltern,forexample,hesaysthat,whileattorneyshaveindividualresponsibilityforcasesontheirdockets,theTTAB¡¯smanagingattorneywillreassigncaseswithpendingmotionsonamoneeditsperformancetargets,saysJudgeRogers,despitealargevariationinthecomplexityofcases,2weeksofthecasebeingreadytodecide,saysJudgeRogers(readyfordecisionmeansafterallbriefingisdoneandthecaseissubmittedbyaBoardparalegaltotheChiefJudgeforassignment,orafteroralargument,ifoneisrequested).¡°Wehaverepeatedlybeatenthisgoal,¡±veragependency(fromcommencementtocompletion)ofexparteappealsforthelastfiveyearsinarow,withthatpendencymeasurefallingintrialcasesforfiveofthepastsixyears.¡°JudgeRogersexplainsthatstakeholdershavelongexpressedapreferencefortheTTABtoremain¡°amorerelaxedalternativetolitigationinfederaldistrictcourts,¡±whereextension,,,,Inc.,ntdistrictcourtlitigationbetweenthesamepartiesthatlitigatedanearliercasebeforetheTTAB,aslongasthe¡°ordinaryelements¡±,JudgeRogerssaysitsimpactontheTTABhasbeen¡°almostnone.¡±However,hedoesnotethatitwasaverypositiverulingfortrademarkownersasit¡°¡±HenotesthatmanyTTABcasesaresettledandthatevenwhentheyarenot,,headds,theissuesthattheTTABanddistrictcourtsadjudicateareoftendifferent(,thesubsequentdistrictcourtcaseverylikelywouldconsideradditionalissuesrelatingtouseinthemarketplace).¡°Therewasalotoftalkthat,becauseofthepossibilityofissuepreclusion,partiesshouldtakemorediscoveryandintroducemoreevidenceattheTTAB.¡°ButIsay:issuepreclusionisunlikelytoariseinallbuttherarestofcases,¡¯tintroducemorediscoverythanusual,anddon¡¯tincreaseyourcostsandfilealotofirrelevantevidencethatwouldhaveabearinginadistrictcourtbutwhichisnotrelevanttoouranalysis.¡±¡¯advice;,JudgeRogers,whohasbeeninhiscurrentpositionsinceNovember2010,saysthereisa¡°realvarietyandthingscancomeuponanygivenday.¡±Histimeincludesmeetingwiththeapproximately70membersoftheTTABstaff,whichincludesjudges,attorneys,thatthejudgesarecontinually,andhestressestheimportanceofworkinginharmony.¡°WeworkcloselywiththeSolicitor¡¯sOffice;theywillbeinthepositionofdefendingvariousBoarddecisionsbeforetheFederalCircuit,sowewanttoputtheminthebestpositionpossible,¡±¡¯sOffice,JudgeRogersexplains,canrelaytotheTTABtheque¡¯smostseniorjudgemaybehisprimaryrole,JudgeRog¡¯sstaffareitsbiggeststrength,saysthejudge.¡°Ifindthetimetoremindouremployeesofwhatgreatworktheydo,¡±ursandstress¡ªhisbicycle.¡°FormanyyearsIhaveriddentenmileseachwaytotheofficeandback;itprovidesabufferbetweenworkandhomelife.¡±

Ñ×ÈȵÄÏļ¾£¬ÎÒÃÇÓ­À´ÁË×îºÃµÄÏà¾Û¡£

OnMay3,2022,theAdministrativeConferenceoftheUnitedStates(ACUS)announcedthattheUnitedStatesPatentandTrademarkOffice(USPTO)hadengagedACUStoconductanindependentstudyintotheissuesassociatedwith,andthedesignof,(May3,2022)TheACUSinvitespubliccommentsonthestudy,whichareduebyJuly5,,however,,concernshavebeenraisedthatthecostofpatentlitigationinfederalcourtdeterssmall-andmedium-sizedenterprises,includingthoseownedbytraditionallyunderrepresentedgroups,,theDepartmentofCommerceinvestigate,thenDirectoroftheUSPTODavidKapposissuedaFederalRegisternoticeseekingpubliccommentsonwhethertheUnit(,2012)ThenoticeofthisnewstudycomesnearlyayearafterabipartisangroupofsixsenatorssentalettertotheCommissionerforPatents,,2021letter,SenatorsChristopherCoons(D-DE)JohnCornynIII(R-TX)ThomasCotton(R-AR)MazieHirono(D-HI)PatrickLeahy(D-VT)andThomasTillis(R-NC)referencedthe2012FederalRegisternoticeandstatedthattheUSPTOhadnotfolloweduponthatdthatthestudybeprovidedtotheSenateJudiciaryCommitteenolaterthanDecember31,ctanindependentsurveyandanalysisofissuesassoc:;tentcourt;,structure,andinternalorganizationofapotentialsmallclaimspatentcourt,includingwhetheritshouldbeestablishedwithintheArticleIIIfederalcourts,asorwithinanArticleIcourt,orasanadministrativetribunal;,appointment,management,andoversightofofficialswhopresideoverproceedingsinapotentialsmallclaimspatentcourt;,whetherparticipationinsuchproceedingswouldbemandatoryorvoluntary,andwhetherpartiescanremovecasestoanotheradministrativetribunalorfederalcourt;urt,including,asrelevant,pleadings,discovery,andalternativedisputeresolution;vide;;/,thereisabroadrangeofpossibilit,andhowitisstructured,willimpactpatentholdersandaccusedinfringersalike.

Theself-proclaimedinventorofBitcoin,CraigWright,haswonadefaultjudgmentinLondon¡¯sHighCourtinhisc,thewebsiteanditsownerCobramustremovetheBitcoinwhitepaperfromthewebportalandpay$¡®Satoshi¡¯¡¯,however,onFebruary24viatheIntellecigh,thereissomuchevidencecontradictingCraigWright¡¯sstoryit¡¯sbeensaidhesimply¡°thrivesonattention.¡±¡°He¡¯shadfouryearstocomeforwardwithproofthatheisSatoshi,andI,forone,amnotsatisfied,¡±¡¯soperatorCobra,theCryptoOpenPatentAlliance(COPA)¡¯sclaimstothefamouswhitepaper.¡°Today,r,¡±,arepresentativeofCraigWright,:¡°ThisisexactlywhatwehavewantedtohappenforsometimeandIamverypleasedthisbodyhasagreedtostandupincourtasIcannowhavemycredentialsjudgedlegally.¡±OnJune28andalsoupdatedthefollowingday,¡¯¡¯srequestwhichincludes:AninjunctionprohibitingtheDefendantfrominfringingDrWright¡¯scopyrightintheUnitedKingdo¡±¡°AnorderrequiringtheDefendanttopublishacopyoftheCourt¡¯¡±¡°maintaintheiranonymity.¡±OnTwitter,¡¯spseudonymousoperatorspokeabouttherulingandsaidthatitwastheperfectexampleofwhyuncensorableandpermissionlessnetworkslikeBitcoinareneeded.¡°Allyourfiat-basedassetsareultimatelysecuredbythesamelegalsystemthattodaymadeitillegalformetohosttheBitcoinwhitepaperbecauseanotoriousliarsworebeforeajudgethathe¡¯sSatoshi,¡±Cobratweeted.¡°Asystemwhere¡®justice¡¯dependsonwho¡¯sgotthebiggerwallet.¡±Theanonymousbitcoineradded:¡°Idon¡¯tthinkyoucouldgetabetteradvertisementof*why*donwhoevercanspendhundredsofthousandsofdollarsincourt.¡±

ChinawillcontinuetostrengthentheprotectionofintellectualpropertyrightsandprovideafavorableenvironmentforglobalinnovatorsandentrepreneurstoensurethatscientificandtechnologicalachievementscanbetterbenefitChinaandtheworldatlarge,enceandTechnologyInnovationCooperationConferenceheldinBeijing,sayingthatChinastandsreadytoworkwiththerestoftheworldtobuildanopen,fair,justandnondllastheslowdowninglobaleconomicgrowth,itismorenecessarythaneverforallcountriestostrengtheninclusivecooperationinscienceandtechnologyandmakeinnovationssoastojointlydealwithglobalchallenges,sbenefitedfrominclusivecooperation,andglobalprogressinscienceandtechnologyalsoneedsChina,notingthatChinahasalreadyestablisheds,Chinawillimplementamoreinclusiveandmutuallybeneficialstrategyoninternationalscientificandtechnologicalcooperationandtakeamoreopenattitudetowardspromotingglobalcoordinationonscientificinnovations,ationnetwork,jointlypushforbreakthroughsinsuchareasasfundamentalscienceresearchandtheapplicationofsci,themedTechnologyEmpowerstheFuture,InnovationLeadsDevelopment,wasattendedbo,assistantdirectorgeneraloftheWorldIntellectualPropertyOrganization,saidinavideospeechthatChinaisnowaleadingcountryinglobalinnovationandWIPaladdressthatChinasprogressinscienceandtechnologyaswellasitseconomicgrowthhavemghitsscientificdevelopment.

Thefundamentalfunctionofatrademarkistoidentifythesourcesofgoods/servicessothatastablecorrespondingrelationshipbetweenthetrademarkandthedesignatedgoods/,manyenterprisesandapplicantsprefershortandeasytoremembersloganforthepromotionandmarketingfort,,(3)ofTrademarkLawofthePeoplesRepublicofChina,thefollowingsignsshallnotberegisteredastrademarks:,itiscommonthatCNIPAwillbelievesuchtrademarkislikelytomisleadthepublictorecognizeitasasloganoradvertisinglanguage,(3):¡°ÃÀʱÃÀ¿Ë¾¡ÔÚÃÀ¼Ò¡±(3);¡°ÊÍ·ÅÄãµÄ»îÁ¦¡±(3);¡°ENJOYTHEDAY¡±(3);¡°HOTELSTHATDEFINETHEDESTINATION¡±(3);¡°WISHYOUWEREHERE¡±(3);¡°UNLOCKTHEFUTUREWITHTHEPOWEROFLIGHT¡±(3).TheabovetrademarkswereallforbiddenfromtrademarkapplicationsinceCNIPAbelievesthemlackingdistinctivefeaturesandarenoteasilydistinguishable,(3)ofTrademarkLawthoughtheapplicantssubmittedrelevantevi,thesignsmayberegisteredastrademarksaftertheyhave¡°Õ⣡¾ÍÊǽÖÎ衱inClass41,theCNIPAbelievesthismarkhasacquireddistinctivenessandbemortinctivefeatures,itshallbeconsideredwithrelevantevidencetodeterminew,,iftheappliedtrademarkcanbecombinedwithotherdistinctiveelements,suchaswordordesign,,¡°LOREALBECAUSEIMWORTHIT¡±;althoughitwouldbeeasiertoenhancethepublicityandreputationofthebrand,itisquitediff,thechancestillexistsiftheslogancanberecognizedasdistinctivenessanddistinguishablethatconsiderthesign,detailedgoods/servicesitems,actualuse,etc.

TheinternetisthemainbattlefieldforcopyrightprotectioninChinabecauseofthelargenumberofusers,richapplicationofworksandrapidgrowthofthedigitaleconomy,,saidZhaoXiuling,deputydirec,11wereintheUnitedStatesandninewereinChina,nCopyrightandCreativeIndustriesintheDigitalEconomy:,thenumberofnetizensinthecountrywas829million,andthenumberofmobileinternetusersstoodat817million,,,,ectualproperty,copyrightin,6,266websitesinvolvedininfringementandpiracywereclosed,nearly4millionpiratedproductswereconfiscatedand6,647infringementandpiracycaseswereinvestigatedundertheimplementationofSwordnetSpecialActions.

Manysoftware-relatedandbusinessmethod-relatedpatentshavebeeninvalidatedforbeingdirectedto¡°abstractideas.¡±OnJanuary10,2018,inFinjan,Inc.,,Inc.,theFederalCircuitaffirmedthedistrictcourt¡¯sholdingthatFinjan¡¯,154,844(¡°the¡¯844patent¡±)[1]wasnotdirectedtoa¡ì¡¯sthresholdtestforpatenteligibilityunder¡ì101is¡°whethertheclaimsfocusonthespecificassertedimprovementincomputercapabilities...or,insteadonaprocessthatqualifiesasan¡®abstractidea¡¯forwhichcomputersareinvokedmerelyasatool.¡±[2]Thecourt¡¯srecentdecisionprovidesadditionalguidanceregardingthetypesofclaimsthatconstitutespecifiofCaliforniaonAugust28,2013,forinfringementofmultiplepatentsbyBlueCoat¡¯¡¯844patentscansfilesforpotentialsecuritythreats(,viruses),createsrespectivesecurityprofileslinkedtothescannedfiles,andthenmakesthescannedfilesavailabletousers.[3]Thejudgefoundthatthe¡¯¡ì101,,amongotherrulings,thedistrictcourt¡¯¡ì101asappliedtothe¡¯,inpart,thattheassertedclaimsofthe¡¯844patentshouldbeinvalidatedbecausetheclaimswereanalogoustothoseinApple,,Inc.;[4]AffinityLabsofTex.,,LLC;[5],[6],theFederalCircuitdistinguisheditspreviousdecisionsinvalidatingclaims,inpart,bycitingbacktoacoreconceptofpatentetandingforthe¡°foundationalpatentlawprinciple:thataresult,evenaninnovativeresult,isnotitselfpatentable.¡±[7]Rather,patents¡°aregranted¡®forthediscoveryorinventionofsomepracticablemethodormeansofproducingabeneficialresultoreffect...andnotfortheresultoreffectitself.¡¯¡±[8]Akeydistinguishingfeaturethatthecourtfoundwasthattheclaimsinthe¡¯844patent¡°recitespecificsteps...thataccomplishthedesiredresult.¡±[9]Notably,the¡¯844patentdoesnotclaimeithertheresultofperformingtheclaimedmethodstepsortheimprovementsoftheclaimedmethodoverthepriorart.[10]However,thecourtstilldistinguishedtheclaimsinthe¡¯844patentfromtheinvalidatedclaimsinApple,AffinityLabs,andIntellectualVentures[11]becausethoseclaimsgenerallyreciteddesirableresultsthatwereimplementedbygenericcomputercomponentsperformingkn¡¯844patent,theFederalCircuitfoundthatthepatent¡°enablesacomputersecuritysystemtodothingsitcouldnotdobefore...allow[ing]accesstobetailoredfordifferentusersandensur[ing]thatthreatsareidentifiedbeforeafilereachesauser¡¯scomputer.¡±[12]Thisnewfunctionalitywasfoundtobesufficientlyenabledbasedonthespecificationofthe¡¯844patent,whichdistinguishedtheadvantagesof¡°behavior-based¡±virusscanningtopriorart¡°code-matching¡±¡¯844patentrecitespecificstepstoaccomplishanadvantageousresultbasedontheenablingdescriptioninthespecification.[13]Thus,thepatenteligibilityinquiryunder¡ì101endedwithdeterminingthattheclaimsweredirectedt,theFederalCircuitprovidesnewguidanceforpatenteligibilityunder¡ì,thecourtbaseditsanalysisonanovelapproachinoneembodimentfoundinthespecificationofthe¡¯844patent,eventhoughtheclaimsarenotlimitedtothatspecificembodiment.[14]Thus,thecourtfoundthattheclaimsarenotrequiredtoexplicitlyrecitearesultorimprovementwherethespecificationadequatelydescr¡ì101maythereforebebasedonacombinationofthestepsrecitedinaclaimforaccomplishingaresultandthespecification¡¯sdescription,whenassessingthepatenteligibilityofcomputer-relatedpatentclaims,emphasisshouldbeplacedonthespecification¡¯sdescriptionofthestateoftheartascomparedtohowanimprovementincom(eg,tables,footnotes),pleaseaccesstheoriginalhere.

OnApril12,accordingtoanordermadepublicinManhattanfederal,DistrictJudgeJedRakoffhasthrownoutalawsuitfromInternationalBusinessMachinesCorp(IBM)claimingonlinepetfoodretailerChewyIncswebsiteandmobileappviolatedseveralIBMpatentscoveringimprovementstowebsitefunctionalityandtargetedadvertising,fromwhichIBMwouldseekatleast$¡¯unpatentableabstractidea,Florida-basedChewysuedIBMtoheadoffapotentiallawsuitandaccusedtechgiantIBM,oneofthelargestpatentownersintheworld,ofseekingexorbitantlicensingfeesforearlyInternetpatentshavingnovalue.,afteritsupposedlyrejecteda$,IBMwassaidtohavesimilarlysuedotherinternet-basedcompaniesincludingTwitterInc,AirbnbIncandZillowGroupInc,andthatmostofthemhadbasicallysurrenderedbeforethetrial.

Manysoftware-relatedandbusinessmethod-relatedpatentshavebeeninvalidatedforbeingdirectedto¡°abstractideas.¡±OnJanuary10,2018,inFinjan,Inc.,,Inc.,theFederalCircuitaffirmedthedistrictcourt¡¯sholdingthatFinjan¡¯,154,844(¡°the¡¯844patent¡±)[1]wasnotdirectedtoa¡ì¡¯sthresholdtestforpatenteligibilityunder¡ì101is¡°whethertheclaimsfocusonthespecificassertedimprovementincomputercapabilities...or,insteadonaprocessthatqualifiesasan¡®abstractidea¡¯forwhichcomputersareinvokedmerelyasatool.¡±[2]Thecourt¡¯srecentdecisionprovidesadditionalguidanceregardingthetypesofclaimsthatconstitutespecifiofCaliforniaonAugust28,2013,forinfringementofmultiplepatentsbyBlueCoat¡¯¡¯844patentscansfilesforpotentialsecuritythreats(,viruses),createsrespectivesecurityprofileslinkedtothescannedfiles,andthenmakesthescannedfilesavailabletousers.[3]Thejudgefoundthatthe¡¯¡ì101,,amongotherrulings,thedistrictcourt¡¯¡ì101asappliedtothe¡¯,inpart,thattheassertedclaimsofthe¡¯844patentshouldbeinvalidatedbecausetheclaimswereanalogoustothoseinApple,,Inc.;[4]AffinityLabsofTex.,,LLC;[5],[6],theFederalCircuitdistinguisheditspreviousdecisionsinvalidatingclaims,inpart,bycitingbacktoacoreconceptofpatentetandingforthe¡°foundationalpatentlawprinciple:thataresult,evenaninnovativeresult,isnotitselfpatentable.¡±[7]Rather,patents¡°aregranted¡®forthediscoveryorinventionofsomepracticablemethodormeansofproducingabeneficialresultoreffect...andnotfortheresultoreffectitself.¡¯¡±[8]Akeydistinguishingfeaturethatthecourtfoundwasthattheclaimsinthe¡¯844patent¡°recitespecificsteps...thataccomplishthedesiredresult.¡±[9]Notably,the¡¯844patentdoesnotclaimeithertheresultofperformingtheclaimedmethodstepsortheimprovementsoftheclaimedmethodoverthepriorart.[10]However,thecourtstilldistinguishedtheclaimsinthe¡¯844patentfromtheinvalidatedclaimsinApple,AffinityLabs,andIntellectualVentures[11]becausethoseclaimsgenerallyreciteddesirableresultsthatwereimplementedbygenericcomputercomponentsperformingkn¡¯844patent,theFederalCircuitfoundthatthepatent¡°enablesacomputersecuritysystemtodothingsitcouldnotdobefore...allow[ing]accesstobetailoredfordifferentusersandensur[ing]thatthreatsareidentifiedbeforeafilereachesauser¡¯scomputer.¡±[12]Thisnewfunctionalitywasfoundtobesufficientlyenabledbasedonthespecificationofthe¡¯844patent,whichdistinguishedtheadvantagesof¡°behavior-based¡±virusscanningtopriorart¡°code-matching¡±¡¯844patentrecitespecificstepstoaccomplishanadvantageousresultbasedontheenablingdescriptioninthespecification.[13]Thus,thepatenteligibilityinquiryunder¡ì101endedwithdeterminingthattheclaimsweredirectedt,theFederalCircuitprovidesnewguidanceforpatenteligibilityunder¡ì,thecourtbaseditsanalysisonanovelapproachinoneembodimentfoundinthespecificationofthe¡¯844patent,eventhoughtheclaimsarenotlimitedtothatspecificembodiment.[14]Thus,thecourtfoundthattheclaimsarenotrequiredtoexplicitlyrecitearesultorimprovementwherethespecificationadequatelydescr¡ì101maythereforebebasedonacombinationofthestepsrecitedinaclaimforaccomplishingaresultandthespecification¡¯sdescription,whenassessingthepatenteligibilityofcomputer-relatedpatentclaims,emphasisshouldbeplacedonthespecification¡¯sdescriptionofthestateoftheartascomparedtohowanimprovementincom(eg,tables,footnotes),pleaseaccesstheoriginalhere.

ǰÈýÄêµÖ¿Û23%ÍÁµØÐÔÖÊ£ºÉÌÒµ£¨¿É¸Äס¡¢¿É°ì¹«¡¢´øÌìÈ»Æø)🚗³µÎ»£º700¸ö🔱½»¸¶£º¾«×°/ëÅ÷🌐»§Êý£ºËÄÌÝ20»§📆½»·¿Ê±¼ä£º2021Äêµ×💪💪½»Í¨ÅäÌ×💪💪¸ßÌúÕ¾£¬Æû³µÕ¾¸ßËÙ¿Ú3-5·ÖÖÓ³µ³Ì»´°²»ú³¡30·ÖÖÓ³µ³Ì🎓🎓Éú»îÅäÌ×🎓🎓ũóÊг¡¡¢´óÐÍÉ̳¬¡¢ÎÄ»¯ÖÐÐÄ¡¢¸÷´óÒøÐС¢Ð¡ºì»¨Ó×¶ùÔ°¡¢»´ºÓ·¾ÅÄêÖÆÊµÑéѧУ¡¢Á¬ÔƸÛÈËÃñÒ½Ôº¡¢¹àÄÏÏØÕþ¸®ÏîÄ¿Âôµã:µÍͶ×ʸ߻ر¨(¿ÉͶ×Ê¿É×Ôס)Ö÷Á¦Ãæ»ý60ƽ£¬´øÌìÈ»Æø£¬´øÑ§Çø(»´ºÓ·ʵÑéѧУ)£¬×Ô´øÉÌÒµ£¬»§ÐÍÓÅ£¬×ܼ۵ͣ¬²»ÏÞ¹º£¬²»ÏÞ´û£¬¿É¸ÄÃñÓÃË®µç£¬Æ·ÅÆÎïÒµ±£¼Ý»¤º½£¬24СʱÌùÐÄ·þÎñ

¾ÍÔÚ8ÔÂ4ÈÕÉÏÎç10µã£¬ÒòΪһֱÔÚ¸ßÎÂÌìÆøÏÂÖ´ÇÚ£¬Íõ¾ê¸Ðµ½ÑÛǰһƬºÚ£¬ËæÖ®¶øÀ´µÄÊÇÍ·ÔΡ¢¶ñÐÄ¡¢ÏëÍ¡£

Foodpanda,oneofthelargestfooddeliverystartupsinAsiaoutsideofChina,isinalegalspatwithHungryPandaSGoveranallegedtrademarkinfringement,,,FoodpandafiledanoppositionagainstHungryPanda¡¯¡¯,consumersmaymistakeHungryPanda¡¯sservicesandproductsforthatofFoodpanda¡¯,whichwasacquiredbyGermany-basedDeliveryHeroin2016,hasbecomeaprizedpossessionforitsparentfirm,asitwasoneofitsmaindriversofrevenueinthethirdquarterof2021.

Nationallegislatorsandexpertsonintellectualpropertyrightshavewelcomedstrongerprotectionofonlinecopyrightsandharsherpunishmentsforcopycatsinnewlyreleaseddraftamendmentstoexistinglawwhilesugges,technologicalandculturalgrowthnorsolvednewproblemsintheindustry,saidLiRui,,thecountrystoplegislature,,whichhasbeenineffectfor30years,hadplayedanimportantroleinencouraginginnovationandprotectingcopyrights,Lisaid,butitcannotgivemorelegalsupporttonewtypesofonlinecopyrights,letaloneendrelateddisputes,tmonthshowedthattherewere904millioninternetusersacrossthecountrybyMarch,,thenationisalsoseeingabigincreaseofIP-relatedconflictsonline,,2018,toMarch31,forexample,theBeijingInternetCourtfiled42,121casesononlineIPrights,s,includingnovels,picturesandvideos,areemergingonline,andbecauseofhowfastinformationspreadsontheinternet,saidKangLixia,,theworkscreatorswillfacegreatereconomiclosses,ascollectingevidenceonlineforthemisalsoabigchallenge,shesaid,addingthathighlightingprommittee,,sayingtheyposedabiggerisorherworks,peopleusingtheworkswithoutpayingorthosedeliberatelyinfringinosstocopyrightholdersandbenefitsgainedbyinfringerscannotbedetermined,thedraftraisestheceilingforcompensationthatpirateswillhavetopayto5millionyuan($706,000),upfrom500,,protectionandapplicationofcopyrights,saidLiXueyong,,balancingcopyrightprotection,,sayingweshouldgive,weneedtopaymoreattentiontoimprovingthedraftsowecanfindbetterwayst,aseniorlawmaker,saidtherewereafewproblems-suchashowtoprotectcopyrightsonlivestreamingplatformsandwhetherworksmadebyrobotsshouldbesafeguarded-thatstillhadnoclearsolution,whichrequiresustoconductfurtherstudiesandpromotethedraftinatimelymanner.

ChinahasoutpacedtheUnitedStatesinthenumberofworldwideartificialintelligence-relatedpatentapplications,accordingtoanewreportissuedbytheChinaIndustrialControlSystemsCyberEmergencyResponseteam,,,712AI-relatedpatentapplications,rankingfirstinChinaforthesecondconsecutiveyear,followedbyTencent(4,115),MicrosoftChina(3,978),Inspur(3,755)andHuawei(3,656).ThereportshowedthatBaiduisthepatentapplicationleaderinseveralkeyareasofAI,includingthedeeplearning(1,429),naturallanguageprocessing(938)andspeechrecognition(933).Sofar,AI-enabledtechnologieshavebeenappliedinseveralsectors,suchasfinance,healthcare,omywillleapfrom$2trillionin2018to$,($)AIcoreindustryby2030,whrialupgrading,andthecountrysstrategicplanforAIoffersabroadspacef,fromtheperspectiveofapplicants,enterprisessuchasBatablishintellectualpropertysystemsrelatedtoAI,aswellasintroducehigh-leveltalents,,vice-presidentofTencent,saidatthesixthWorldInternetConferenceinWuzhen,Zhejiangprovince,thatthecompanyhasfiledover3,000AIpatentappli,particularlyinthefieldofAI,saidZhuWei,seniormanagingdirectorandchairmanofAccentureChina,whilenotingChinesecompanieshavedemonstratedgreatdeterminationtodiger,butalsogivefullplaytothevalueofAI,saidHongJing,founderofGaochengCapital,whoindicatedthatAIcanbeappliedinallwalksoflife,,chairmanandCEOofSinovationVentures,aleadingventurecapitalfirm,saidChinaandtheUSareleadingthefourthindustrialrevolutionbroughtbyAIthathasard,,otherwise,$,a44percentincreaseover2018,accordingtotheconsultancyInternationalDataCorporation.

¡°Themostsuccessfulpartieschoosetheirbattleswisely,¡±saysTheHonorableGerardRogers,ChiefAdministrativeTrademarkJudgeattheTrademarkTrialandAppealBoard(TTAB),abodywithintheUnitedStatesPatentandTrademarkOffice(USPTO).HavingservedinvariousrolesontheTTABformorethan25years,JudgeRogersispanshavebeendeniedbytheUSPTO,,partieshavebeenknowntopushtheirluck.¡°TrialsaresometimespursuedbecausethepartieshaveissuesoutsidetheTTABthatthey¡¯regrapplingwithand,itappearstous,theythinkitwillgivethemanotherleveragepointtodealwiththeirdifferences.¡±JudgeRogerssayshehasseencaseswherepartieshavenotproperlyfollowedtheTTAB¡¯sManualofProcedure,,regulatory,anddecisionalauthoritythatisrelevanttotheTTAB.¡°Therehavebeenappealsandtrialcasesthathavebeenlostbutcouldhavebeenwon,duetoafailuretofollowtherules,¡±saysJudgeRogers.¡°Manypractitionersfailtofollowtheguidanceonwhatevidencecanbeprobative.¡±JudgeRogersaddsthatit¡°neverhurts¡±toremindstakeholderstobecognizantoftherulesthattheTTABisrequiredtoapply¡ªaswellastheissuesitmustignore¡ª,theTTABoftencannottakeintoaccountparticularsrelatingtouseofatrademarkinthemarketplace,¡°Wehavetoignorethatinformation,yetpeoplebringittousallthetime,¡±,just30percentareexparteappeals,,appealsaccountfor75percentofcasesultimatelydecidedonthemerits,sowhatmightexplainthelargeswingJudgeRogerssaysthatpetitionsforcancellationandoppositionaresimilartocourtdisputesinthatasettlementisavailableand,ifthatoptionisused,¡°fewertrialcasesrequiredispositiononthemeritsasthepartieshaveworkeditout.¡±Inasmallpercentageofcases,apartymight¡°misbehave¡±andbesanctioned,whichcouldalsoleadtothecasebeingterminated,ppositionscanbemuchmoreexpensivethanappealsfromexaminerrefusals,soalotofcasesareneverpursuedbeyondtheinitialstages,,whichcaninvolveplentyofbackandforthbetweentheparties,includingondiscoveryandmotionpractice,,incontrast,¡°whentheattorneyfilesthenoticeofappealthereisnotmuchelsetodootherthanfilethebriefs,¡±,ofteninwrittenratherthanoralform,¡°sothere¡¯snotmuchaddedexpensetohaveanattorneypursueanappeal.¡±MoreAppealsJudgeRogersnotesthattrademarkapplicationfilingswiththeUSPTOhaverisenyear-on-yearforeightyears,so¡°thismeansmoreappealsandoppositionsandtheneedtoincreasethestafftohandlethatwork.¡±ernsabouttheBoard¡¯,seResolution(ACR)procedure,,theTTABseekstoexpediteproceedingsby,amongotherthings,activelyencouragingpartiestoconsiderplacinglimitsondiscoveryandtestimony,andadoptingmoreefficientaltern,forexample,hesaysthat,whileattorneyshaveindividualresponsibilityforcasesontheirdockets,theTTAB¡¯smanagingattorneywillreassigncaseswithpendingmotionsonamoneeditsperformancetargets,saysJudgeRogers,despitealargevariationinthecomplexityofcases,2weeksofthecasebeingreadytodecide,saysJudgeRogers(readyfordecisionmeansafterallbriefingisdoneandthecaseissubmittedbyaBoardparalegaltotheChiefJudgeforassignment,orafteroralargument,ifoneisrequested).¡°Wehaverepeatedlybeatenthisgoal,¡±veragependency(fromcommencementtocompletion)ofexparteappealsforthelastfiveyearsinarow,withthatpendencymeasurefallingintrialcasesforfiveofthepastsixyears.¡°JudgeRogersexplainsthatstakeholdershavelongexpressedapreferencefortheTTABtoremain¡°amorerelaxedalternativetolitigationinfederaldistrictcourts,¡±whereextension,,,,Inc.,ntdistrictcourtlitigationbetweenthesamepartiesthatlitigatedanearliercasebeforetheTTAB,aslongasthe¡°ordinaryelements¡±,JudgeRogerssaysitsimpactontheTTABhasbeen¡°almostnone.¡±However,hedoesnotethatitwasaverypositiverulingfortrademarkownersasit¡°¡±HenotesthatmanyTTABcasesaresettledandthatevenwhentheyarenot,,headds,theissuesthattheTTABanddistrictcourtsadjudicateareoftendifferent(,thesubsequentdistrictcourtcaseverylikelywouldconsideradditionalissuesrelatingtouseinthemarketplace).¡°Therewasalotoftalkthat,becauseofthepossibilityofissuepreclusion,partiesshouldtakemorediscoveryandintroducemoreevidenceattheTTAB.¡°ButIsay:issuepreclusionisunlikelytoariseinallbuttherarestofcases,¡¯tintroducemorediscoverythanusual,anddon¡¯tincreaseyourcostsandfilealotofirrelevantevidencethatwouldhaveabearinginadistrictcourtbutwhichisnotrelevanttoouranalysis.¡±¡¯advice;,JudgeRogers,whohasbeeninhiscurrentpositionsinceNovember2010,saysthereisa¡°realvarietyandthingscancomeuponanygivenday.¡±Histimeincludesmeetingwiththeapproximately70membersoftheTTABstaff,whichincludesjudges,attorneys,thatthejudgesarecontinually,andhestressestheimportanceofworkinginharmony.¡°WeworkcloselywiththeSolicitor¡¯sOffice;theywillbeinthepositionofdefendingvariousBoarddecisionsbeforetheFederalCircuit,sowewanttoputtheminthebestpositionpossible,¡±¡¯sOffice,JudgeRogersexplains,canrelaytotheTTABtheque¡¯smostseniorjudgemaybehisprimaryrole,JudgeRog¡¯sstaffareitsbiggeststrength,saysthejudge.¡°Ifindthetimetoremindouremployeesofwhatgreatworktheydo,¡±ursandstress¡ªhisbicycle.¡°FormanyyearsIhaveriddentenmileseachwaytotheofficeandback;itprovidesabufferbetweenworkandhomelife.¡±

Ñ×ÈȵÄÏļ¾£¬ÎÒÃÇÓ­À´ÁË×îºÃµÄÏà¾Û¡£

ƽ³£ÎҺͰ®È˹¤×÷±È½Ï棬¾«×°³ÉÁËÎÒÃÇÖ÷Òª¿¼ÂǶÔÏó£¬Ê¡ÊÂʡʱʡÁ¦¡£

TheCantonFair,oneoftheworldslargesttradeshowsthatkickedoffonThursdayinGuangzhou,SouthChinasGuangdongProvince,islocatedinthePazhouarea,agrowingindustrialclusterofinformationtechnology,artificialintelligence,industrialInternetandotherinnovativetechnologies,whereover30,000companieshavesettled,includingAlibaba,Tencent,Xiaomi,,laboratoriesarealsomovingintotheregiontoenhanceresearchanddevelopment(RD).PazhouLab,orAIDEGuangdongProvinceLab(GZ),nomyfortheGuangdong-HongKong-MacaoGreaterBayArea,andvowstobeahubofscienceandtechnologyinnovation,YuanZiwei,apublicityagentofthePazhouLab,,whichcansolvethecoreproblemsofintelligentsystems,,vicedirectoroftheBeijingEconomicOperationAssociation,toldtheGlobalTimesthattheconstructionoflaboratoriesandindustrialparkswillhelpGuangdong,andShenzheninparticular,addressitsshortcomingsineducationandresearch,thussupportingGua,HanJiuqiang,aprofessorofXianJiaotongUniversity,wasoneoftheexperts,,aspeoplesconsumptionlevelishigher,resultinginmorepursuitanddemandforniche,personalizedproducts,,,wehavetohavemachinesandrobotsthatcandodifferentthingsatthesametime,andthatrequiresalotmorefro,,allsmartdevicestodayarenotreallysmart,becausethesemachinesandrobotsareonlycapableoflearning,,forexample,isverygoodatplayingchess,,,ontheotherhand,telligent,,butitstillneedstimetorealizeinindustrialproduction,,ofwhichindependentlydevelopedandproducedintelligentsteelprocessingequipmenthavebeenwidelyusedincivilengineeringfieldssuchashighways,,America,theMiddleEast,SoutheastAsia,SouthAfricaandotherinternationalmarkets,,,whichisthecoreofthesmartmachineryandequipment,,utilitymodelpatentsandsoftwarecopyrightinthefieldofintelligentconstruction,tmentaregreatburdensforenterprises,,theoriginalinnovationofhigh-techinthesmartfield,suchasthethirdgenerationofthesemiconductor,AIandmechanicalautomation,isquitedifficult,,resourcesinmanyfieldsofindustry,,supporttheoreticalresearch,andfinally,completetheprocessfromtheorytoindustrialpractice,ZhangXiaorong,directoroftheBeijing-basedCutting-EdgeTechnologyResearchInstitute,,andmakethecountryconcentrateonresearch,,whatChinaneedstostrengthenisitstheoreticalresearch.

OnNovember27,2017,theSupremeCourtheardoralargume,¡¯sEnergyGroup,LLC(OilsStates).TheissueraisedinOilStatescallsintoquestionthePatentTrialandAppealsBoard¡¯s(PTAB)authoritytoconductInterPartesReviews(IPRs).PriortoenactmentoftheAmericaInventsAct(AIA)in2011,patentpractitionersthoughtthattheUSPTOwasissuingtoomany¡°bad¡±,CongresscreatedIPRswhichwereintendedtobealessexpensiveandquicker(comparedtodistrictcourtlitigation),over7,000IPRpetitionshave%,giventhesestatistics,IPRsarenotverypopularwith,thepatentatissue,,179,053,wasdieene¡¯¡¯scounterclaimedthatthepatentwasinvalidforlackofnoveltyoveraCanadianpatentpublishedbythesameinventormorethanoneyearbeforethe¡®¡¯salsofiledapetitionforaninterpartesreviewattheUSPTOchallengingthepatentabilityoftwoofthepatent¡¯¡¯,May1,,May4,n:¡°Whetherinterpartesreview-anadversarialprocessusedbythePatentandTrademarkOffice(PTO)toanalyzethevalidityofexistingpatents-violatestheConstitutionbyextinguishingprivatepropertyrightsthroughanon-ArticleIIIforumwithoutajury.¡±OilStatesarguedthatincreatingIPRs,CongressimproperlyintrudedontheseparationofpowersbygivingArticl¡°litigation-likeadversarialproceeding¡±betweenprivatepartiesandis,therefore,,patentsareprivatepropertyrightsthatforcenturieshavebeenadjudicatedbycourts,¡°meaningful¡±ArticleIIIsupervisionbecausetheFederalCircuitgivesdeferencetothePTABandonlyreviewsitsfindingstodeterminewhethertheyaresupportedby¡°substantialevidence.¡±Thus,OilStatesconcludedthatuntenuredAPJsappoin,OilSt,patentvaliditydisputeswerehistoricallytriedbeforejurieswhoresolvedquestionsoffact,Greene¡¯spointedoutthattheConstitutiongivesCongressthepowertoprovideforpatents¡°oftheproperscopetopromote¡®theProgressofScienceandtheusefulArts.¡¯¡±,¡ì8,,becauseCongresshastheconstitutionalauthoritytopromulgatestatutesgoverningpatentrights,apatentisapublicrightaccordingtoGreene¡¯s¡°integrallyrelatedtoparticularFederalGovernmentaction.¡±Greene¡¯sarguedthatbecausepatentsarepublicrights,,accordingtoGreene¡¯s,IPRsaresubjecttoreviewbyanArticleIIItribunalbecausepate¡¯salsoarguedthatIPRsarenottrulyjudicialinnaturebecause,interalia,theyonlyconsiderpatentabilitybasedonanarrowsubsetofissues;namely,¡ì¡ì,IPRssimplyallowtheUSPTOt¡¯salsopointedoutthattheUSPTOhashadtherighttocorrecterrorswithpatentsfordecadesbymeansofreissues,interferenceproceedings,,Greene¡¯sarguedthatIPRsaremerelyanothermeansfortheUSPTOtohaveasecondlookatapa,Greene¡¯spointedouttheCourtne,Greene¡¯sarg,25supportingRespondentGreene¡¯msthathavebeeninvalidatedinhepreviouslydecidedcasesindistrictcourt,butalsosurprisingbecauseitcouldbeconstruedasaconcessionbyOilState¡¯sdecisionisexpectedt,,ifapatentsconveysapublicright,thestatusquoisexpectedtobemaintained.

UtahscookiecompetitioncontinuedonJuly13whenDirtyDoughandCraveCo,foundedinLoganbySawyerHemsleyandJasonMcGowan,filedalawsuitagainstDirtyDough,acookiebusinessthatstartedinTempe,Arizona,,aCrumblinsiderleftCrumbltofoundDirtyDough,whichsellsandpromotescookiesusingpackaging,decor,andpresentationthatisconfusinglysim,whosbrotherwasaCrumblemployee,toldTheHerald,youguysknowthatDirtyDoughwasalreadystartedin2018,,Ithinkwerethemostdifferent,..,,bigsupporter,Maxwellsaid,expla,allofasuddenoutofnowhere¡­wegethitwithalawsuit,,,,wellseeiftheywanttotalk¡­whatsthesolutionhereMaxwellsaid,,wereachedouttothem¡ªtoldthemweacceptedcounsel,,,anothercookiecompanythathascometoUtah,,afterCrumbldeniedanapplicationbyCravesfoundertobecomeaCrumblfranchisee,Cravebegansellingandpromotingitscopycatgourmetcookies,Crumblscomplaintreadsbeforealletailsofthevaluablegoodwill,reputation,ontobecomeaCrumblefranchiseeorthatCraveisinviolationofanyofCrumblsallegedtrademarks,tradedress,orotherintellectualpropertyrights,rattemptbyathreatenedcompetitortousealawsuittostiflefairandfreecompetitionanddenyconsumersachoiceofproducts,Englishsaidinastatementto,,orelsewhywouldnttheytalkwithusorsendacease-and-desistletter,,,Maxwellsaid,,hesaid,,Crumblsaidtheyareprotectingtheirsuccess:Asafranchisorof30,000+CrumblCrewmembers,1,000+FranchisePartners,andhundredsofCrumblHQemployees,wewillalwaystakeseriouslyourroleinbuildingandprotectingthecompanyanditstrademarksthatweveallworkedsohardtocreatetogether.

Yesterday,theUnitedStates,LLC,inedaviabledefensetopatentinfringementactionswhenthechargeofp,theSupremeCourtfoundthatthedefenseoflachesisinappropriateforclaimsbroughtwithinthestatuteoflimitations,thesamerulingreachedonlyseveralyea,Inc.,___(2014).,whowasjoinedbytheChiefJustice,aswellasJusticesKennedy,Thomas,Ginsburg,Sotomayor,,tyallowedforalachesdefensetopatentinfringementactions,explainingthatinveryoldcasesin,,inaratherexasperatedway,thattheFederalCircuitseemedtoignorepreviousSupremeCourtpronouncementsthatlachescouldnotbeusedasadefensetoaclaimbroughtduringthestatuteoflimitationsperiodbecaus,thistimebycitingtoJudgeHughesenbancdissent,whichexplainedthatpatentsandpatentcasesarenotspecial,oflimitationsforpatentinfringementactionsnotbeingatruestatuteoflimitationsbecauseitcountsbackwardsfromth,withoutalachesdefensepossible,apatentownercouldlieinwaitforinfringementtobecomewidespreadandthen,thefactthatlachescannotbeusedasadefensetoapatentinfringementactionbroughtd,,inthewakeoftheSupremeCourtsdecisioninSCAHygiene,,allowinfringementtoaccrueandthensuefor,patentscanlastfor20years,thestatuteoflimitationsissix-years,andwithoutalachesdefenseavailabletoinfringersyouwils,,inthemajorityopinionJusticeAlitowrote:[A]pplyinglacheswithinalimitationsperiodspecifiedbyCongresswouldgivejudgesalegislation-overridingrolethatisbeyondtheJudiciaryspower.(Slipop.,at4)TheSupremeCourtneverseemstobebotheredwithlegislation-overridingwh,,process,manufactureorcompositionofmatter,,oranysupportintheConstitution,theSupremeCourthasaddedtwoadditionalinquiriesthroughwhattheyrefertoastheAlice/derstandtheroleoftheJudiciaryandatothertimescompletelyignoreseparationofpowers,,inhisdissentJusticeBreyerwrote:Iwouldbemorecautiousbeforeadopting,,739(2002).(Breyerdissent,at11)SettledexpectationsmeantabsolutelynothingtoJusticeBreyer,oranyoftheotherJusticesoftheSupremeCourt,,thereissimplynowaytointerpretMyriadinanyotherwaythanoverrulingthesettatterdidnotexistinnatureitwasstill,nevertheless,,,theSupremeCourtflatoutignoredtheentirestat,atleasttotheextentthatinDiehrthenAssociateJustic,inMayotheSupremeCourtintentionallyconflatednoveltyandobviousnesswithpatenteligibility,requiringthatdecisionmakersconsiderwhetherconventionalitemsareaddedtoclaimsandproclaimingthattheadditionofconventional,,,,whethersomethingisconventionalisnowaskedabsenttheapplicationofpriorart,:,thosetwoquotesf,theSupr

ÿÔÂÐݰà3Ì죬°üסËÞ£¬³Ô·¹×Ô¼ºÂòÓлïʳ²¹Ìù¡£

Lastweek,theItalianSocietyofAuthorsandEditors(SIAE)saiditpartnered,forexample,asimilarprojectincollaborationwiththeLaSapienzaUniversityofRomeandthestartupBlockchainCore,,SIAEisworkingwithAlgorandtoleveragethelatter¡¯bysomeone,andtheplatformwillkeeptrackoftheroyaltiestheywouldreceive.¡°Theworldisevolving,butthefoundingmissionoftheItalianSocietyofAuthorsandPublishers,theprotectionofcreativity,doesnotchange,¡±saidSIAEGeneralManagerGaetanoBlandini.¡°OurcollaborationwithAlgorandispartofaprocessalreadystartedandisalignedwithresearchandinnovationonanationalandglobalscale.¡±CommentingonthepartnershipwithSIAE,SilvioMicali,thefounderofAlgorand,said,¡°Collaborationbetweentechnologyprovidersandforward-thinkingorganizationssuchasSIAEopensupvastopportunitiesforprogressiontowardsneweconomicmodelsthatpromoteinclusivity,transparency,andfrictionlesstransactions.¡±Blockchainisbeingseenastheperfectmat,ab,,potentially,eachpieceofcopyrightedworkcanbeassigneduniqueidentifiers,androyaltypaymentscouldbedirectlysenttotheowner¡¯,,,Ba,HTCandafewotherfirmshaveinvestedinTaiwan-basedpropertyrightsstartupBitmarkInc,,SouthKorea¡¯sCJOliveNetworks,theITdivisionofCJGroup,launchedablockchaindigitalcopyrightssystemwhichfocusesonmusicalworks.

AmptLLC,theworldsleadingproviderofpoweroptimizersforlarge-scalephotovoltaic(PV)systems,(ITC)againstSolarEdgeTechnologies,Inc.(NASDAQ:SEDG),requestingthattheITCbantheimp,rplantstolowerthecostofenergyproductionandimproveperformanceinnewsystems;upgradeexistingsystems;enablelow-costsolarenergystoragesystems;asels,inIsrael,China,,itwouldnotbepossibleforSolarEdgetocontinuesellingthoseinfringingproductsintheUnitedStates,howevertherearenumerousothernon-infringingcomeroptimizersandrelatedproductsatitsfacilityinFortCollins,Colorado,whichispri0issuedpatents,adingproductsionandplaysafundamentalroleinloweringthecostsoflarge-scalesolarenergyproduction,saidLeventGun,llyusingour,wearestandingupforouremployees,customersandpartners,aswellastheprinciplesoffaircompetitionandr,ThiscomplaintseekstoblockSolarrEdgeisviolatingourintellectualpropertyandthat,,673,630and11,289,,Amptass,,605,498,7,719,140,10,608,437,10,886,746,11,070,062and11,070,063.

»§ÐÍͼ£º

UtahscookiecompetitioncontinuedonJuly13whenDirtyDoughandCraveCo,foundedinLoganbySawyerHemsleyandJasonMcGowan,filedalawsuitagainstDirtyDough,acookiebusinessthatstartedinTempe,Arizona,,aCrumblinsiderleftCrumbltofoundDirtyDough,whichsellsandpromotescookiesusingpackaging,decor,andpresentationthatisconfusinglysim,whosbrotherwasaCrumblemployee,toldTheHerald,youguysknowthatDirtyDoughwasalreadystartedin2018,,Ithinkwerethemostdifferent,..,,bigsupporter,Maxwellsaid,expla,allofasuddenoutofnowhere¡­wegethitwithalawsuit,,,,wellseeiftheywanttotalk¡­whatsthesolutionhereMaxwellsaid,,wereachedouttothem¡ªtoldthemweacceptedcounsel,,,anothercookiecompanythathascometoUtah,,afterCrumbldeniedanapplicationbyCravesfoundertobecomeaCrumblfranchisee,Cravebegansellingandpromotingitscopycatgourmetcookies,Crumblscomplaintreadsbeforealletailsofthevaluablegoodwill,reputation,ontobecomeaCrumblefranchiseeorthatCraveisinviolationofanyofCrumblsallegedtrademarks,tradedress,orotherintellectualpropertyrights,rattemptbyathreatenedcompetitortousealawsuittostiflefairandfreecompetitionanddenyconsumersachoiceofproducts,Englishsaidinastatementto,,orelsewhywouldnttheytalkwithusorsendacease-and-desistletter,,,Maxwellsaid,,hesaid,,Crumblsaidtheyareprotectingtheirsuccess:Asafranchisorof30,000+CrumblCrewmembers,1,000+FranchisePartners,andhundredsofCrumblHQemployees,wewillalwaystakeseriouslyourroleinbuildingandprotectingthecompanyanditstrademarksthatweveallworkedsohardtocreatetogether.

Therepresentativeclaimwasineligiblebecauseitdescribed¡®basicstepsofusingandmarketingadual-accesslockforluggageinspection,along-standingfundamentaleconomicpracticeandmethodoforganizinghumanactivity.¡¯¡±Dual-AccessLockSource:,021,537OnFebruary14,(CAFC)affirmedtheEasternDistrictofNewYork¡¯sgrantofsummaryjudgmentthatinventorDavidTropp¡¯spa¡ì,,021,537(the¡¯537patent)and7,036,728(¡®728patent).Representativeclaim1ofthe¡¯537patentrelatestoamethodofmakingavailableadual-accstillallowingluggagescreenerstoaccessluggage(withamarkedlock)theld,andtheCAFCagreed,thattherepresentativeclaimwasineligiblebecauseitdescribed¡°basicstepsofusingandmarketingadual-accesslockforluggageinspection,along-standingfundamentaleconomicpracticeandmethodoforganizinghumanactivity.¡±Specifically,thedistrictcourtheld¡°theclaimtobedirectedtoanabstractidea,notingthatourprecedentsconsistentlyrecognizetheabstractcharacterofsuchpracticesandmethods.¡±Further,theCAFCagreedwiththedistrictcourtthatTroppfailedtoidentifyan¡°inventiveconcept¡±,particularlytheclaim¡¯sreferencetoa¡°special¡±,intheclaimsorspecification,¡°technicalspecificationorconcreteimprovements.¡±Nordidheidentifyphysicalchangesmadetothelocktomakethelock¡°special.¡±Theabsenceofthisinformationonlyfurthersupportedthedistrictcourt¡¯sfindingofthe¡°genericnature¡±ofthe¡°special¡±,thedistrictcourtnotedthatdual-accesslockswere¡°familiarandusedinluggagescreening,withbagsidentifiedbyatagtoenablesuchuse.¡±Asaresult,thedistrictcourtheldthat¡°theclaimfail[ed]topassthemusterunderbothstepsoftheeligibilityinquiry.¡±ArgumentNotPreservedOnappeal,Tropparguedthattherepresentativeclaimisdirectedto¡°thecreationofnovelphysicallockswithauniformmasterkey(thatworkswithavarietyoflocksthathavedifferentlockingmechanisms).¡±TheCAFCnotedthatTropp¡¯sargumentraisedtwosubstantialquestionsbearingoneligibilityunderSection101:(1)didtheclaimrequireadual-accesslockinwhichthekeyforthemaster-keylockportionisthesamefordifferentcombination-lockmechanisms;andifso,(2)couldtheclaimpassmusterunderSection101intheabsenceofanythinginthespecification,oreveninthesummaryjudgmentrecord,thatprovidesdetailsregardingthephysicalmakeup,mechanism,oroperationofsuchalockindicatingaconcretetechnicaladvanceoverearlierdual-accesslocksHowever,theCAFCrefusedtoaddressthesequestionsbecause¡°Tropp[had]notpreservedthisargumentforeligibility.¡±InhisoppositiontotheSection101summaryjudgmentmotion,Troppdescribedthe¡°special¡±lockas¡°havingacombinationlockportionandamasterkeylockportion¡±andthe¡°identificationstructure¡±astheclaimedimproved¡°physicalcomponents.¡±ButtheCAFCnotedTroppfailedinhisoppositiontoarguethat¡°theinventiveconceptintheclaimswas,orincluded,thecreationofanewdual-accesslockwithamasterkeycapableofopeningdual-accesslockswhosecombination-lockmechanismsdifferedfromoneanother.¡±TheCAFCfoundTropp¡¯sargumentfortheSection101significanceofthelock-mechanismimprovementheclaimedonappealtobe¡°materiallydifferent¡±,theCAFC¡°declinedtoupsetthedistrictcourt¡¯sjudgmentbasedonanargumentlikethismadeforthefirsttimeonappeal.¡±

¡°Theobviousnessinquirydoesnotrequirethatthepriorartcombinationisthe¡®preferred,orthemostdesirable¡¯configuration.¡±¨CCAFChttps:///103763568/,(CAFC)affirmedthePatentTrialandAppealBoard¡¯s(PTAB¡¯s)obviousnessdeterminationanditsdenialofpatentownerHoytFleming¡¯,,includingclaims135-139,ofthe¡¯,Flemingmovedtoamend,thecombinationofCirrusDesign¡¯sPilotOperationHandbookfortheSR22,RevisionA7,(,2003)(POH),460,810(James).TheBoardfurtherfoundthatFleming¡¯sproposedamendedclaimsdidnotmeetthestatutoryandregulatoryrequirementsforpatentabilitybecaus,FlemingarguedtheBoarderredindeterminingt¡¯474PatentThe¡¯474patentdescribesballisticparachutesystemsonaircraft,wherethe¡°ballisticparachutesusearockettoquicklydeployaparachute,slowingthefallofacrashingaircraft¡±,thisballisticparachuteismostsuccessfulunderconditions¡°whenitcanbecomefullyinflatedandfunctional[,]¡±,thespecificationdisclosesthat¡°thatitispreferredtoreachkeyoperatingparameters¡ªlikecertainspeed,altitude,andpitch¡ªbefore(or,iftimerequires,while)deployingaballisticparachute.¡±The¡¯474patentisdirectedto¡°intelligentballisticparachutesystems¡±whichis¡°capableofperformingpre-activationandpost-activationactions[,]¡±intendedtohelptheaircraftreachdesiredoperatingparametersfor:(1)increasealtitude;(2)flyatalevelattitude;(3)reducespeed;and(4)enableordisable¡°reefingcontrol.¡±Additionally,thespecificationdisclosesthat,¡°uponreceivingaparachuteactivationrequestfroman¡®activationinterface,¡¯¡®oneormoreprocessors¡¯determinewhetherapre-activationactionmustbeperformedbeforedeployingtheparachute.¡±Ifso,¡°intelligenceoverrideinterface,¡±which¡°allowsanaircraftoccupanttomanuallyby-passtheprocessor-controlledoperationstoimmediatelydeploytheparachute,forexamplebypullingapull-handleorpressingabutton.¡±Specifically,therepresentativeClaim137ofthe¡¯474patentteachesthatuponthereceiptofthewhole-aircraftballisticparachutedeploymentrequest,theautopilotiscommandedto¡°increaseaircraftpitch.¡±Claims138and139areidenticalexcepttheautopilotiscommandedto¡°reduceaircraftroll¡±andto¡°changetheattitudeoftheaircraft,¡±,thePTABdeterminedthatclaims137¨C139ofthe¡¯¡¯soperatinghandbookwhichdescribestheoperationoftheCirrusAirframeParachuteSystem(CAPS),,POHsuggeststheparachuteshouldbeactivatedfroma¡°wings-level,uprightattitude¡±,anaircraftmayautomaticallyinitiateshutdownprocedures,tuation,including,forexample,¡°shuttingoffallengines,terminatingallflightfunctions,[and]deployinganemergencyrecoveryparachute.¡±ObvioustoCombineOnappeal,,hechallengedtheBoard¡¯sobviousnessdetermination,¡°arguingthatnoneofthepriorartdisclosescommandinganaircraft¡¯sautopilottoincreasepitch,reduceroll,orchangeattitudebasedontheaircraft¡¯sreceiptofaparachutedeploymentrequest,asrequiredbyclaims137¨C139.¡±TheCAFCagreedwiththePTAB¡¯thiselement,theBoardneverthelessfoundthat¡°apersonofordinaryskillwouldhavebeenmotivatedtoprogramJames¡¯autopilotinviewofPOHsothatuponthereceiptofaparachutedeploymentrequest,James¡¯autopilotwouldseektoensuresafetybyfollowingPOH¡¯sguidanceforsafeparachutedeployment,includingchangingtheaircraft¡¯spitch,reducingaircraftroll,and/,theCAFCadded,theproposed¡°aircraftautopilotsareprogrammabletoperformcertainactions,forexampleincreasingaircraftpitchanddeployingaparachute.¡±Inaddition,Jamesdisclosesthatuponreceivingasignal,¡°anaircraftmayautomaticallyinitiateshutdownprocedures,includingdeployinganemergencyparachute¡±¡°thesestandardautopilotmaneuvers¡ªslowingaircraftspeed,maintainingasteadyattitude,andchangingaircraftpitch¡ªshouldpreferablybecompletedbeforedeployinganemergencyparachute.¡±Lastly,theCAFCexplainedthat¡°itisappropriatetoconsidertheknowledge,creativity,andcommonsenseofaskilledartisaninanobviousnessdetermination.¡±WhiletheSupremeCourthascautionedagainstthemisuseoftheseconsiderations,ithascontinue,theCAFCfoundthattheBoard¡¯sconclusionisthe¡°resultofafaithfulapplicationofourlawonobviousness.¡±TeachingAwaySecond,Flemingarguedthatthepriorartteachesawayfromtheclaimedinventioninthe¡¯,Flemingarguedthat¡°thepriorartcautionedthatautopilotsshouldnotbeusedincertainemergencysituationswhereaballisticparachutemaybeneeded[,]¡±such,andtheCAFCagreed,¡°areasonablefact-findercouldnonethelessconcludethatthepriorartdoesnotsuggesttotheskilledartisanthatanautopilotshouldneverbeusedinanyemergencysituationforanyaircraft.¡±Forexample,Jamesdisclosesthatthecontinuoupriateintheeventofpilotincapacitation,dedfrommakingtheproposedcombinationbecause¡°usingJames¡¯sautopilotwouldbeunsafeinmanyemergencysituations.¡±However,theCAFCsidedwiththeBoard¡¯sreasoningthat¡°theobviousnessinquirydoesnotrequirethatthepriorartcombinationisthe¡®preferred,orthemostdesirable¡¯configuration.¡±Becausethepriorartcautionedpilotsnottouseanautopilotinsomeemergencysituationsdoesnotmeanthattheskilledaard¡¯sdenialofhismotiontoamendafterconcludingt¡ªagainusingatleastaportionofthedistributedprocessingsystemandbasedonanoccupantpullingthepullhandle¡ª,theproposedamendedclaimsrequirethatthea¡¯scitationstothewrittendescription,theBoardfound,andtheCAFCagreed,thatthecitedportionsdidnotdisclosethelimitationsoftheproposedamendedclaimsandtheseclaimslac,theCAFCheldthattheBoarddidnotabuseitsdiscretionindenyingFleming¡¯smotiontoamend.

Clearingtheaironlabyrinthinesubject-mattereligibilitystandardsforcomputer-implementedinventions(CIIs),a,,thecourt,whilesettinganewtest,rejected,forthesecondtime,aproblem-solutionapproachtoclaimconstructionfollowedbytheCanadianIntellectualPropertyOffice(CIPO)entsfindingtwoCanadianPatentApplicantsnumbered2,695,130and2,695,146aspatentineligibleundersections2and27(8)(IPIC),anIPpolicyadvocacyorganization,intervenedintheappealproceedings,affiinesinventiontoincludeanynewandusefulart,process,machine,(8),however,,2000SCC66,theSupremeCourtofCanadaclarifiedthatbeforeassessingsubject-mattereligibility,essentialeleme,whereinonlythoseelementsinclaimsthatwerenecessarytosolveth,,CIPOintroducedaPracticeNote,titledExaminationPracticeRespectingComputer-ImplementedInventions,whichindicatedthatifacomputercomponentisfoundtobeanessentialelement,,iftheessentialelementslackanyphysicality,(AttorneyGeneral),2020FC837,CIPOintroducedanewPracticeNoteinNovember2020,titledPatentableSubject-MatterunderthePatentAct,whichnotedthatinordertobepatent-eligible,thecomputercomponentsmustcooperatewithotherelementsoftheclaimedinvention,andthatactualinventioncations,bothtitledColorSelectionSystem,filedbyBenjaminMooreCo.,icalequationthatmodeledhumanpsychologicalperceptionstocolor,associatingacoloremotionscoretovariouscolorsinadatabase,andselecti,bothpatentapplicationswererejectedbyExaminersforencompassingnon-statutorysubject-matter,,theExaminer,uponpurposivelyconstruingtheclaims,,asnotedbytheExaminer,includedcalculatinghumanpsychophysicalperceptionvaluestocolorelementsbasedonmathematicalmodels,andothe,eviewedbyathree-memberPatentAppealBoard,,theApplicantreliedonFreeWorldTrustinemphasizingthatcomputercomponentscau,theApplicantclaimed,theApplicantconcededthatnoattemptwasmadetosolveac,however,concludedthatidentifyingamathematicalcorrelationbetweencolorsandhumanemotiveresponsestoaidcolorselectionwasnotatechnicalproblemforsubject-matterconsiderations,andcompsionerofPatents1981,FCA204,thatuseofcomputersforconduct,theBoardagreedwiththeExaminerandnotedthattheessentialelements,,theAppellantchallengedtheCommissionersclaimcons,Appellantargued,wouldhavebeenidentifyingclaimelementsthathaveamater,theCommissionerhadincorrectlyconcludedthattheremainingcationssuchasidentifyingadjacencyofcolorpairs,storingthecolorlibrary,,,,thePracticeN,theCommissionersapproachofconsideringonlythenovelelementsintheclaimsasessenti,theofficeoftheAttorneyGeneralofCanada(AGC)incorrectbutsoughttoremittheapplicationsbacktotheCommissi,theRespondentarguedthatjudicialinterventionwouldbeprematureastheCommissionerdidnothavetheopportunitytoconsidertheAppeyhavingtheexpert,theRespondentcontendedthata,implementingascientificprincipleormathematicaltheoremonagen,IPIC,generallyalignedwiththeAppellantspositionandca,CIPOstendencyo,gdetrimentaltoCIIs,ntedworldwide,,notingmaterialeffecnon-essentialandallegi,theIntervenorrequestedthecourttore-cessiontotheproblem-so,includingWhirlpoolCorpvCamcoInc,2000SCC67,FreeWorldTrust,andCanada(AttorneyGeneral),2011FCA328thecourtheldthatnoneofthedecisionssuggestaproblem-solutionapproach,andins,wheretheproblem-solutionapproachwasdiscredited,andaddedthatpracticalapplicationofs,theproblem-solutionapproach,consideringonlynovelaspectsofclaimsinsubject-matteranalysis,andholdingcomputercomponentsasnon-essentialfornotsolvingacomputerproblem,ectmatter,thecourtacceptedtheframeworksuggestedbytheIntervenor,isasfollows:Purposivelyconstruetheclaim;Askwhethertheconstruedclaimasawholeconsistsofonlyamerescientificprincipleorabstracttheorem,orwhetheritcomprisesapracticalapplicationthatemploysascientificprincipleorabstracttheorem;andIftheconstruedclaimcomprisesapracticalapplication,assesstheconstruedclaimfortheremainingpatentabilitycriteria:statutorycategoriesandjudicialexclusions,aswellasnovelty,obviousness,ifyingessentialclaimelements,thecourthasdirectedthatclaimsshouldbeassessed,CIPOsrequirementthatapplicationsinvolvingCIIsmu,CIPOspracticeoflimitingthesubject-matterassessmentonlytonovelele,abrightlinetowardscon

Incase(2021£©×î¸ß·¨ÖªÃñÖÕ1298ºÅrecentlyhighlightedbytheIntellectualPropertyTribunaloftheSupremePeople¡¯sCourtofChina(SPC),theSPCruledthatasettlementagreementtoapatentinfringementlawsuitconstitutedahorizontalmonopolyagreementasthescopetheagreementwasnot,WuhanTaipuTransformerSwitchCo.,Ltd.(TaipuCompany)suedShanghaiHuamingPowerEquipmentManufacturingCo.,Ltd.(HuamingCompany)forinfringingitsinventionpatententitled¡°Off-circuittap-changerwithshieldingdevice.¡±InJanuary2016,thetwopartiesre:HuamingCompanycanonlyproducecertainkindsofnon-excitationtap-changers,andotherkindsofnon-excitationtap-changerscouldonlyberesoldtodownstreamcustomersthroughTaipuCompany,andthesale,HuamingCompanyactsasamarketagentforTaipurelatedentities,andshallnotproduceoractasanagentfortheproductsofthesamecategoryofotherenterprisesonitsown,an,,HuamingCompanyfiledalawsuitinthiscasewiththeIntermediatePeople¡¯sCourtofWuhanCity,HubeiProvince,claimingthatthesettlementagreenotamonopolyagreement,¡¯sCourt,,theSupremePeople¡¯sCourtheldthattodeterminewhethertheagreementinvolvedinthecaseisinvalidduetoviolationofthemandatoryprovisionsoftheAnti-MonopolyLaw,itmustfirstdeterminewhethertheagreementinvolvedinthecaseconstitutesahorizontalmonopolyagreementexpresslyprohibitedbytheAnti-MonopolyLaw,andthende,astowhethertheagreementinvolvedinthecaseconstitutesahorizontalmonopolyagreementexpresslyprohibitedbyArticle13,paragraph1oftheAnti-MonopolyLaw,theSupremePeople¡¯sCourtheldthatHuamingC,bothpartieshavecertainmarketinfluence,andthereisacompetit,withArticles1,5and10asthecore,agreedtostoptheproductionofspecificvarietiesofcommodities,restrictthesalesofspecificvarietiesofcommodities,coordinateandfixprices,andsupplem,restrictingtheproductionandsalesvolumeofcommodities,andfixingcommoditypriceshasbeenstrengthened,anditmeetstheformalrequirementsstfArticle13oftheAnti-MonopolyLawarecommontypesoftypicalhorizontalmonopolyagreementswiththeeffectofeliminatingandrestrictingcompetition,onceagreedupon,willgenerallyeliminateandrestrictcompetitionanditca,Taipushouldbeartheburdenofproofthattheagreementinvolvedi,theevidenceinthecasealsoshowsthataftertheagreementinvolvedinthecasewassigned,theunitpriceoftheoff-circuittap-changerinthepriceguidesentbyTaiputoHuamingwasmuchhigherthanHuaming¡¯sownexternalsalespriceandthelegalrepresentativesofbothpartiesWeChatchatrecordsalsowillleadtoanincreaseinthepriceofrelatedproducts,,regardingtherelationshipbetweentheagreementinvolvedandthepatentinfringementdispute,theSupremePeople¡¯sCourtheldthatinthiscase,thetechnicaleffectofthepatentinvolvedwasmainlytoreducethecostofswitchmanufacturing,toenhancethestabilityandreliabili,Huaming¡¯srestrictedproductionandsalesofcertaintypesofoff-circuittap-changersarenot,HuamingCompanyandTaipuComparket,andusesthistodetermi,salesvolume,salestype,salesarea,,wh,buttousetheexerciseofthepatentrightasacover,infact,itpursuesdividingthesalesmarketandrestrictingtheproductionandsalesofgoodswiththeeffectoffixingprices,whichisanabuseofpatentrights,constitutesanactofexcludingandrestrictingcompetition,,thefactthatTaipuownsandexercisesthepatentrightinth,regardingthelegaleffectoftheagreement,theSupremePeople¡¯sCourtheldthatArticles1,5and10oftheagreementinvolvedviolatedtheprovisionsofArticle13oftheAnti-Mono,Taipudidnotclaimthattheagre,Articles1,nthecase,andtheotherclausesrelatetoth,theagreementcannotsurviveseverabilityafterstrippingoutthethreeclauses,,2022isavailablehere(Chineseonly).

ÄÇôÎÊÌâÀ´ÁË£¬×°ÐÞÄǾÍÐèÒªÕÒ¸ö¿¿Æ×µÄ×°ÐÞ¹«Ë¾£¬Õâ¼þÊÂÊǾø¶Ô²»¿ÉÒÔÂí»¢µÄ£¬±Ï¾¹×°ÐÞÊǼþ´óÊÂÇ飬ͨ¹ýÅóÓѵĽéÉÜÕÒµ½ÁËÒ»¼ÒÓÐÃûµÄ×°ÐÞ¹«Ë¾£¬µÚÒ»´ÎÀ´µÄʱºò¾õµÃ¹«Ë¾¹æÄ£ºÜ´ó£¬ÓÐÁ½²ã£¬´ó²¿·ÖµÄ²ÄÁϹ«Ë¾Ò²¶¼ÓÐ,Õâ¶ÔÓÚºóÆÚµÄÑ¡²ÄÀ´Ëµ»¹ÊÇÏ൱·½±ãµÎ,Õâ¸øÎÒÁôÏÂÁ˺ܺõĵÚÒ»Ó¡Ïó¡£

¡°º¢×Ó°Ö°ÖÈ¥·¹µêËͲËÁË£¬ÂíÉÏ»ØÀ´¡£

Creatingartisacommonwayforhumanstoexpressthemselves¨Canditisusuallyprotectedbycopyrightlaws¨Cbutwhatifartificialintelligence(AI)didthesameIfawriterusedAItocompleteCaoXueqin¡¯sfamousunfinishedChinesenovelDreamoftheRedChamber,whoshouldownthecopyrightCaoXueqin,thewriter,ortheAIalgorithm¡°Sofar,thereisnolawspecificallyaddressingownershipofAI-createdwork[inChina],¡±saidLiuWenjie,alawprofessorattheCommunicationUniversityofChina.¡°Thecourtcandecidetheauthorshipofthecontentbyapplyingthegene,thiscancauseuncertainty.¡±SeverallegalexpertswhospoketothePostagreedthatartificialintelligence,atitscurrentstageofdevelopment,shouldnotbeconsidereda¡°legalperson¡±thatcanownawork.¡°,youneedtomaketheAIanindependentlegalperson,whichnotonlyhaslegalrightsbutbearslegalresponsibilities,¡±saidJyh-anLee,associateprofessoroflawattheChineseUniversityofHongKong(CUHK).TherearesignsthatAI,whichChinahaswidelyadoptedforapplicationsfromsurveillancetoeducation,ware,togetherwithhumancomposers,tocompleteFranzSchubert¡¯seighthsymphony,whileTencent,whosemusicserviceisNo1inChina,¡¯sdirectorofitsCreatorTechnologyResearchLabFranoisPachetalsorecentlywroteonhisLinkedInpagethathewasdeveloping¡°thenextgenerationofAI-assistedmusiccompositiontools¡±.Evenso,,aBeijing-basedlawfirmsuedBaiduforinfringementafteroneofthesearchgiant¡¯¡¯sdefencewasthatthearticlewascreatedbyAI,,whichinAprilheldthatonlyworkscreatedbyanaturalpersoncanbeprotectedundercopyrightlaw,butaddedthatauthorshipoftheAI-createdworkinquestionshouldstillhavebeenprotectedbylaw.¡°Thecourt¡¯sdecisiongivingauthorshiptotheuseroftheAIisonlyfromtheperspectiveofpromotingculturalcommunicationandthedevelopmentofscience,butitdidnotpointtoanylegalevidencesupportingit,¡±said,chieflawyeroftheChinaIntellectualPropertyLawyersNet.¡°ThiswasonlyasinglecaseandawayfortheBeijingInternetCourttoexplorethelegal[dilemma],butthesituationisfarfrommature.¡±Inmostcountries,AI-generatedworkisnotsubjecttocopyrightprotectionsonooneshouldownthework,notedCUHK¡¯sLee.¡°[Ithink]mostcopyrightpractitionersandscholarsagreewitheachotheronthat.¡±IfaworkproducedbyanAIalgorithmorprocess,withouttheinvolvementorcontributionofanaturalperson,doesnotqualifyasauthorship,itcouldcreateavacuumincopyrightlaw,arguedlawyerXu.¡°Alotofinfringementsalreadyhappeninsociety,,itcouldresultinamassivenumberofinfringements,forexample,fromusingthecontentwithoutchargeorpermission,¡±,AIcompaniesaresayingthetechnologywillnotreplacehumanartists,,,ifamusicianusesTencent¡¯sAIsoftwaretocomposeasong,doestheartisthavecompleteauthorshipoftheworkordoesTencentBeijing-basedDeepmusic,whichclaimstobethefirstAImusiccompanyinChina,doesnotsayinit¡°It¡¯shardtodefinewhoownsthecopyright[inthissituation],¡±saidXuKe,assistantprofessorattheschooloflawattheUniversityofInternationalBusinessandEconomics.¡°If[theuser]addssomeoriginaldataintheprocessofusingAIandproducessomeworkthatisdifferentfromothers,¡¯shardtoproveiswhethertheyenteredtheoriginaldata.¡±China¡¯,NationalPeople¡¯sCongressspokesmanZhangYesuisaidauthoritieshadputthedraftingofnewlawsrelatedtoAIinthecountry¡¯rAI-createdworkswillhelporhinderthedevelopmentofthetechnology.¡°WithoutIPprotection,wes,¡±,however,arguesthatwithoutpropercopyrightprotection,AIdevelopmentwillslow.¡°Ihope[thelegalcommunity]canaddresstheissuesoon,¡±hesaid.

Manysoftware-relatedandbusinessmethod-relatedpatentshavebeeninvalidatedforbeingdirectedto¡°abstractideas.¡±OnJanuary10,2018,inFinjan,Inc.,,Inc.,theFederalCircuitaffirmedthedistrictcourt¡¯sholdingthatFinjan¡¯,154,844(¡°the¡¯844patent¡±)[1]wasnotdirectedtoa¡ì¡¯sthresholdtestforpatenteligibilityunder¡ì101is¡°whethertheclaimsfocusonthespecificassertedimprovementincomputercapabilities...or,insteadonaprocessthatqualifiesasan¡®abstractidea¡¯forwhichcomputersareinvokedmerelyasatool.¡±[2]Thecourt¡¯srecentdecisionprovidesadditionalguidanceregardingthetypesofclaimsthatconstitutespecifiofCaliforniaonAugust28,2013,forinfringementofmultiplepatentsbyBlueCoat¡¯¡¯844patentscansfilesforpotentialsecuritythreats(,viruses),createsrespectivesecurityprofileslinkedtothescannedfiles,andthenmakesthescannedfilesavailabletousers.[3]Thejudgefoundthatthe¡¯¡ì101,,amongotherrulings,thedistrictcourt¡¯¡ì101asappliedtothe¡¯,inpart,thattheassertedclaimsofthe¡¯844patentshouldbeinvalidatedbecausetheclaimswereanalogoustothoseinApple,,Inc.;[4]AffinityLabsofTex.,,LLC;[5],[6],theFederalCircuitdistinguisheditspreviousdecisionsinvalidatingclaims,inpart,bycitingbacktoacoreconceptofpatentetandingforthe¡°foundationalpatentlawprinciple:thataresult,evenaninnovativeresult,isnotitselfpatentable.¡±[7]Rather,patents¡°aregranted¡®forthediscoveryorinventionofsomepracticablemethodormeansofproducingabeneficialresultoreffect...andnotfortheresultoreffectitself.¡¯¡±[8]Akeydistinguishingfeaturethatthecourtfoundwasthattheclaimsinthe¡¯844patent¡°recitespecificsteps...thataccomplishthedesiredresult.¡±[9]Notably,the¡¯844patentdoesnotclaimeithertheresultofperformingtheclaimedmethodstepsortheimprovementsoftheclaimedmethodoverthepriorart.[10]However,thecourtstilldistinguishedtheclaimsinthe¡¯844patentfromtheinvalidatedclaimsinApple,AffinityLabs,andIntellectualVentures[11]becausethoseclaimsgenerallyreciteddesirableresultsthatwereimplementedbygenericcomputercomponentsperformingkn¡¯844patent,theFederalCircuitfoundthatthepatent¡°enablesacomputersecuritysystemtodothingsitcouldnotdobefore...allow[ing]accesstobetailoredfordifferentusersandensur[ing]thatthreatsareidentifiedbeforeafilereachesauser¡¯scomputer.¡±[12]Thisnewfunctionalitywasfoundtobesufficientlyenabledbasedonthespecificationofthe¡¯844patent,whichdistinguishedtheadvantagesof¡°behavior-based¡±virusscanningtopriorart¡°code-matching¡±¡¯844patentrecitespecificstepstoaccomplishanadvantageousresultbasedontheenablingdescriptioninthespecification.[13]Thus,thepatenteligibilityinquiryunder¡ì101endedwithdeterminingthattheclaimsweredirectedt,theFederalCircuitprovidesnewguidanceforpatenteligibilityunder¡ì,thecourtbaseditsanalysisonanovelapproachinoneembodimentfoundinthespecificationofthe¡¯844patent,eventhoughtheclaimsarenotlimitedtothatspecificembodiment.[14]Thus,thecourtfoundthattheclaimsarenotrequiredtoexplicitlyrecitearesultorimprovementwherethespecificationadequatelydescr¡ì101maythereforebebasedonacombinationofthestepsrecitedinaclaimforaccomplishingaresultandthespecification¡¯sdescription,whenassessingthepatenteligibilityofcomputer-relatedpatentclaims,emphasisshouldbeplacedonthespecification¡¯sdescriptionofthestateoftheartascomparedtohowanimprovementincom(eg,tables,footnotes),pleaseaccesstheoriginalhere.

ÒòΪ³öÁ˵ãСÎÊÌâ±»Äã·¢ÏÖÁË£¬Äã¸úËû˵ÁË£¬ËûÐÄÀï°Ù·ÖÖ®°Ù»á½²Õâ¸öÈËÔõôÕâôʶù¶à»¨Õâôһµã¶ùÇ®»¹ÓÐÕâô¸ßÒªÇ󣬿ÉÕæ¹»Ò»ËµµÄ!ÓÐÇ®ÏëÒªºÃµÄÖÊÁ¿ÄãÕÒÕý¹æ¹«Ë¾È¥°¡!½á¹û£¬ºÃ¶àÈ˶¼ÊdzÔÁËÑÆ°Í¿÷¡£

OnApril6,(FCAUSLLC)anewchancetoarguethatitdidnotviolateaBluetoothstandardsorganizationstrademarkrightsbyusingtheBluetoothnamewithoutpermissionandsentthecasebacktoaSeatt,BluetoothSIGarguedFCAviolateditstrademarkrightsbymarketingtheentertainmentplatformsinFiat,Jeep,Chrysler,andothercarsasbeingBluetoothcapablewithoutgoingthroughitsverificationprocess,howeverFCAsaiditboughtthesystemsfromcompaniesthathadverifiedthemwithBluetoothSIG,andaccordingtothetrademark¡°firstsale¡±doctrine,itshouldn¡¯tbelegallyliableforinfringement.

ASouthAfricanjudgmentdealin,,however,(Pty)(the¡°organiser¡±)inthiscaseorganisesacharitableeventthattakestheformofasleep-out¨Cbusinessleadersareaskedfordonationsandthey¡¯rerequestedtosleepoutdoorsonawinter¡¯st(the¡°charity¡±).Intheprocessoforganisingthefirstsleep-out,theorganiserestablishedanelectronicdatabase,whichcameaboutbecauseeverydonorhadtoregisterontheorganiser¡¯¡¯tforeseenwasthatcertaincompanieswouldwanttopaybyelectronicfundstransfer(¡°EFT¡±).Toaccommodatethesecompanies,,,infact,createdbyanemployeeofthecharity,andthisemployeewasalsoresponsibleforinputtingthedonors¡¯rdidn¡¯ved,theorganiserandthecharityagreedthatalldonationswouldbepaiddirectlyintothebankaccountofthecharity,whichhadthenece,thecharitymadeuseoftheelectronicdatabase,,theorganiserarrangedfurthersleep-outs,butontheseoccasions,,thecharitystart,,erSouthAfricancopyrightlawasa¡°literarywork¡±.Thissomewhatmisleadingtermisdefinedtoinclude¡±tablesandcompilationsofdatastoredorembodiedinacomputer¡±.Thejudgewentontosaythatinordertoenjoycopyrightprotection,aliteraryworkmustbe¡°original¡±.(Pty)LtdvSaundersValveCompanyLtd,thecourtsaidthatforthepurposesofcopyright,¡°allthatisrequiredisthattheworkshouldemanatefromtheauthorhimselfandnotbecopied.¡±InHauptt/aSoftcopyvBrewersMarketingIntelligence(Pty)LtdandOthers,thecourtheldthataworkisoriginalifithasnotbeencopiedfromanexistingsource,andifitsproductionrequiredasubstantialdegreeofskill,,1978,theauthoroftheliteraryworkistheownerofthecopyrightunlessthecopyrighthasbeenassignedand,ifgeneratedbyacomputer,theauthoristhepe,,thecontributionofthecharity¡¯semployeedidnotmeettheoriginalitytest,astheformthatitsemployeehadcreatedforEFTpayerswassubstantial¡°nosubstantialdegreeofskill,judgementorlabour¡±.Thejudgewentontomakeanumberoffurtherpoints:theformforEFTpaymentswas¡°ancillary¡±tothedatabase:¡°butforitsincorporationonthewebsitetherespondentwouldnothavehadthemeanstocollectthedataitclaimstohavecollectedinthemanneritcollectedit...forthatreasonitwouldbeabsurdtoseparatethemanualformfromthewebsite.¡±eveniftheemployeehadinnovatedtheideaofEFTpayments,thisdidnotelevatethecharity¡°tothestatusofapersonwhomadearrangementsnecessaryforthecreationofthewebsite¡±.Thecharityneeded¡°theconcurrenceoftheapplicant¡±,andwithoutthisit¡°wouldnothavebeenabletocollectthedataitclaimstoown¡±.thepurposeoftheEFTinnovationwassimplytomakeitpossiblefordonorstopaybyEFTandgettaxexemptioncertificates,,soitsclaimtobeingapartnerwas¡°absurd¡±.Thejudgeconcludedthatgivingthecharitythestatusofanauthorofthedatabaseonthebasisofdatamanuallyaddedtothedatabasethatisautomaticallygeneratedfromthewebsitewouldbean¡°overbroadinterpretation¡±.Theorganiserwast(injunction).Ifthere¡¯salessontobelearnedfromthiscase,it¡¯sthis:copyrightissuesneedtobeconsideredandclarifiedrightfromthestart.

InresponsetoacomplaintfiledbytheleadingSpanishfootballleagueLaLiga,thecountrysNationalPolicehascarriedoutalarge-scaleope,leadingtothedismantlin,top-tierSpanishfootballleagueLaL,LaLiga¡¯spremiumcontentiswidely¡¯thopetovisitthemall,¡¯phoneseffectivelybecamespyingdevicesthatcouldlistentotheirsurroundingsand,whenLaLigamatcheswereidentified,,LaLigawashitwitha250,000eurofinebySpain¡¯sdataprotectionagencyAEPDbutthecompanyvowedtocontinuefighting¡°thisveryseriousscourgethatispiracy¡±.LaLigakeptitswordandanoperationjustannouncedbylocalpolicerevealsthatcommLigainJanuary2022,Spain¡¯sNationalPolicelaunchedaninvestigationintoapsSpainincludingSeville,Malaga,Cordoba,Zaragoza,Valladolid,Murcia,PalmadeMallorca,Gij¨®n,Madrid,Vigo,LasPalmas,tandermatcheswerebeingplayed,and166barswereidentifiedasbeinginvolvedinthefraudulentdisplayofcopyrightedcontent.¡°Asaresultof[theoperation],theentireinfrastructurethatallowedtheillegalviewingofpaidmultimediacontentwasdismantled,withtheidentificationofthoseresponsibleandthecessationoftheillegalservicetheyprovided,¡±alargenumberofpiracy-configureddevicesincludingAmazonFiresticks,genericAndroidboxes,ntellectualpropertyinfringementcrimes.

Thoseplansarelikelytobedraftedbytheinternet¡¯sglobaldomainnameorganisation,theInternetCorporationforAssignedNamesandNumbers(ICANN),aftertheEuropeanDataProtectionBoard(EDPB)effectivelysaiditneedstogobacktothedrawingboardtomakeitsrulesaroundthecollectionanduseofWHOISdatacompliantwiththeGeneralDataProtectionRegulation(GDPR).TheWHOISsystemInformationthatservestoidentifythepeoplebehinddomainnameregistrationsispublishedontheWHOISsystem,internet,butisalsousedbylredawebsiteofferingcounterfeitgoodswhichinfringetheirtrademarkrights,orsi,theanydomainnameregistrarstotakeaconservativeapproachtotheemptedtoenforcethetermsofitscontractualagreementwithadomainn,domainnameregistrarEPAGDomainservicessuccessfullyfoughtoffabidfromICANNtoforceittocollectthepersonaldataoftechnicalandadmctionofthecontactinformationwasnecessary,,theEDPBrespondedtoICANNscallformoreguauthor(8-page/737KBPDF):ICANNneedstodefineitsspecifiedpurposesandlawfulbasisforprocessingpersonaldataandshouldnotconflatethiswiththelegitimateinterestsandpurposesofthirdpartieswhomaysubsequentlyseekaccesstothedata;thatthereisnobasisforICANNtoinsistupontheprovisionofadditionalinformationonadministrativeandtechnicalcontactsfromregistrants;thatthefactthatregistrantsmaybelegalpersonsdoesnottakeWHOISoutsidethescopeofGDPRwhereICANNisprocessingpersonaldatarelatingtoindividualswithinthoseorganisations,andthereforethepersonaldataofsuchindividualsshouldnotbemadepublicallyavailablebydefault;thatICANNisrequiredtologaccesstopersonaldata,butdoesnotnecessarilyneedtoactivelycommunicate(push)thisloginformationtoregistrantsorthirdparties;thatICANNhasfailedtojustifywhyitisnecessarytoretainpersonaldatafortwoyearsposttheexpiryofthedomainnameregistration,and;thatcodesofconductorcertificatesofaccreditationarevoluntaryaneconta,theArticle29WorkingParty,hasbeenofferingguidancetoICANNonhowt,includingincreasedtransparencyobligations,havenowbroughtthisissuetoaheadandtheEDPBletterisclearinitsmessagethatICANNnessedinthecontextofWHOISmaybemadeavailabletothirdpartieswhohavealegitimateinterestinaccessingthedata,providedthoseinterestsarenotoverriddenbytheinterestsorfundamentalrightsandfreedomsofthedatasubject,andprovidedsafeguardsareputinplacet,thiswillnotnecessarilymeanthatICANNmustactivelynotifythedatasubjectsconcernedthattheirinformationhasbeenaccessed,andbywhom,alaWHOISsearchtofindoutwhoisbehindaninfringingsite,withoutnotifyingthtimatestakeholderstogainaccesstopersonaldataconcerningregistrantsbutalsocontainsappropriatesafeguards,testakeholdersmaystillgainaccesstoWHOISdata,andthatregis,itislikelythatanynewmodelwillinvolvemoretime,effortandexpenseforrightholdersseekingaccesstosuchinformation,whichuptonowhasbeenfreelyandreadilyavailabletothem.

¡°Themostsuccessfulpartieschoosetheirbattleswisely,¡±saysTheHonorableGerardRogers,ChiefAdministrativeTrademarkJudgeattheTrademarkTrialandAppealBoard(TTAB),abodywithintheUnitedStatesPatentandTrademarkOffice(USPTO).HavingservedinvariousrolesontheTTABformorethan25years,JudgeRogersispanshavebeendeniedbytheUSPTO,,partieshavebeenknowntopushtheirluck.¡°TrialsaresometimespursuedbecausethepartieshaveissuesoutsidetheTTABthatthey¡¯regrapplingwithand,itappearstous,theythinkitwillgivethemanotherleveragepointtodealwiththeirdifferences.¡±JudgeRogerssayshehasseencaseswherepartieshavenotproperlyfollowedtheTTAB¡¯sManualofProcedure,,regulatory,anddecisionalauthoritythatisrelevanttotheTTAB.¡°Therehavebeenappealsandtrialcasesthathavebeenlostbutcouldhavebeenwon,duetoafailuretofollowtherules,¡±saysJudgeRogers.¡°Manypractitionersfailtofollowtheguidanceonwhatevidencecanbeprobative.¡±JudgeRogersaddsthatit¡°neverhurts¡±toremindstakeholderstobecognizantoftherulesthattheTTABisrequiredtoapply¡ªaswellastheissuesitmustignore¡ª,theTTABoftencannottakeintoaccountparticularsrelatingtouseofatrademarkinthemarketplace,¡°Wehavetoignorethatinformation,yetpeoplebringittousallthetime,¡±,just30percentareexparteappeals,,appealsaccountfor75percentofcasesultimatelydecidedonthemerits,sowhatmightexplainthelargeswingJudgeRogerssaysthatpetitionsforcancellationandoppositionaresimilartocourtdisputesinthatasettlementisavailableand,ifthatoptionisused,¡°fewertrialcasesrequiredispositiononthemeritsasthepartieshaveworkeditout.¡±Inasmallpercentageofcases,apartymight¡°misbehave¡±andbesanctioned,whichcouldalsoleadtothecasebeingterminated,ppositionscanbemuchmoreexpensivethanappealsfromexaminerrefusals,soalotofcasesareneverpursuedbeyondtheinitialstages,,whichcaninvolveplentyofbackandforthbetweentheparties,includingondiscoveryandmotionpractice,,incontrast,¡°whentheattorneyfilesthenoticeofappealthereisnotmuchelsetodootherthanfilethebriefs,¡±,ofteninwrittenratherthanoralform,¡°sothere¡¯snotmuchaddedexpensetohaveanattorneypursueanappeal.¡±MoreAppealsJudgeRogersnotesthattrademarkapplicationfilingswiththeUSPTOhaverisenyear-on-yearforeightyears,so¡°thismeansmoreappealsandoppositionsandtheneedtoincreasethestafftohandlethatwork.¡±ernsabouttheBoard¡¯,seResolution(ACR)procedure,,theTTABseekstoexpediteproceedingsby,amongotherthings,activelyencouragingpartiestoconsiderplacinglimitsondiscoveryandtestimony,andadoptingmoreefficientaltern,forexample,hesaysthat,whileattorneyshaveindividualresponsibilityforcasesontheirdockets,theTTAB¡¯smanagingattorneywillreassigncaseswithpendingmotionsonamoneeditsperformancetargets,saysJudgeRogers,despitealargevariationinthecomplexityofcases,2weeksofthecasebeingreadytodecide,saysJudgeRogers(readyfordecisionmeansafterallbriefingisdoneandthecaseissubmittedbyaBoardparalegaltotheChiefJudgeforassignment,orafteroralargument,ifoneisrequested).¡°Wehaverepeatedlybeatenthisgoal,¡±veragependency(fromcommencementtocompletion)ofexparteappealsforthelastfiveyearsinarow,withthatpendencymeasurefallingintrialcasesforfiveofthepastsixyears.¡°JudgeRogersexplainsthatstakeholdershavelongexpressedapreferencefortheTTABtoremain¡°amorerelaxedalternativetolitigationinfederaldistrictcourts,¡±whereextension,,,,Inc.,ntdistrictcourtlitigationbetweenthesamepartiesthatlitigatedanearliercasebeforetheTTAB,aslongasthe¡°ordinaryelements¡±,JudgeRogerssaysitsimpactontheTTABhasbeen¡°almostnone.¡±However,hedoesnotethatitwasaverypositiverulingfortrademarkownersasit¡°¡±HenotesthatmanyTTABcasesaresettledandthatevenwhentheyarenot,,headds,theissuesthattheTTABanddistrictcourtsadjudicateareoftendifferent(,thesubsequentdistrictcourtcaseverylikelywouldconsideradditionalissuesrelatingtouseinthemarketplace).¡°Therewasalotoftalkthat,becauseofthepossibilityofissuepreclusion,partiesshouldtakemorediscoveryandintroducemoreevidenceattheTTAB.¡°ButIsay:issuepreclusionisunlikelytoariseinallbuttherarestofcases,¡¯tintroducemorediscoverythanusual,anddon¡¯tincreaseyourcostsandfilealotofirrelevantevidencethatwouldhaveabearinginadistrictcourtbutwhichisnotrelevanttoouranalysis.¡±¡¯advice;,JudgeRogers,whohasbeeninhiscurrentpositionsinceNovember2010,saysthereisa¡°realvarietyandthingscancomeuponanygivenday.¡±Histimeincludesmeetingwiththeapproximately70membersoftheTTABstaff,whichincludesjudges,attorneys,thatthejudgesarecontinually,andhestressestheimportanceofworkinginharmony.¡°WeworkcloselywiththeSolicitor¡¯sOffice;theywillbeinthepositionofdefendingvariousBoarddecisionsbeforetheFederalCircuit,sowewanttoputtheminthebestpositionpossible,¡±¡¯sOffice,JudgeRogersexplains,canrelaytotheTTABtheque¡¯smostseniorjudgemaybehisprimaryrole,JudgeRog¡¯sstaffareitsbiggeststrength,saysthejudge.¡°Ifindthetimetoremindouremployeesofwhatgreatworktheydo,¡±ursandstress¡ªhisbicycle.¡°FormanyyearsIhaveriddentenmileseachwaytotheofficeandback;itprovidesabufferbetweenworkandhomelife.¡±

AmptLLC,theworldsleadingproviderofpoweroptimizersforlarge-scalephotovoltaic(PV)systems,(ITC)againstSolarEdgeTechnologies,Inc.(NASDAQ:SEDG),requestingthattheITCbantheimp,rplantstolowerthecostofenergyproductionandimproveperformanceinnewsystems;upgradeexistingsystems;enablelow-costsolarenergystoragesystems;asels,inIsrael,China,,itwouldnotbepossibleforSolarEdgetocontinuesellingthoseinfringingproductsintheUnitedStates,howevertherearenumerousothernon-infringingcomeroptimizersandrelatedproductsatitsfacilityinFortCollins,Colorado,whichispri0issuedpatents,adingproductsionandplaysafundamentalroleinloweringthecostsoflarge-scalesolarenergyproduction,saidLeventGun,llyusingour,wearestandingupforouremployees,customersandpartners,aswellastheprinciplesoffaircompetitionandr,ThiscomplaintseekstoblockSolarrEdgeisviolatingourintellectualpropertyandthat,,673,630and11,289,,Amptass,,605,498,7,719,140,10,608,437,10,886,746,11,070,062and11,070,063.

¡±µÚ22Ìõ¹æ¶¨£º¡°»ú¶¯³µ¼ÝÊ»ÈËÓ¦µ±×ñÊØµÀ·½»Í¨°²È«·¨ÂÉ¡¢·¨¹æµÄ¹æ¶¨£¬°´ÕÕ²Ù×÷¹æ·¶°²È«¼ÝÊ»¡¢ÎÄÃ÷¼ÝÊ»¡£

OnFebruary4,(CAFC)affirmedtwodecisionsofthePatentTrialandAppealBoard(PTAB)onrelatedinterpartesreviews(IPRs)broughtbyQuanergyagainstVelodyne,explainingthattheBoard¡¯sdecisiontoupholdthevalidityofthedisputedcl,969,558,coveringalidar-based3-Dpointcloudmeasuri,thePTABheldthatseveralclaimsofthe¡¯,(¡°Mizuno¡±)describingadevicethatemitslighttowardano,theCAFCaddressedBerkovic,anarticlepublishedin2012whichreviewsvarioustechniquesformeasuringdistancetoobjects,including¡°triangulationandtime-of-flightsensing.¡±Notably,Berkovicpointsoutthat¡°problemsarisewhenusinglasertime-of-flightsensorstoobtainaccuratemeasurementsatshorterdistances.¡±TheUnderlyingDisputeQuanergypetitionedthePTABtoreviewtheclaimsofthe¡¯atthetimeandwhattechnologiesaskilledartisanmightuseinasystemlikeMizuno,,theBoardconsideredtheevidenceprovidedbyVelodynewhichpointedto¡°unresolvedlong-feltneed,industrypraise,andcommercialsuccess.¡±Onappeal,,QuanergyarguedonappealthatthePTABerredinitsconstructionoftheterm¡°lidar.¡±RelyingonVeritas,Quanergyassertedthattheindicationsinthespecificationthat¡°lidar¡±mayinvolvepulsedtime-of-flighttechniquesdonotprecludeabr¡¯,here,thespecificat,thepatentdescribes¡°measuringdistanceusingapulsedtime-of-flighttechnique,identifiestheshortcomingsofexistingpointcloudsystemsthatcollectdistancepointsbypulsinglightanddetectingitsreflection,anddisclosesalidarsystemthatcollectstime-of-flightmeasurements.¡±Inlightoftheintrinsicevidence,theCAFCfoundQuanergy¡¯sbroaderconstructioninconsistentwiththespecification,¡¯sconstructionoftheterm¡°lidar¡±,QuanergychallengedthePTAB¡¯,QuanergydisputedtheBoard¡¯sfindingsthatMizunoneit¡¯sandQuanergy¡¯sexpertssupportedtheBoard¡¯,Quanergy¡¯sexpertconcededthatMizuno¡¯g¡°onlyoneparticularembodimentofMizuno¡¯sdevice.¡±ButtheBoardrejectedthisargumentas¡°anattempttodrawanarbitrarydistinctioninthetestimonyofitsexpertbetweenoneofMizuno¡¯sfiguresandMizuno¡¯sdisclosureaswhole.¡±Similarly,theCAFCwasunpersuadedandnotedthatthetestimonyofQuanergy¡¯sexpertonredirectwas¡°incomplete,unspecific,andultimatelyconclusory.¡±TheBoardalsofoundthataskilledartisanwouldnothaveusedpulsedtime-of-flightlidarinMizuno¡¯sshort-rangemeasuringdevicebecauseBerkovicsuggeststhat¡°theaccuracyofpulsedtime-of-flightlidarmeasurementsdegradesinshorterranges.¡±Naturally,theBoardwasleftunpersuadedbyQuanergy¡¯sexpert¡¯sfailuretoexplain¡°howorwhyaskilledartisanwouldhavehadanexpectationofsuccess¡±inovercomingtheproblemsinimplementingapulsedtime-of-flightsensorintoashort-rangemeasurementsystemsuchasMizuno¡¯,theBoardstatedQuanergy¡¯sevidenceofferedtoshowanexpectationofsuccesswas¡°speculationfromitsexpertabouttheendlesspossibilitiesofMizuno¡¯steachings.¡±NexusOnappeal,QuanergyalsochallengedtheBoard¡¯spresumptionofanexusbetweentheclaimedinventionandVelodyne¡¯sevidenceofanunresolvedlong-feltneed,industrypraise,¡°ampleevidence¡±thatitscommercialproducts¡°embodythefullscopeoftheclaimedinventionandthattheclaimedinventionisnotmerelyasubcomponentofthoseproducts.¡±Forexample,theBoardnotedVelodyne¡¯sexperthadprovidedadetailedanalysismappingclaim1ofthe¡¯558patenttoeachofVelodyne¡¯scommercialproducts,rsensorthatcouldcapturedistancepointsrapi,Quanergyidentifieda360-degreehorizontalfieldofview,awideverticalfieldofview,andadense3-DpointcloudasunclaimedfeaturessuchthatVelodyne¡¯¡°clearlysupportedbythechallengedclaims.¡±Onappeal,QuanergyassertedtheBoardtconsideru,theCAFCfound¡°theBoard¡¯sexplanationofhoweachallegedunclaimedfeatureresultsdirectlyfromclaimlimitations¡ªsuchthatVelodyne¡¯sproductsareessentiallytheclaimedinvention¡ªbothadequateandreasonable.¡±Ultimately,theCAFCaffirmedthePTAB¡¯sfindingonnon-obviousnessbasedonthesecondaryindiciaofnon-obviousnessshowingbytheexternalevidenceprovidedbyVelodyne.

Ñ×ÈȵÄÏļ¾£¬ÎÒÃÇÓ­À´ÁË×îºÃµÄÏà¾Û¡£

TheSupremeCourtwillhearanongoingcopyrightcasebetweenSwedishfastfashiongiantHMandpattern-makingcompanyUnicolors,ent,aswellasthefindingsofothercircuitsandtheCopyrightOfficeinholdingthattheCopyrightActrequiresadistrictcourttoseekguidancefromtheCopyrightOfficewhentherearequestionsaboutthevalidityofacopyrightregistrationbutnoevid,accusingthefastfashionbehemothofinfringingoneofitsgeometricpatterns¨Cbywayofa¡°remarkablysimilar¡±print¨C,inwhichajuryfoundthatHMhadwillfullyinfringedUnicolors¡¯scopyright-protectedpattern,andawardedthepatterncompany$846,720indamages,attorney¡¯sfees,andcosts,¡¯sappealwasitsclaimthatUnicolorslacksavalidcopyrightregistrationforthefabricpatternatthecenterofthecasebecauseUnicolorshadimpher,makingthemanappropriate¡°singleunit¡±foronecollectivecopyrightapplicationandregistration,HMclaimedthatUnicolorsactuallysoldsomeofthepatternsseparatelytodifferentcustomers¨Catdifferenttimes,thereby,makingthecompany¡¯,2020,theNinthCircuitreversedthejuryverdictandsidedwithHMonthebasisthatthereisnointent-to-defraudrequirementforreg¡ì411(b)(2)¨CwhichrequiresdistrictcourtstoasktheRegisterofCopyrightswhetherregistrationwouldhavebeenrefusediftheCopyrightOfficehadknowntheinformationwasinaccurate¨CwhenitdidnotreferthemattertotheCopyrightOfficeafterHMallegedthattheregistrationcontainsinac,andUnicolorsfiledapetitionforawritofcertiorari,¡¯spetition,theNinthCircuitgotthecasewrong,asthejudges¡¯rulingconcerningthetimelineofthepublicationoftheworkscoveredbythesingle-unitcopyrightregistrationwas¡°flawedbecausetherewasnoevidencesupporting[their]conclusionthatthedesignswereseparatelypublishedbeforecertaindesignswerecategorizedasconfinedinUnicolors¡¯registrationcertificate.¡±Withthatinmind,Unicolorsclaimedthattherewas¡°insufficientevidencetodeduceany¡ì411(b).¡±¡°Thepanel¡¯¡ì411(b)wasalsoflawed,¡±accordingtoUnicolorsbecause¡°manycourts,legislativeandadministrativeauthorities,andtheleadingcopyrighttreatisehaveuniformlyinterpretedthePrioritizingResourcesandOrganizationforIntellectualPropertyActof2008¡­tocodifythedoctrineoffraudontheCopyrightOfficeandthus,toallowinvalidationundersection411(b)onlywhentheregistrantisshowntohaveactedinbadfaithorintendedtodefraudtheCopyrightOffice.¡±LookingaheadtotheSupremeCourt¡¯sconsiderationofthecase,ractitionersthatthesection411(b)issueis¡°ripeforreview,¡±particularlygiventhatdisputesaboutcopyrightregistrationerrors¨Cwhichcanstemfrom¡°anumberoffactors,includingunclearguidanceaboutregistrationrules,asimplemisunderstandingofwhattheapplicationrequiresand,mostrelevanttotheissueathand,purposefulorknowinginaccuracies¡±¨Care¡°commoninlitigation.¡±MeanwhileFinneganattorneysSamuelEichnerandMargaretEsquenethavenotedthatingrantingcertiorari,theSupremeCourtmaybelookingto¡°resolveanapparentcircuitsplitontheissueofwhetherthereisanintent-to-defraudrequirementbeforeareferralismadetotheCopyrightOfficeunderSection411(b).¡±Atthesametime,theCourtmayalsobeaiming¡°toclarifythestrengthofacopyrightregistration¡¯spresumptivevalidityand/ortheextenttowhichtheCopyrightActrequirescourtstodefertoCopyrightOfficedeterminationsundersection411(b)(2)astowhetherinaccuracies,ifknown,wouldhavecausedtheCopyrightOfficetorefuseregistration.¡±Ultimately,EichnerandEsquenetassertthatbecauseintenttodefraudisgenerallydifficulttoprove,¡°theSupremeCourt¡¯sdecisionshouldhaveasignificantimpactonthestrengthofcopyrightregistrations¡±¨Cwhicharenowprerequisitestofilingcopyrightinfringementactions¨C¡°andtheirsusceptibilitytovalidityattacksbasedonperceivedinaccuraciesinregistrations.¡±Assuch,thedecisionhasthepotentialtoimpactcopyrightapplicationpractices.

AmptLLC,theworldsleadingproviderofpoweroptimizersforlarge-scalephotovoltaic(PV)systems,(ITC)againstSolarEdgeTechnologies,Inc.(NASDAQ:SEDG),requestingthattheITCbantheimp,rplantstolowerthecostofenergyproductionandimproveperformanceinnewsystems;upgradeexistingsystems;enablelow-costsolarenergystoragesystems;asels,inIsrael,China,,itwouldnotbepossibleforSolarEdgetocontinuesellingthoseinfringingproductsintheUnitedStates,howevertherearenumerousothernon-infringingcomeroptimizersandrelatedproductsatitsfacilityinFortCollins,Colorado,whichispri0issuedpatents,adingproductsionandplaysafundamentalroleinloweringthecostsoflarge-scalesolarenergyproduction,saidLeventGun,llyusingour,wearestandingupforouremployees,customersandpartners,aswellastheprinciplesoffaircompetitionandr,ThiscomplaintseekstoblockSolarrEdgeisviolatingourintellectualpropertyandthat,,673,630and11,289,,Amptass,,605,498,7,719,140,10,608,437,10,886,746,11,070,062and11,070,063.

ÇëʹÓø´ÔÓÃÜÂ룬ЭÖúÎÒÃDZ£Ö¤ÄúµÄÕ˺Ű²È«¡£

ѧԱ´ó³øÒªÇó»á×ö²ËÓлù´¡µç¹¤Ñ§Ô±ÒªÇó»áµçÍ­½³ÒªÇó»áµçº¸£¬×îºÃ»áº¸ÒºÑ¹¹Ü»ú¹¤Ë®ÊÖÔÂн¿É´ï10000--13000+³øÊ¦ÔÂн¿É´ï11000¡ª15000+Í­½³Ð½×Ê10000+µç¹¤¹¤×Ê15000¡ª23000+ÎÒ»ú¹¹³£ÄêÓë¸÷´óԺУ¼°ÓÃÈ˵¥Î»ºÏ×÷Åàѵʱ¼ä¶Ì¡£

Ifyouinvestincreativity,youllendupwithamuchstrongerb,whatanawfulnameIfyoudid,,,yourlocation,,thegreaterthechancet,distinctivename,,youllendupwithamuchstrongerb,doyourresearchandmakesureyourcho,youmightnotwanttonameyourproductafteratermthatisassociatedwithaglobaldisease.[Sorry,ifIdashedyourhopesofnamingyournewwidgetEBOLA.]TataMotors,thelargestautomobilecompanyinIndia,rofessionalsportsfigures,,protectabletrademark:,anexperiencedtrademarkattorneycanassistyouwithamorethoroughsearch,includingsourcesfromfederalregistrations,statetrademarkregistrations,tradepublications,onlineresources,redcancreatewh,makesu,,however,rmatradem,forbestclearanceresults,tthatsomeyahoohasthedomainyouwantandissuddenlywillingtosellitfor$50,,makesureyourmarkdoesntstinkbecauseithasanotherun,andmakesureyourmarkisnotgoingtobeassociatedwiths,,C,andisevenratedbyIFCasoneofTheTenCoolestCarsinMovieHistoryforitsappearanceintheaction-horrormovieDeathProof(2007),andmanyconsumerscouldassociatethenewZICAcarwiththosenegativeconnotationsinvastcontrastirstnameofPortugueseoriginthattranslatestoJamesinEnglish.

¡¡7ÖÊÁ¿ÎÞ±£ÕÏ£¬ÔöÌíÈËÇéÕ®¡£

Recently,TianjinIntellectualPropertyCourtsolvedacaseinvolvingtrademarkinfringementandunfaircompetitionbymediation,inwhichthefamousautomobilecompanyMaseratiChinaCarsTradingCo.,,thedefendantofthecasehasusedMaserati¡¯sbrandname¡°,theChinesesubsidiary¡¯snameandregisteredtrademarks¡°ÂêɯÀ­µÙ¡±¡°MASERATI¡±¡°¡±onitseyeglassesmanufacturedorforsale,dtrademarksinthecategoryof¡°eyeglassesandotherrelatedtrademarks¡±.Asthecasewassettled,theplaintiff¡¯swell-knowntrademarkshavesuccessfullygainedadditionalprotectionbeyondclass.

UtahscookiecompetitioncontinuedonJuly13whenDirtyDoughandCraveCo,foundedinLoganbySawyerHemsleyandJasonMcGowan,filedalawsuitagainstDirtyDough,acookiebusinessthatstartedinTempe,Arizona,,aCrumblinsiderleftCrumbltofoundDirtyDough,whichsellsandpromotescookiesusingpackaging,decor,andpresentationthatisconfusinglysim,whosbrotherwasaCrumblemployee,toldTheHerald,youguysknowthatDirtyDoughwasalreadystartedin2018,,Ithinkwerethemostdifferent,..,,bigsupporter,Maxwellsaid,expla,allofasuddenoutofnowhere¡­wegethitwithalawsuit,,,,wellseeiftheywanttotalk¡­whatsthesolutionhereMaxwellsaid,,wereachedouttothem¡ªtoldthemweacceptedcounsel,,,anothercookiecompanythathascometoUtah,,afterCrumbldeniedanapplicationbyCravesfoundertobecomeaCrumblfranchisee,Cravebegansellingandpromotingitscopycatgourmetcookies,Crumblscomplaintreadsbeforealletailsofthevaluablegoodwill,reputation,ontobecomeaCrumblefranchiseeorthatCraveisinviolationofanyofCrumblsallegedtrademarks,tradedress,orotherintellectualpropertyrights,rattemptbyathreatenedcompetitortousealawsuittostiflefairandfreecompetitionanddenyconsumersachoiceofproducts,Englishsaidinastatementto,,orelsewhywouldnttheytalkwithusorsendacease-and-desistletter,,,Maxwellsaid,,hesaid,,Crumblsaidtheyareprotectingtheirsuccess:Asafranchisorof30,000+CrumblCrewmembers,1,000+FranchisePartners,andhundredsofCrumblHQemployees,wewillalwaystakeseriouslyourroleinbuildingandprotectingthecompanyanditstrademarksthatweveallworkedsohardtocreatetogether.

Manysoftware-relatedandbusinessmethod-relatedpatentshavebeeninvalidatedforbeingdirectedto¡°abstractideas.¡±OnJanuary10,2018,inFinjan,Inc.,,Inc.,theFederalCircuitaffirmedthedistrictcourt¡¯sholdingthatFinjan¡¯,154,844(¡°the¡¯844patent¡±)[1]wasnotdirectedtoa¡ì¡¯sthresholdtestforpatenteligibilityunder¡ì101is¡°whethertheclaimsfocusonthespecificassertedimprovementincomputercapabilities...or,insteadonaprocessthatqualifiesasan¡®abstractidea¡¯forwhichcomputersareinvokedmerelyasatool.¡±[2]Thecourt¡¯srecentdecisionprovidesadditionalguidanceregardingthetypesofclaimsthatconstitutespecifiofCaliforniaonAugust28,2013,forinfringementofmultiplepatentsbyBlueCoat¡¯¡¯844patentscansfilesforpotentialsecuritythreats(,viruses),createsrespectivesecurityprofileslinkedtothescannedfiles,andthenmakesthescannedfilesavailabletousers.[3]Thejudgefoundthatthe¡¯¡ì101,,amongotherrulings,thedistrictcourt¡¯¡ì101asappliedtothe¡¯,inpart,thattheassertedclaimsofthe¡¯844patentshouldbeinvalidatedbecausetheclaimswereanalogoustothoseinApple,,Inc.;[4]AffinityLabsofTex.,,LLC;[5],[6],theFederalCircuitdistinguisheditspreviousdecisionsinvalidatingclaims,inpart,bycitingbacktoacoreconceptofpatentetandingforthe¡°foundationalpatentlawprinciple:thataresult,evenaninnovativeresult,isnotitselfpatentable.¡±[7]Rather,patents¡°aregranted¡®forthediscoveryorinventionofsomepracticablemethodormeansofproducingabeneficialresultoreffect...andnotfortheresultoreffectitself.¡¯¡±[8]Akeydistinguishingfeaturethatthecourtfoundwasthattheclaimsinthe¡¯844patent¡°recitespecificsteps...thataccomplishthedesiredresult.¡±[9]Notably,the¡¯844patentdoesnotclaimeithertheresultofperformingtheclaimedmethodstepsortheimprovementsoftheclaimedmethodoverthepriorart.[10]However,thecourtstilldistinguishedtheclaimsinthe¡¯844patentfromtheinvalidatedclaimsinApple,AffinityLabs,andIntellectualVentures[11]becausethoseclaimsgenerallyreciteddesirableresultsthatwereimplementedbygenericcomputercomponentsperformingkn¡¯844patent,theFederalCircuitfoundthatthepatent¡°enablesacomputersecuritysystemtodothingsitcouldnotdobefore...allow[ing]accesstobetailoredfordifferentusersandensur[ing]thatthreatsareidentifiedbeforeafilereachesauser¡¯scomputer.¡±[12]Thisnewfunctionalitywasfoundtobesufficientlyenabledbasedonthespecificationofthe¡¯844patent,whichdistinguishedtheadvantagesof¡°behavior-based¡±virusscanningtopriorart¡°code-matching¡±¡¯844patentrecitespecificstepstoaccomplishanadvantageousresultbasedontheenablingdescriptioninthespecification.[13]Thus,thepatenteligibilityinquiryunder¡ì101endedwithdeterminingthattheclaimsweredirectedt,theFederalCircuitprovidesnewguidanceforpatenteligibilityunder¡ì,thecourtbaseditsanalysisonanovelapproachinoneembodimentfoundinthespecificationofthe¡¯844patent,eventhoughtheclaimsarenotlimitedtothatspecificembodiment.[14]Thus,thecourtfoundthattheclaimsarenotrequiredtoexplicitlyrecitearesultorimprovementwherethespecificationadequatelydescr¡ì101maythereforebebasedonacombinationofthestepsrecitedinaclaimforaccomplishingaresultandthespecification¡¯sdescription,whenassessingthepatenteligibilityofcomputer-relatedpatentclaims,emphasisshouldbeplacedonthespecification¡¯sdescriptionofthestateoftheartascomparedtohowanimprovementincom(eg,tables,footnotes),pleaseaccesstheoriginalhere.

ÈËÐÔ»¯¹ÜÀí£¬Éϰà¿ÉÒÔ´øÊÖ»ú12СʱÁ½°àµ¹£¬°ë¸öÔµ¹°à£¬ÄÐÅ®²»ÏÞ¡£

QingYuNian,apopularChinesecostumedramaadaptedfromtheChinesewebnovelofthesamename,hasbeenaccusedbyChinesenetizensofplagiarizingcontentfromthefantasynovelseriesTheTwelveKingdoms(1992)ofdialoguefromQingYuNianthat,tonotbediscouragedevenwhenencounteringdisaster,tocorrectinjusticewithoutfear,donotyieldandflatterthemonstersintheJapanesenovelisbeingcomparedtoQingYuNianstobeunyieldingwhenabusedbyothers,tonottobefrustratedwhendisastersoccur,ifanythingisunfair,befearlessincorrectingit,,themeaningandstructureofbothareverysimilar,,itdefinitelyborrowedsomeideasfromTheTwelveKingdoms,buttocallitplagiarism,Idoubtit,,eventheirlogicandstructurearethesameandyousayitsnotplagiarismpostedanothernetizenwhoconfrontedQi,butifthetakenbithasbeenwashedthoroughly,andhasnodramaticsimilarities,andthebithappenstobelessimportantandhaslessfunctionwhenevaluatingitintheentirework,then,itisnoteasytodefineitasplagiarism,said,alawyerspecializingincopyrightlaw,,theconceptofanovel,filmandTVscript;,,thelawprotectsexpression,,sometimescanbeconfusinganddependsontheparticularcase,,QingYuNianisawell-ratedalternativehistorynovelthatte,theworkwasadaptedintoa46-episodeTVdramastarringfamousactorssuchasZhangRuoyun,ChenDaomingandXiaoZhan,acontr,theIPhasbee,iftheplagiarismscandalgainsground,willtherebeasecondseasonPleasedontcancelit,IliketheTVdramaalot,Tanni,afanoftheshowinBeijing,,theofficialproductionteamfortheshowannouncedthatasecondseasonisindevelopmentandwilllikelyairin2022.

Synopsys,(DMCA)actionagainstLibraryTechnologies,accesstoSynopsys¡¯ssoftwareinviolationoftheDMCAandtheparties¡¯¡°spoof[ed]¡±Synopsys¡¯slicenseserversbyalteringidentifyinginformationonvariouslicenseservercomputersto¡°leadingproviderofElectronicDesignAutomation(¡°EDA¡±)solutionsforthesemiconductorindustry.¡±Itreportedlyoffersasuiteofsoftwarequalityandsecuritysolutions,includingits¡°HSPICE¡±,LibraryTechnologiesisaprivatelyheldcompanybasedinSiliconValleythat¡°developsandmarketsdesignandanalysistoolsforintegratedcircuitdesign.¡±Itssuiteoftoolsandproductsareintegratedwithandinterfaceto¡°popularchipdesignflowsincludingSynopsystools.¡±Thecomplaintcontendsthatthepartiesenteredintoan¡°EndUserLicenseandMaintenanceAgreement¡±¡°licenseseats¡±,thethree-countcomplaintavers,LibraryTechnologiesbreachedtheagreementwhenit¡°alteredtheHostIDsofitslicenseservercomputerstoimpersonateaserverauthorizedtouseSynopsysTools,inordertocircumventSynopsys¡¯accesscontrollicensekeyprotections,therebygainingaccesstomoreconcurrentusageofSynopsysToolsthanauthorized.¡±SynopsyscontendsthatLibraryTechnologiesaccessedthesoftware¡°inexcessofitslicenseover400,000times,¡±¡¯unauthorizedandunpaidforaccess,Synopsysargues,notonlybreachedtheparties¡¯,Synopsysseeksinjunctiverelief,statutoryandactualdamages,attorneys¡¯feesandlitigationcosts,anaccounting,,HerringtonSutcliffeLLP.

OnApril12,accordingtoanordermadepublicinManhattanfederal,DistrictJudgeJedRakoffhasthrownoutalawsuitfromInternationalBusinessMachinesCorp(IBM)claimingonlinepetfoodretailerChewyIncswebsiteandmobileappviolatedseveralIBMpatentscoveringimprovementstowebsitefunctionalityandtargetedadvertising,fromwhichIBMwouldseekatleast$¡¯unpatentableabstractidea,Florida-basedChewysuedIBMtoheadoffapotentiallawsuitandaccusedtechgiantIBM,oneofthelargestpatentownersintheworld,ofseekingexorbitantlicensingfeesforearlyInternetpatentshavingnovalue.,afteritsupposedlyrejecteda$,IBMwassaidtohavesimilarlysuedotherinternet-basedcompaniesincludingTwitterInc,AirbnbIncandZillowGroupInc,andthatmostofthemhadbasicallysurrenderedbeforethetrial.

,anylitigationproceedingsconcerningbrand-newtechnologylikecryptocurrencyarelikelytobefBitcoin,CraigWright,,WrightandtwoassociatedcompaniesfiledaGBP500billionlawsuitagainstKrakenandCoinbaseexchangesintheIntellec(BitcoinCore)actsanddefraudinginvestors,eBitcocaselastyearagainstawebsitethatwasusinghiswhitepaperonthecryptocurrency,,wherehe¡¯,thisisn¡¯,,,,forCoinbase,whichisahugeexchangethatfallsunderregulationsasittradespublicly,thelawsuitc,theymustdeclarethissuittotheirinvestors,,iftheyarefoundtohaveliedtotheirinvestors,tha,acreatorofBitcoinisgoingafterahugecompanyasanindividual;thatsnotgoingtogounnoticedbycryptoenthusiastsandcouldcausearippleeffect,,Wrightisaninfluentialthoughtle,thisisaboutprotectingtheconsumerfromfraudanddeception.

AChinesewebauthorhasbecomethetargetofabacklashfromnetizensonSaturday¡¯,authorofthepopularnovelMyHeroicHusband,whichisbeingadaptedforTV¨Cbecamethetargetofinte,anotherwebauthor,Qiyingjun,postedonChina¡¯sTwitter-likeSinaWeibothatshesuffered¡°verbalsexualharassment¡±from¡°somemaleauthors¡±¡¯spostsayingsheshouldrevealthenamesofth,doubtingtheveracityofQiyingjun¡¯tknowthatherpostwouldcreatesuchabigwaveonsocialmedia,,000yuan($4,633),manyChinesenetizensshowedsympathyforQiyingjunsaying¡°asawoman,shehastherighttospeak¡±whileother,hetoldmediathatthenovelwasmainlytargetedatmalereadersandthat¡°thenoveldoesnotneedfemalereadersatall.¡±ThislatterstatementbecameahottopicofdiscussionamongChinesenetizens,manyofwhombegancallingforaboycottofhiswork¨C,scheduledtobereleasedin2021,tellsthestoryaboutamanwholiveswithhisparents-in-lawandhelpshiswifewithherbusiness,ow¡°avictimofcyberviolence.¡±Hedeniedtheaccusationsthathewaay.,aBeijing-basedlawyerspecializinginintellectualpropertyrights,toldtheGlobalTimesonSundaythatwhiletheshow¡¯sproducerswillnotbeabletopursuealegalcaseagainstFennudexiangjiaoforcausingabacklashagainsttheshow,hiscommentsstillindicateamoraldeficiencythatcausednegativesocialimpact.¡°Asapublicfigure,writersneedtoconsciouslyassumecertainsocialresponsibilities,andexpressrationalandobjectivespeech,¡±,vicechairmanoftheChinaSexologyAssociation,echoedXu¡¯sviewthatauthorsaspublicfiguresneedtobeawareofgenderequalityinsteadofonlyemphasizingoneside.¡°Sometimes,apublicapologyisaneffectivewaytoquellpublicopinion,¡±saidPeng.

DebevoisePlimptonLLPhassecuredavictoryforDiamondHandsConsulting(DHC)intheSouthernDistrictofNewYorkonJuly20whenJudgeRonnieAbramsgrantedDHCsmotionsforpreliminaryinjuncocialmediaplatformsandwebsites,wherecryptocurrencyenthusiastscangathertodiscusstokens,platforms,,anditsforumsbecamefamouswiththeriseofmemecoinslikeDogecoininearly2021,garne¨CayearafterDHCsfirstuseofitstrademark¨Cthreeco-conspiratorsfromNewYork,Wisconsin,andNorthCarolinabeganacompetingseriesofforumsusingtheexactsamename,andtwodefendantsultimatelylaunchedaninfringingSatoshiStreetBetscryptocurrencyunderthemoniker$,JudgeRonnieAbramsissuedpreliminaryinjunctionsagainstallthreedefendantsonJuly20,findingthatDHChadestablishedalikelihoodofsuccessonthemeritsastoitsclaimsandspecificallyholdingthatDHCsrightsintheSatoshiStreetBetsbrandforprovidingcryptocurrencyinformationserviceseseincommerceoftheSatoshiStreetBetstrademarkpriortoanyofthedefendants(eventhoug),$SSB,JudgeAbramsalsoorderedthedefendantstoturnoveralloftheirinfringingsocialmediaaccountsforthedurationofthelitigation,anddeclinedtorequireanybond.

UtahscookiecompetitioncontinuedonJuly13whenDirtyDoughandCraveCo,foundedinLoganbySawyerHemsleyandJasonMcGowan,filedalawsuitagainstDirtyDough,acookiebusinessthatstartedinTempe,Arizona,,aCrumblinsiderleftCrumbltofoundDirtyDough,whichsellsandpromotescookiesusingpackaging,decor,andpresentationthatisconfusinglysim,whosbrotherwasaCrumblemployee,toldTheHerald,youguysknowthatDirtyDoughwasalreadystartedin2018,,Ithinkwerethemostdifferent,..,,bigsupporter,Maxwellsaid,expla,allofasuddenoutofnowhere¡­wegethitwithalawsuit,,,,wellseeiftheywanttotalk¡­whatsthesolutionhereMaxwellsaid,,wereachedouttothem¡ªtoldthemweacceptedcounsel,,,anothercookiecompanythathascometoUtah,,afterCrumbldeniedanapplicationbyCravesfoundertobecomeaCrumblfranchisee,Cravebegansellingandpromotingitscopycatgourmetcookies,Crumblscomplaintreadsbeforealletailsofthevaluablegoodwill,reputation,ontobecomeaCrumblefranchiseeorthatCraveisinviolationofanyofCrumblsallegedtrademarks,tradedress,orotherintellectualpropertyrights,rattemptbyathreatenedcompetitortousealawsuittostiflefairandfreecompetitionanddenyconsumersachoiceofproducts,Englishsaidinastatementto,,orelsewhywouldnttheytalkwithusorsendacease-and-desistletter,,,Maxwellsaid,,hesaid,,Crumblsaidtheyareprotectingtheirsuccess:Asafranchisorof30,000+CrumblCrewmembers,1,000+FranchisePartners,andhundredsofCrumblHQemployees,wewillalwaystakeseriouslyourroleinbuildingandprotectingthecompanyanditstrademarksthatweveallworkedsohardtocreatetogether.

Clearingtheaironlabyrinthinesubject-mattereligibilitystandardsforcomputer-implementedinventions(CIIs),a,,thecourt,whilesettinganewtest,rejected,forthesecondtime,aproblem-solutionapproachtoclaimconstructionfollowedbytheCanadianIntellectualPropertyOffice(CIPO)entsfindingtwoCanadianPatentApplicantsnumbered2,695,130and2,695,146aspatentineligibleundersections2and27(8)(IPIC),anIPpolicyadvocacyorganization,intervenedintheappealproceedings,affiinesinventiontoincludeanynewandusefulart,process,machine,(8),however,,2000SCC66,theSupremeCourtofCanadaclarifiedthatbeforeassessingsubject-mattereligibility,essentialeleme,whereinonlythoseelementsinclaimsthatwerenecessarytosolveth,,CIPOintroducedaPracticeNote,titledExaminationPracticeRespectingComputer-ImplementedInventions,whichindicatedthatifacomputercomponentisfoundtobeanessentialelement,,iftheessentialelementslackanyphysicality,(AttorneyGeneral),2020FC837,CIPOintroducedanewPracticeNoteinNovember2020,titledPatentableSubject-MatterunderthePatentAct,whichnotedthatinordertobepatent-eligible,thecomputercomponentsmustcooperatewithotherelementsoftheclaimedinvention,andthatactualinventioncations,bothtitledColorSelectionSystem,filedbyBenjaminMooreCo.,icalequationthatmodeledhumanpsychologicalperceptionstocolor,associatingacoloremotionscoretovariouscolorsinadatabase,andselecti,bothpatentapplicationswererejectedbyExaminersforencompassingnon-statutorysubject-matter,,theExaminer,uponpurposivelyconstruingtheclaims,,asnotedbytheExaminer,includedcalculatinghumanpsychophysicalperceptionvaluestocolorelementsbasedonmathematicalmodels,andothe,eviewedbyathree-memberPatentAppealBoard,,theApplicantreliedonFreeWorldTrustinemphasizingthatcomputercomponentscau,theApplicantclaimed,theApplicantconcededthatnoattemptwasmadetosolveac,however,concludedthatidentifyingamathematicalcorrelationbetweencolorsandhumanemotiveresponsestoaidcolorselectionwasnotatechnicalproblemforsubject-matterconsiderations,andcompsionerofPatents1981,FCA204,thatuseofcomputersforconduct,theBoardagreedwiththeExaminerandnotedthattheessentialelements,,theAppellantchallengedtheCommissionersclaimcons,Appellantargued,wouldhavebeenidentifyingclaimelementsthathaveamater,theCommissionerhadincorrectlyconcludedthattheremainingcationssuchasidentifyingadjacencyofcolorpairs,storingthecolorlibrary,,,,thePracticeN,theCommissionersapproachofconsideringonlythenovelelementsintheclaimsasessenti,theofficeoftheAttorneyGeneralofCanada(AGC)incorrectbutsoughttoremittheapplicationsbacktotheCommissi,theRespondentarguedthatjudicialinterventionwouldbeprematureastheCommissionerdidnothavetheopportunitytoconsidertheAppeyhavingtheexpert,theRespondentcontendedthata,implementingascientificprincipleormathematicaltheoremonagen,IPIC,generallyalignedwiththeAppellantspositionandca,CIPOstendencyo,gdetrimentaltoCIIs,ntedworldwide,,notingmaterialeffecnon-essentialandallegi,theIntervenorrequestedthecourttore-cessiontotheproblem-so,includingWhirlpoolCorpvCamcoInc,2000SCC67,FreeWorldTrust,andCanada(AttorneyGeneral),2011FCA328thecourtheldthatnoneofthedecisionssuggestaproblem-solutionapproach,andins,wheretheproblem-solutionapproachwasdiscredited,andaddedthatpracticalapplicationofs,theproblem-solutionapproach,consideringonlynovelaspectsofclaimsinsubject-matteranalysis,andholdingcomputercomponentsasnon-essentialfornotsolvingacomputerproblem,ectmatter,thecourtacceptedtheframeworksuggestedbytheIntervenor,isasfollows:Purposivelyconstruetheclaim;Askwhethertheconstruedclaimasawholeconsistsofonlyamerescientificprincipleorabstracttheorem,orwhetheritcomprisesapracticalapplicationthatemploysascientificprincipleorabstracttheorem;andIftheconstruedclaimcomprisesapracticalapplication,assesstheconstruedclaimfortheremainingpatentabilitycriteria:statutorycategoriesandjudicialexclusions,aswellasnovelty,obviousness,ifyingessentialclaimelements,thecourthasdirectedthatclaimsshouldbeassessed,CIPOsrequirementthatapplicationsinvolvingCIIsmu,CIPOspracticeoflimitingthesubject-matterassessmentonlytonovelele,abrightlinetowardscon

DebevoisePlimptonLLPhassecuredavictoryforDiamondHandsConsulting(DHC)intheSouthernDistrictofNewYorkonJuly20whenJudgeRonnieAbramsgrantedDHCsmotionsforpreliminaryinjuncocialmediaplatformsandwebsites,wherecryptocurrencyenthusiastscangathertodiscusstokens,platforms,,anditsforumsbecamefamouswiththeriseofmemecoinslikeDogecoininearly2021,garne¨CayearafterDHCsfirstuseofitstrademark¨Cthreeco-conspiratorsfromNewYork,Wisconsin,andNorthCarolinabeganacompetingseriesofforumsusingtheexactsamename,andtwodefendantsultimatelylaunchedaninfringingSatoshiStreetBetscryptocurrencyunderthemoniker$,JudgeRonnieAbramsissuedpreliminaryinjunctionsagainstallthreedefendantsonJuly20,findingthatDHChadestablishedalikelihoodofsuccessonthemeritsastoitsclaimsandspecificallyholdingthatDHCsrightsintheSatoshiStreetBetsbrandforprovidingcryptocurrencyinformationserviceseseincommerceoftheSatoshiStreetBetstrademarkpriortoanyofthedefendants(eventhoug),$SSB,JudgeAbramsalsoorderedthedefendantstoturnoveralloftheirinfringingsocialmediaaccountsforthedurationofthelitigation,anddeclinedtorequireanybond.

01¿µ»Ô¼¯ÍŶ­Ê³¤Íõ¶­Ö´ǿµ»Ô¼¯ÍŶ­Ê³¤Íõ½¨¿µÏÈÉú¶ÔËùÓеÄÀ´±ö±íʾÈÈÁҵ϶ӭ£¬ÏîÄ¿×ÜÕ¼µØÔ¼183Ķ£¬ÎÒÃÇÐ¡ÇøÓÐÖÐÑëºþ¾°¡¢Ö÷ÌâÔ°ÁÖ¡¢Ëļ¾»¨Ô°µÈ£¬ÎÒÃǽ«ÒÔÓÅÁ¼µÄÖÊÁ¿ÓÅÃÀµÄ»·¾³£¬Á¼ºÃµÄ·þÎñÀ´»Ø±¨¹àÄÏÈËÃñ¡£

Ò»·Ý·Ý׼ȷµÄ¼ì²â±¨¸æ£¬ÈÃÄÐͬÊÂßõßõ³ÆÔÞ¡£

InstallationworkAPanoramaofRiversandMountainsondisplaynearthePalaceMuseuminBeijingPhoto:VCGCarryingthegenesandspiritofanation,culturalrelrs,tomakeculturalrelicsstoredinmuseums,heritagesdisplayedthroughoutthevastland,,Chinesecivilization,togetherwiththecolorfulcivilizationscreatedbythepeopleofothercountries,shouldpinkmovetheirbodiestoatraditionalChinesemelody,theyappeara:TheJourneyofaLegendaryLandscapePaintinghasearnedareputationacrossthecountrysinceitfirstappearedonstaMuseum,themorethan900-year-oldpaintingAPanoramaofRiversandMountainsbyNorthernSongDynasty(960-1127),Wangpaintedtheblue-greenlandscapefeaturingcolorfulmountainsandripp,thepopularityofthepaintingskyrocketed,inspiringChinesepeopletolearnmoreaboutthework,sdigitalization,otherancientpaintingshavebeenbroughtto,ChenL¨¹sheng,deputypresidentoftheNationalMuseumofChinafrom2010to2016,praisedthecreativityofChineseculturalworkers,nntpaintingAlongtheRiverDuringtheQi:TheJourneyofaLegendaryLandscapePaintingdepictsaresearcheratthePalaceMuseumwhofindshimselftransportedbacktotheNorthernSongDynasty,whereheispresentedwiulturalconnotationstotheaudience,DongJilan,afamousyoungdancerfromBaiethnicminoritygroup,toldtheGlobaendoftheshowwhenthedancersbeganslowingdownandthensuddenlystoodstillonstage,ofnea::VCGUnstoppabledigitaltrendDigitizationhasbecom,animmersivedigitalexperiencepresentingAPanoramaofRiversandM,visitorswereabletoenjoyandinteractwiththebeautifulsceneryinthepaintinginwhichegretssoarthroughtheskyandamistydrizzlemakesripplesonalaketh,thefamousscrollpaintingAlongtheRiverDuringtheQingmingFesng,wherepe,YangXiaohua,co-founderoftheARMuseum,,whenapersonwenttoamuseumandwantedtolearnaboutafamouspainting,,everyindividualcanimmersethemselvesintheworldscreatedbyancientmasters,Yangadded.

¡°Themostsuccessfulpartieschoosetheirbattleswisely,¡±saysTheHonorableGerardRogers,ChiefAdministrativeTrademarkJudgeattheTrademarkTrialandAppealBoard(TTAB),abodywithintheUnitedStatesPatentandTrademarkOffice(USPTO).HavingservedinvariousrolesontheTTABformorethan25years,JudgeRogersispanshavebeendeniedbytheUSPTO,,partieshavebeenknowntopushtheirluck.¡°TrialsaresometimespursuedbecausethepartieshaveissuesoutsidetheTTABthatthey¡¯regrapplingwithand,itappearstous,theythinkitwillgivethemanotherleveragepointtodealwiththeirdifferences.¡±JudgeRogerssayshehasseencaseswherepartieshavenotproperlyfollowedtheTTAB¡¯sManualofProcedure,,regulatory,anddecisionalauthoritythatisrelevanttotheTTAB.¡°Therehavebeenappealsandtrialcasesthathavebeenlostbutcouldhavebeenwon,duetoafailuretofollowtherules,¡±saysJudgeRogers.¡°Manypractitionersfailtofollowtheguidanceonwhatevidencecanbeprobative.¡±JudgeRogersaddsthatit¡°neverhurts¡±toremindstakeholderstobecognizantoftherulesthattheTTABisrequiredtoapply¡ªaswellastheissuesitmustignore¡ª,theTTABoftencannottakeintoaccountparticularsrelatingtouseofatrademarkinthemarketplace,¡°Wehavetoignorethatinformation,yetpeoplebringittousallthetime,¡±,just30percentareexparteappeals,,appealsaccountfor75percentofcasesultimatelydecidedonthemerits,sowhatmightexplainthelargeswingJudgeRogerssaysthatpetitionsforcancellationandoppositionaresimilartocourtdisputesinthatasettlementisavailableand,ifthatoptionisused,¡°fewertrialcasesrequiredispositiononthemeritsasthepartieshaveworkeditout.¡±Inasmallpercentageofcases,apartymight¡°misbehave¡±andbesanctioned,whichcouldalsoleadtothecasebeingterminated,ppositionscanbemuchmoreexpensivethanappealsfromexaminerrefusals,soalotofcasesareneverpursuedbeyondtheinitialstages,,whichcaninvolveplentyofbackandforthbetweentheparties,includingondiscoveryandmotionpractice,,incontrast,¡°whentheattorneyfilesthenoticeofappealthereisnotmuchelsetodootherthanfilethebriefs,¡±,ofteninwrittenratherthanoralform,¡°sothere¡¯snotmuchaddedexpensetohaveanattorneypursueanappeal.¡±MoreAppealsJudgeRogersnotesthattrademarkapplicationfilingswiththeUSPTOhaverisenyear-on-yearforeightyears,so¡°thismeansmoreappealsandoppositionsandtheneedtoincreasethestafftohandlethatwork.¡±ernsabouttheBoard¡¯,seResolution(ACR)procedure,,theTTABseekstoexpediteproceedingsby,amongotherthings,activelyencouragingpartiestoconsiderplacinglimitsondiscoveryandtestimony,andadoptingmoreefficientaltern,forexample,hesaysthat,whileattorneyshaveindividualresponsibilityforcasesontheirdockets,theTTAB¡¯smanagingattorneywillreassigncaseswithpendingmotionsonamoneeditsperformancetargets,saysJudgeRogers,despitealargevariationinthecomplexityofcases,2weeksofthecasebeingreadytodecide,saysJudgeRogers(readyfordecisionmeansafterallbriefingisdoneandthecaseissubmittedbyaBoardparalegaltotheChiefJudgeforassignment,orafteroralargument,ifoneisrequested).¡°Wehaverepeatedlybeatenthisgoal,¡±veragependency(fromcommencementtocompletion)ofexparteappealsforthelastfiveyearsinarow,withthatpendencymeasurefallingintrialcasesforfiveofthepastsixyears.¡°JudgeRogersexplainsthatstakeholdershavelongexpressedapreferencefortheTTABtoremain¡°amorerelaxedalternativetolitigationinfederaldistrictcourts,¡±whereextension,,,,Inc.,ntdistrictcourtlitigationbetweenthesamepartiesthatlitigatedanearliercasebeforetheTTAB,aslongasthe¡°ordinaryelements¡±,JudgeRogerssaysitsimpactontheTTABhasbeen¡°almostnone.¡±However,hedoesnotethatitwasaverypositiverulingfortrademarkownersasit¡°¡±HenotesthatmanyTTABcasesaresettledandthatevenwhentheyarenot,,headds,theissuesthattheTTABanddistrictcourtsadjudicateareoftendifferent(,thesubsequentdistrictcourtcaseverylikelywouldconsideradditionalissuesrelatingtouseinthemarketplace).¡°Therewasalotoftalkthat,becauseofthepossibilityofissuepreclusion,partiesshouldtakemorediscoveryandintroducemoreevidenceattheTTAB.¡°ButIsay:issuepreclusionisunlikelytoariseinallbuttherarestofcases,¡¯tintroducemorediscoverythanusual,anddon¡¯tincreaseyourcostsandfilealotofirrelevantevidencethatwouldhaveabearinginadistrictcourtbutwhichisnotrelevanttoouranalysis.¡±¡¯advice;,JudgeRogers,whohasbeeninhiscurrentpositionsinceNovember2010,saysthereisa¡°realvarietyandthingscancomeuponanygivenday.¡±Histimeincludesmeetingwiththeapproximately70membersoftheTTABstaff,whichincludesjudges,attorneys,thatthejudgesarecontinually,andhestressestheimportanceofworkinginharmony.¡°WeworkcloselywiththeSolicitor¡¯sOffice;theywillbeinthepositionofdefendingvariousBoarddecisionsbeforetheFederalCircuit,sowewanttoputtheminthebestpositionpossible,¡±¡¯sOffice,JudgeRogersexplains,canrelaytotheTTABtheque¡¯smostseniorjudgemaybehisprimaryrole,JudgeRog¡¯sstaffareitsbiggeststrength,saysthejudge.¡°Ifindthetimetoremindouremployeesofwhatgreatworktheydo,¡±ursandstress¡ªhisbicycle.¡°FormanyyearsIhaveriddentenmileseachwaytotheofficeandback;itprovidesabufferbetweenworkandhomelife.¡±

ÏêÇé¿É¼Ó΢ÐÅ´òµç»°×Éѯ19814666860΢Ðŵ绰ͬºÅ

DebevoisePlimptonLLPhassecuredavictoryforDiamondHandsConsulting(DHC)intheSouthernDistrictofNewYorkonJuly20whenJudgeRonnieAbramsgrantedDHCsmotionsforpreliminaryinjuncocialmediaplatformsandwebsites,wherecryptocurrencyenthusiastscangathertodiscusstokens,platforms,,anditsforumsbecamefamouswiththeriseofmemecoinslikeDogecoininearly2021,garne¨CayearafterDHCsfirstuseofitstrademark¨Cthreeco-conspiratorsfromNewYork,Wisconsin,andNorthCarolinabeganacompetingseriesofforumsusingtheexactsamename,andtwodefendantsultimatelylaunchedaninfringingSatoshiStreetBetscryptocurrencyunderthemoniker$,JudgeRonnieAbramsissuedpreliminaryinjunctionsagainstallthreedefendantsonJuly20,findingthatDHChadestablishedalikelihoodofsuccessonthemeritsastoitsclaimsandspecificallyholdingthatDHCsrightsintheSatoshiStreetBetsbrandforprovidingcryptocurrencyinformationserviceseseincommerceoftheSatoshiStreetBetstrademarkpriortoanyofthedefendants(eventhoug),$SSB,JudgeAbramsalsoorderedthedefendantstoturnoveralloftheirinfringingsocialmediaaccountsforthedurationofthelitigation,anddeclinedtorequireanybond.

ChinaonTuesdaykickedoffafive-monthcampaignagainstunlicense,e-commercewebsites,onlineadvertisements,musicandvideostreamingwebsites,cloudstorageservicesandonlinenewsproviders,accordingtoastatementreleasedbytheNationalCopyrightAdministration(NCA).Iturgedlocalpoliceandcopyright,internetandtelecomdepartmentstostrengthensupervisionandseverelycrackdownonintellectualproper,a,StateInternetInformationOffice,theMinistryofIndustryandInformationTechnologyandtheMinistryofPublicSecurity.

×ß½ø»Æ¶þ¾ü¼ÒµÄÔº×ÓÀһÅÅÅÅÏÌÓãÕûÆëµØÁÀɹÔÚǽéÜÏ£¬ÔÚ¶¬ÌìµÄÑô¹âÏÂÉ¢·¢×ÅÓÕÈ˵ÄÏãζ¡£

OnJuly11,theDelhiHCrestrainedaBengaluru-basedcakeryfromusingthenameFacebakeorFacecake,oranyotherFacebook-relatedtrademarkforitsproductsandservicesThecourtintheSnapdealcasealsodirectedDomainNameRegistrarstocreateamechanismforbrandstoseekcancellationortransferofdomainnamesthatinfringetrademarkIndiascurrentlawsthatgoverntrademarkinfringementsincludetheTrademarkAct,1999,whichwasdevelopedtocomplywiththeTRIPSagreementoftheWTOTru-basedcakeryfromusingthenameFacebakeorFacecake,,JusticeNavinChawla,whowashearingthecase,orderedthebakerytodeliverallfinishedandunfinishedproductsbearingthetrademarksimilartoMeta,theparentcompanyofFacebook,,theCourtalsoawardedINR50,,£¨DNRs£©oughttocreateamechanismviawhichtrademarkownerscouldapproachtheDNRsandsec,whileDNRsarecompaniesthatallowuserstoregisterthem,suchasGoDaddy,Namecheap,oumthathasseeninfringementcasesfiledleft,,manybrandswithnomanufacturingaddressespopulatethestreetsandcorners,,itisdifficulttotrackthesedubiousoperatorsinmostcases.

´û¿î100Íò30ÄêÀûÏ¢¿ÉÊ¡ÍòLPR³¬Ô¤ÆÚϵ÷½áºÏÒøÐÐ0¼Óµã£¬ÔÚÊ×Ì×·¿´ûÀûÂÊÊÇ%µÄÇé¿öÏ£¬ÒÔÉÌÒµ´û¿î100ÍòÔª¡¢30ÄêÆÚ¡¢µÈ¶î±¾Ï¢»¹¿î£¬½Ï´ËǰÖ÷Á÷Ê×Ì×·¿´ûÀûÂÊΪ%Ïà±È£¬¶Ì¶Ì10ÌìµÄ·¿´û±ä»¯£¨¾ßÌå¼ûÏÂͼ£©£¬Æ½¾ùÿÔ¿ɼõÉÙÔ¹©Ö§³öÔ¼484Ôª£¬Î´À´30ÄêÄÚ¹²¼õÉÙÀûÏ¢Ö§³öÔ¼ÍòÔª¡£

Incase(2021£©×î¸ß·¨ÖªÃñÖÕ1298ºÅrecentlyhighlightedbytheIntellectualPropertyTribunaloftheSupremePeople¡¯sCourtofChina(SPC),theSPCruledthatasettlementagreementtoapatentinfringementlawsuitconstitutedahorizontalmonopolyagreementasthescopetheagreementwasnot,WuhanTaipuTransformerSwitchCo.,Ltd.(TaipuCompany)suedShanghaiHuamingPowerEquipmentManufacturingCo.,Ltd.(HuamingCompany)forinfringingitsinventionpatententitled¡°Off-circuittap-changerwithshieldingdevice.¡±InJanuary2016,thetwopartiesre:HuamingCompanycanonlyproducecertainkindsofnon-excitationtap-changers,andotherkindsofnon-excitationtap-changerscouldonlyberesoldtodownstreamcustomersthroughTaipuCompany,andthesale,HuamingCompanyactsasamarketagentforTaipurelatedentities,andshallnotproduceoractasanagentfortheproductsofthesamecategoryofotherenterprisesonitsown,an,,HuamingCompanyfiledalawsuitinthiscasewiththeIntermediatePeople¡¯sCourtofWuhanCity,HubeiProvince,claimingthatthesettlementagreenotamonopolyagreement,¡¯sCourt,,theSupremePeople¡¯sCourtheldthattodeterminewhethertheagreementinvolvedinthecaseisinvalidduetoviolationofthemandatoryprovisionsoftheAnti-MonopolyLaw,itmustfirstdeterminewhethertheagreementinvolvedinthecaseconstitutesahorizontalmonopolyagreementexpresslyprohibitedbytheAnti-MonopolyLaw,andthende,astowhethertheagreementinvolvedinthecaseconstitutesahorizontalmonopolyagreementexpresslyprohibitedbyArticle13,paragraph1oftheAnti-MonopolyLaw,theSupremePeople¡¯sCourtheldthatHuamingC,bothpartieshavecertainmarketinfluence,andthereisacompetit,withArticles1,5and10asthecore,agreedtostoptheproductionofspecificvarietiesofcommodities,restrictthesalesofspecificvarietiesofcommodities,coordinateandfixprices,andsupplem,restrictingtheproductionandsalesvolumeofcommodities,andfixingcommoditypriceshasbeenstrengthened,anditmeetstheformalrequirementsstfArticle13oftheAnti-MonopolyLawarecommontypesoftypicalhorizontalmonopolyagreementswiththeeffectofeliminatingandrestrictingcompetition,onceagreedupon,willgenerallyeliminateandrestrictcompetitionanditca,Taipushouldbeartheburdenofproofthattheagreementinvolvedi,theevidenceinthecasealsoshowsthataftertheagreementinvolvedinthecasewassigned,theunitpriceoftheoff-circuittap-changerinthepriceguidesentbyTaiputoHuamingwasmuchhigherthanHuaming¡¯sownexternalsalespriceandthelegalrepresentativesofbothpartiesWeChatchatrecordsalsowillleadtoanincreaseinthepriceofrelatedproducts,,regardingtherelationshipbetweentheagreementinvolvedandthepatentinfringementdispute,theSupremePeople¡¯sCourtheldthatinthiscase,thetechnicaleffectofthepatentinvolvedwasmainlytoreducethecostofswitchmanufacturing,toenhancethestabilityandreliabili,Huaming¡¯srestrictedproductionandsalesofcertaintypesofoff-circuittap-changersarenot,HuamingCompanyandTaipuComparket,andusesthistodetermi,salesvolume,salestype,salesarea,,wh,buttousetheexerciseofthepatentrightasacover,infact,itpursuesdividingthesalesmarketandrestrictingtheproductionandsalesofgoodswiththeeffectoffixingprices,whichisanabuseofpatentrights,constitutesanactofexcludingandrestrictingcompetition,,thefactthatTaipuownsandexercisesthepatentrightinth,regardingthelegaleffectoftheagreement,theSupremePeople¡¯sCourtheldthatArticles1,5and10oftheagreementinvolvedviolatedtheprovisionsofArticle13oftheAnti-Mono,Taipudidnotclaimthattheagre,Articles1,nthecase,andtheotherclausesrelatetoth,theagreementcannotsurviveseverabilityafterstrippingoutthethreeclauses,,2022isavailablehere(Chineseonly).

,foundintheFirstAmendment,maypresentalegalrecourseforcanna,afreespeechargumentwillnotbeofhelptothosewhosimplycopyafamoustrademark,,however,,brandstakethatinspirationtoofar,,,allegingthatitwassellingTHC-containingproductsbearingsomeofFerrarasregisteredtrademarks,,AkimovwasnotusingmarksinspiredbyFerraras,provenance,,itsreputationcouldsufferincaseofanyproblemswithAkimovsproducts,astheproblemscouldbeassociatedwithFerrarastrademarks,,salesofunauthorizedNerdsandTrolliproductstomisledconsumers,whoinfactwantedthegenuinearticle,,theinspirationdrawnfromafamoustrademarkmightbeobvious,,,TerphogzLLC,,,butwhethertheuseofZk,ratingthewordZkittlez,notf,,theConstitutionanditsfreespeechprotectionsmightconstituteanotherarrowinthequiverofbrandsthatseekinspirationfromfamoustrademarks,,theFirstAmendmenttotheConstitutionprovidesthatCongressshallmakenolaw...soffreedomofspeech,ontheonehand,andfederaltrademarkrightsprovidedforunderlawsmadebyCongress,,theLanhamActprohibitstheregistrationofatrademarkthatsocloselyresemblesaregisteredmarkoramarkthatwaspreviouslyusedbyanotherastobelikely,whenusedonorinconnectionwiththegoodsoftheapplication,tocauseconfusion,ortocausemistake,,brandownersfreedomofspeechislimitedbythisprohibition,asitmeanstheycannotusecertainwords,,,eregistra,,theSupremeCourtin2017reache,courtshavegenerallyconsideredthatthecurtailmentofFirstAmendmentprotectionsisacceptablewhendenyingprotectiontoat,theSupremeCourtrecognizedthatthesuppressionofcertainwordsintheinterestoftrademarkprotectionc,thecourtconsideredthatthisriskhadtobeweighedagainsttheimportanceofprotectingthevalueadd,,iffreespeechinterestsareimplicated,aplaintiffcl,key,,,,theNinthCircuitmadeclearth,thekeyiswhethertheu,theuseofelementsassociatedwithJackDanielsbrandimageoksusedbysomecannabisbrandsthatparody,orareinspiredby,,,notallcannabistrademarksbeingchallengedbytheownersoffamoustrademarkswillcrossthethresholdofartisticexpression,,undertheRogerstest,theuseofthesecannabistrademarkswillonlyconstitutei,itsusehasartisticrelevance¡ª,itishardt,theysendanimmediatesignaltoconsumers,totheeffectthatthesetr,itcanbeargunRothschild,,withmanyestablishedbrandsenteringthemetaverse,consumerswouldexpectthatNFTsbearingfamou,itwouldbefarhardertomakethatargumentifthechosennameforthecollectionwasMetaVirkins,orsomecannabisbrandsininfringementhotwater,dlyinfringedtrademarksareusedonproductsthatareunlawfulatthefederallevel,suchasmarijuana,asdefinedintheControlledSubstancesAct,orCBDproductswhoseintroductionintointerstatecommerceviolatestheFederalFood,rkss,phraseorlogoathandisaFirstAmendment-protectedexpressionfirst,,however,itsufficestohighlightthispotentialopeningforacourtlookingforalegaldistinc;,itisworthstressingthattheFirstAmendmentwillnotcometotherescueofthosecannabisbrandsthatcannotregistertheirtrademarksatth,though,theConstitutionmightofferdeliverance.

TheshapeofaLondonblackhacktaxiisnotdistinctiveenoughtobeeligiblefortrademarkprotection,otrademarksheldbyTheLondonTaxiCorporation(LTC)lywereitstrademarksvalidbutthatFrazer-NashResearchandEcotivehadinfringeditsrightsinthosemarksaxisLTCmanufactureddidnothaveinherentdistinctivecharacter,hattheywereinherentlydistinctive,suchasthesizeandslopingofthewindscreen,theshapeofthebonnet,thepositioningofthetaxilight,,thejudgesruledthatthosefeaturerademarksthatLTCwereassertingtodete,however,thattheHighCourtwasrighttodeterminethattherewasnotenoughevidencetoshowthattaxihirershadcometoperceivetheshapeoftresentedgraphicallycanqualifyfortrademarkprotectioniftheyarecapableofdistinguishingonecompany,wheremarksarenotinherentlydistinctive,theycanneverthelessberegisteredastrademarksifitcanbeshownthatthemarkhasacquiredadistinctivecharacterinarksandbrandstomerittrademarkprotectioninvolvesevaluatingwhattheaverageconsumerofatypeofproductperceiveswhentheyseeamark,,,saidthefactthattheCoucceptedthattheaverageconsumerforthepurposesofthelegaltesttodeterminewhetherthetrademarkwasvalidincludedpeoplewhohiredtaxis,uchpeoplewereaverageconsumersofataxi;whileitistruethatsuc,rightsholdersshouldconsiderallpotentialconsumerswhointeractwiththetrademarkedgoodswhentryingtoassesstheappropriateaverageconsumer.

·¢ÏÖÒ»´Î¼Ç¾¯¸æÒ»´Î£¬¾¯¸æÂúÈý´Î£¬ÏµÍ³×ÔÐнûÑÔÈýÌ죡ÃâÔðÉùÃ÷£º¹àÄϰÙÐÕÍø£¨¹àÄÏÂÛ̳£©ÎÞ·¨100%±£Ö¤ÔÚ±¾°æ·¢²¼µÄÐÅÏ¢µÄÕæÊµÐԺͿɿ¿ÐÔ£¬Çë´ó¼ÒÎñ±Ø½øÐÐ×ÐϸµÄÕç±ð£¬½÷·ÀÉϵ±ÊÜÆ­£¡Ò»¸öÐÅÏ¢Àà°å¿éZÖØÒªµÄ¾ÍÊÇÁ½¸ö×Ö---ÕæÊµ£¡»¶Ó­Ó»Ô¾¾Ù±¨½Ò·¢Í¨¹ýµÃÒâ²éѯµ½µÄÐÅÏ¢£¬È»ºó±»ºöÓÆºÍÆÛÆ­µÄÖнéÒÔ¼°¸öÈË£¬ÌáÐÑÆäËûÒâ·Û±ÜÃâÉϵ±¡£

UtahscookiecompetitioncontinuedonJuly13whenDirtyDoughandCraveCo,foundedinLoganbySawyerHemsleyandJasonMcGowan,filedalawsuitagainstDirtyDough,acookiebusinessthatstartedinTempe,Arizona,,aCrumblinsiderleftCrumbltofoundDirtyDough,whichsellsandpromotescookiesusingpackaging,decor,andpresentationthatisconfusinglysim,whosbrotherwasaCrumblemployee,toldTheHerald,youguysknowthatDirtyDoughwasalreadystartedin2018,,Ithinkwerethemostdifferent,..,,bigsupporter,Maxwellsaid,expla,allofasuddenoutofnowhere¡­wegethitwithalawsuit,,,,wellseeiftheywanttotalk¡­whatsthesolutionhereMaxwellsaid,,wereachedouttothem¡ªtoldthemweacceptedcounsel,,,anothercookiecompanythathascometoUtah,,afterCrumbldeniedanapplicationbyCravesfoundertobecomeaCrumblfranchisee,Cravebegansellingandpromotingitscopycatgourmetcookies,Crumblscomplaintreadsbeforealletailsofthevaluablegoodwill,reputation,ontobecomeaCrumblefranchiseeorthatCraveisinviolationofanyofCrumblsallegedtrademarks,tradedress,orotherintellectualpropertyrights,rattemptbyathreatenedcompetitortousealawsuittostiflefairandfreecompetitionanddenyconsumersachoiceofproducts,Englishsaidinastatementto,,orelsewhywouldnttheytalkwithusorsendacease-and-desistletter,,,Maxwellsaid,,hesaid,,Crumblsaidtheyareprotectingtheirsuccess:Asafranchisorof30,000+CrumblCrewmembers,1,000+FranchisePartners,andhundredsofCrumblHQemployees,wewillalwaystakeseriouslyourroleinbuildingandprotectingthecompanyanditstrademarksthatweveallworkedsohardtocreatetogether.

ChinesevideoplatformKuaishouhasfileda5millionyuan($705,000)lawsuitagainstDouyin,accusingitsrivalof¡°piggybacking¡±onthecompany¡¯,whichhasbeenacceptedbyBeijing¡¯sHaidianDistrictcourt,KuaishouclaimsDouyinusedKuaishou¡¯snametolinktoitsownproductpageon360MobileAssistant,¡ªknowninternationallyasTikTok¡ªofinfringingKuaishou¡¯strademarktodisplayitsownproduct,pro,KuaishouisChina¡¯,Kuaishouclaimedithadsurpassed300milliondailyactiveusersonitsChineseapp,,Douyin¡¯sparentcompany,tolddomesticmediaonWednesdaythatithadfileditsownlawsuitagainstKuaishouinMarchoversimilarissue,andislookingintoitsrival¡¯rchenginesandothersimilarplatforms,onalinformation,raisingconcernsaboutcontentqualityandimpairedfunctionality.¡°IthinkwhatDouyinhasdonecouldconstituteinfringementofKuaishoustrademarkrights,¡±,anintellectualpropertylawyeratBeijingMingtaiLawFirm,toldSixthTone.¡°IfDouyinlinksKuaishouasitskeypaidsearchterminitsadrankings,itbasicallyweakensKuaishou¡¯sconnectiontoitsusers,justasKuaishouarguesinitslawsuit.¡±Usually,third-partyserviceprovidersdon¡¯thavealegalobligationtoreviewkeywords,andit¡¯salsoimpracticaltoanalyzeeverywordinthesearchenginealgorithm,comestodisplayingsearchresults.¡°Iftherightsownerdiscoversinfringementorunfaircompetition,theycannotifytheserviceproviderandaskthemtotakenecessarymeasures,suchasdeleting,blocking,disconnectinglinks,andmore,¡±,Kuaishou,and360MobileAssistantdidnotrespondtoSixthTone¡¯,,short-v,aBeijing-basedconsultancy,averagescreentimeonshort-videoappsduringthisyear¡¯sextendedLunarNewYearholidayincreasedby27minutescomparedwiththesameperiodlastyear,withDo¡¯sovercrowdedvideo,DouyinsuedTencentfordefamationoveranarticlepublishedonthecompany¡¯,TencentandByteDance,suedeachotheroverunfaircompetition.

OnJuly11,theDelhiHCrestrainedaBengaluru-basedcakeryfromusingthenameFacebakeorFacecake,oranyotherFacebook-relatedtrademarkforitsproductsandservicesThecourtintheSnapdealcasealsodirectedDomainNameRegistrarstocreateamechanismforbrandstoseekcancellationortransferofdomainnamesthatinfringetrademarkIndiascurrentlawsthatgoverntrademarkinfringementsincludetheTrademarkAct,1999,whichwasdevelopedtocomplywiththeTRIPSagreementoftheWTOTru-basedcakeryfromusingthenameFacebakeorFacecake,,JusticeNavinChawla,whowashearingthecase,orderedthebakerytodeliverallfinishedandunfinishedproductsbearingthetrademarksimilartoMeta,theparentcompanyofFacebook,,theCourtalsoawardedINR50,,£¨DNRs£©oughttocreateamechanismviawhichtrademarkownerscouldapproachtheDNRsandsec,whileDNRsarecompaniesthatallowuserstoregisterthem,suchasGoDaddy,Namecheap,oumthathasseeninfringementcasesfiledleft,,manybrandswithnomanufacturingaddressespopulatethestreetsandcorners,,itisdifficulttotrackthesedubiousoperatorsinmostcases.

Veryrecently,AmulhasbeensuccessfulinobtaininganorderfromtheFederalCourt,,aroundJanuary2020,AmullearntthatgroupoffraudstersofCanadahasblatantlycopiedthetrademarkAMULandthelogoofAmul¨CTasteofIndia,andcreatedafakeAmulprofileon,MohitRana,AkashGhosh,ChanduDas,,,shingpassingofftestbeing:i)existenceofgoodwill,ii)deceptionofpublicduetomisrepresentation,andiii),,theFederalCourtheld,thesaidDefendantsarepermanentlyrestrainedfrominfringingthetrademarkandcopyrightofthePlaintiffs,hePlaintiffswithin30daysofthedateofthisJudgment,ownershipandallrights,access,administrationandcontroloverLinkedInpages/accounts,,AmulhasbeenawardeddamagesofUSD$10,000foractionscontrarytotheTrademarksAct,USD$5,000foractionscontrarytotheCopyrightActandawardedcostsofUSD$17,733,,AmulsManagingDirectoraddedthatallthiswaspossibleonlybecausewewe,wehopesuchorderswoulddetercounterfeiters,infringers,globally,beforeappropriatingsomeoneelsesIPRwhichhasbeenbuiltwithalotofe,proudlyassociatethemselveswithAMUL,st22yearsandalsostartedexportingAmulKool,,TheTasteofIndia!,,IPLawyer,SMajumdarCo.,,IPLawyer,¨C,Indiaisk(9billionCAD$).Infact,thetrademarkAMULissopopular,,whentheIntellectualPropertyAppellateBoardaccordeditthestatusofawell-knowntrademarkinCanadarecently.

AChinesewebauthorhasbecomethetargetofabacklashfromnetizensonSaturday¡¯,authorofthepopularnovelMyHeroicHusband,whichisbeingadaptedforTV¨Cbecamethetargetofinte,anotherwebauthor,Qiyingjun,postedonChina¡¯sTwitter-likeSinaWeibothatshesuffered¡°verbalsexualharassment¡±from¡°somemaleauthors¡±¡¯spostsayingsheshouldrevealthenamesofth,doubtingtheveracityofQiyingjun¡¯tknowthatherpostwouldcreatesuchabigwaveonsocialmedia,,000yuan($4,633),manyChinesenetizensshowedsympathyforQiyingjunsaying¡°asawoman,shehastherighttospeak¡±whileother,hetoldmediathatthenovelwasmainlytargetedatmalereadersandthat¡°thenoveldoesnotneedfemalereadersatall.¡±ThislatterstatementbecameahottopicofdiscussionamongChinesenetizens,manyofwhombegancallingforaboycottofhiswork¨C,scheduledtobereleasedin2021,tellsthestoryaboutamanwholiveswithhisparents-in-lawandhelpshiswifewithherbusiness,ow¡°avictimofcyberviolence.¡±Hedeniedtheaccusationsthathewaay.,aBeijing-basedlawyerspecializinginintellectualpropertyrights,toldtheGlobalTimesonSundaythatwhiletheshow¡¯sproducerswillnotbeabletopursuealegalcaseagainstFennudexiangjiaoforcausingabacklashagainsttheshow,hiscommentsstillindicateamoraldeficiencythatcausednegativesocialimpact.¡°Asapublicfigure,writersneedtoconsciouslyassumecertainsocialresponsibilities,andexpressrationalandobjectivespeech,¡±,vicechairmanoftheChinaSexologyAssociation,echoedXu¡¯sviewthatauthorsaspublicfiguresneedtobeawareofgenderequalityinsteadofonlyemphasizingoneside.¡°Sometimes,apublicapologyisaneffectivewaytoquellpublicopinion,¡±saidPeng.

Thefundamentalfunctionofatrademarkistoidentifythesourcesofgoods/servicessothatastablecorrespondingrelationshipbetweenthetrademarkandthedesignatedgoods/,manyenterprisesandapplicantsprefershortandeasytoremembersloganforthepromotionandmarketingfort,,(3)ofTrademarkLawofthePeoplesRepublicofChina,thefollowingsignsshallnotberegisteredastrademarks:,itiscommonthatCNIPAwillbelievesuchtrademarkislikelytomisleadthepublictorecognizeitasasloganoradvertisinglanguage,(3):¡°ÃÀʱÃÀ¿Ë¾¡ÔÚÃÀ¼Ò¡±(3);¡°ÊÍ·ÅÄãµÄ»îÁ¦¡±(3);¡°ENJOYTHEDAY¡±(3);¡°HOTELSTHATDEFINETHEDESTINATION¡±(3);¡°WISHYOUWEREHERE¡±(3);¡°UNLOCKTHEFUTUREWITHTHEPOWEROFLIGHT¡±(3).TheabovetrademarkswereallforbiddenfromtrademarkapplicationsinceCNIPAbelievesthemlackingdistinctivefeaturesandarenoteasilydistinguishable,(3)ofTrademarkLawthoughtheapplicantssubmittedrelevantevi,thesignsmayberegisteredastrademarksaftertheyhave¡°Õ⣡¾ÍÊǽÖÎ衱inClass41,theCNIPAbelievesthismarkhasacquireddistinctivenessandbemortinctivefeatures,itshallbeconsideredwithrelevantevidencetodeterminew,,iftheappliedtrademarkcanbecombinedwithotherdistinctiveelements,suchaswordordesign,,¡°LOREALBECAUSEIMWORTHIT¡±;althoughitwouldbeeasiertoenhancethepublicityandreputationofthebrand,itisquitediff,thechancestillexistsiftheslogancanberecognizedasdistinctivenessanddistinguishablethatconsiderthesign,detailedgoods/servicesitems,actualuse,etc.

Synopsys,(DMCA)actionagainstLibraryTechnologies,accesstoSynopsys¡¯ssoftwareinviolationoftheDMCAandtheparties¡¯¡°spoof[ed]¡±Synopsys¡¯slicenseserversbyalteringidentifyinginformationonvariouslicenseservercomputersto¡°leadingproviderofElectronicDesignAutomation(¡°EDA¡±)solutionsforthesemiconductorindustry.¡±Itreportedlyoffersasuiteofsoftwarequalityandsecuritysolutions,includingits¡°HSPICE¡±,LibraryTechnologiesisaprivatelyheldcompanybasedinSiliconValleythat¡°developsandmarketsdesignandanalysistoolsforintegratedcircuitdesign.¡±Itssuiteoftoolsandproductsareintegratedwithandinterfaceto¡°popularchipdesignflowsincludingSynopsystools.¡±Thecomplaintcontendsthatthepartiesenteredintoan¡°EndUserLicenseandMaintenanceAgreement¡±¡°licenseseats¡±,thethree-countcomplaintavers,LibraryTechnologiesbreachedtheagreementwhenit¡°alteredtheHostIDsofitslicenseservercomputerstoimpersonateaserverauthorizedtouseSynopsysTools,inordertocircumventSynopsys¡¯accesscontrollicensekeyprotections,therebygainingaccesstomoreconcurrentusageofSynopsysToolsthanauthorized.¡±SynopsyscontendsthatLibraryTechnologiesaccessedthesoftware¡°inexcessofitslicenseover400,000times,¡±¡¯unauthorizedandunpaidforaccess,Synopsysargues,notonlybreachedtheparties¡¯,Synopsysseeksinjunctiverelief,statutoryandactualdamages,attorneys¡¯feesandlitigationcosts,anaccounting,,HerringtonSutcliffeLLP.

°ü³ÔסÁªÏµ(13734371260)1:װж¹¤£¬ÔÚÁÙÒʹ¤×÷£¬ÒªÇóÉíÌåºÃ£¬ÄܳԿàÄÍÀÍ¡£

¡ñAlgorithms,datacomeunderdefinitionoftradesecrets¡ñClientinfonotcollatedorprocessednotrecognizedastradesecret¡ñRequirementstorequestinjunctionspecifiedThedraftjudicialinterpretation(JI)ontradesecretsreleasedbyChina¡¯sSupremePeople¡¯sCourtlightenstheburdenofproofforplaintiffsintradesecretinfringementlawsuits,¨CInterpretationonSeveralIssuesConcerningtheApplicationofLawintheTrialofCivilCasesInfringingonTradeSecretInfringements(draftforcomment)¨C¡¯samendedAnti-UnfairCompetitionLaw(AUCL),thedraftlightensrights-holder¡¯slegaldutybyshiftingtheburdenofprooftotheallegedinfringer,,,enttrial,therights-holderneedstoprovide¡°preliminaryevidence¡±,theallegedinfringer,Article8ofthedraftJIstatesthattherights-holderneedonlysubmitpreliminaryevidencetoprovethereisa¡°highprobability¡±thattheclaimedtradesec,partneratAnjieLawFirm,agreedthedraftJIlowersrights-holder¡¯sburdenofproof,yet,thereisnoquantitativemeasurementof¡°ahighprobabilitythattheclaimedtradesecrethasbeeninfringed¡±andthereforeitishardtoexecuteinpractice,(Article9)oftheamendedAUCLdefinestradesecretsasanytechnicalinformationoroperationalinformationwhichisnotknowntothepublic,hascommercialvalue,andforwh,dataandcomputerprogramsmayconstdprocessing,suchasname,address,contactinformation,tradinghabits,transactioncontent,andspecificneedsofcustomers,mayconstit,Article5(2)ofthedraftJIstatesthatifthepartiesclaimtheinformationofaspecificclientisatradesecretonlyonthebasisofthecontract,invoice,document,voucher,,,thecourtwillnotrecognizeclientinformationunlessitiscollatedorprocessedastradesecrets,,theclausedoesnotspecifywhatqualifiesas¡°collation¡±and¡°processing¡±,anditremainsunclearwhetherthecollationandprocessingneedtobe¡°complicatedandin-depth¡±,tradesecrets,,arights-holdermustclarifyspecificcontentoftheclaimedtradesecretsandprovideevidencetoprovetha¡°relativelylowburdenofproof¡±fortherights-holder,whichisconsistentwiththeamendedAUCL,,itdoesnotmakeacompulsoryrequirementandleavesittothediscretionofthecourt,heinformationrequestedbytherights-holderisnotatradesecretorthereisnoinfringementoftradesecrets,,Article22ofthedraftJIaimstostrikeabalanceandpreventtheover-protectionofarights-holder,Zousaid.

ASouthAfricanjudgmentdealin,,however,(Pty)(the¡°organiser¡±)inthiscaseorganisesacharitableeventthattakestheformofasleep-out¨Cbusinessleadersareaskedfordonationsandthey¡¯rerequestedtosleepoutdoorsonawinter¡¯st(the¡°charity¡±).Intheprocessoforganisingthefirstsleep-out,theorganiserestablishedanelectronicdatabase,whichcameaboutbecauseeverydonorhadtoregisterontheorganiser¡¯¡¯tforeseenwasthatcertaincompanieswouldwanttopaybyelectronicfundstransfer(¡°EFT¡±).Toaccommodatethesecompanies,,,infact,createdbyanemployeeofthecharity,andthisemployeewasalsoresponsibleforinputtingthedonors¡¯rdidn¡¯ved,theorganiserandthecharityagreedthatalldonationswouldbepaiddirectlyintothebankaccountofthecharity,whichhadthenece,thecharitymadeuseoftheelectronicdatabase,,theorganiserarrangedfurthersleep-outs,butontheseoccasions,,thecharitystart,,erSouthAfricancopyrightlawasa¡°literarywork¡±.Thissomewhatmisleadingtermisdefinedtoinclude¡±tablesandcompilationsofdatastoredorembodiedinacomputer¡±.Thejudgewentontosaythatinordertoenjoycopyrightprotection,aliteraryworkmustbe¡°original¡±.(Pty)LtdvSaundersValveCompanyLtd,thecourtsaidthatforthepurposesofcopyright,¡°allthatisrequiredisthattheworkshouldemanatefromtheauthorhimselfandnotbecopied.¡±InHauptt/aSoftcopyvBrewersMarketingIntelligence(Pty)LtdandOthers,thecourtheldthataworkisoriginalifithasnotbeencopiedfromanexistingsource,andifitsproductionrequiredasubstantialdegreeofskill,,1978,theauthoroftheliteraryworkistheownerofthecopyrightunlessthecopyrighthasbeenassignedand,ifgeneratedbyacomputer,theauthoristhepe,,thecontributionofthecharity¡¯semployeedidnotmeettheoriginalitytest,astheformthatitsemployeehadcreatedforEFTpayerswassubstantial¡°nosubstantialdegreeofskill,judgementorlabour¡±.Thejudgewentontomakeanumberoffurtherpoints:theformforEFTpaymentswas¡°ancillary¡±tothedatabase:¡°butforitsincorporationonthewebsitetherespondentwouldnothavehadthemeanstocollectthedataitclaimstohavecollectedinthemanneritcollectedit...forthatreasonitwouldbeabsurdtoseparatethemanualformfromthewebsite.¡±eveniftheemployeehadinnovatedtheideaofEFTpayments,thisdidnotelevatethecharity¡°tothestatusofapersonwhomadearrangementsnecessaryforthecreationofthewebsite¡±.Thecharityneeded¡°theconcurrenceoftheapplicant¡±,andwithoutthisit¡°wouldnothavebeenabletocollectthedataitclaimstoown¡±.thepurposeoftheEFTinnovationwassimplytomakeitpossiblefordonorstopaybyEFTandgettaxexemptioncertificates,,soitsclaimtobeingapartnerwas¡°absurd¡±.Thejudgeconcludedthatgivingthecharitythestatusofanauthorofthedatabaseonthebasisofdatamanuallyaddedtothedatabasethatisautomaticallygeneratedfromthewebsitewouldbean¡°overbroadinterpretation¡±.Theorganiserwast(injunction).Ifthere¡¯salessontobelearnedfromthiscase,it¡¯sthis:copyrightissuesneedtobeconsideredandclarifiedrightfromthestart.

Withdigitaltechnologiescontinuingtotransformpeopleslives,theUKseconomicfuture,jobs,wagelevels,prosperity,nationalsecurity,costofliving,productivity,globalcompetitiveness,aswellasitsgeopol,itspoliciestosupportandstrengthenthedigitaleconomycouldleadtoanadditional¡ê(GVA)and678,iononthedataprotectionregime(dueinJune2022).NewsoftheexpectedannouncementwassetoutinanannextoitsnewUKdigitalstrategy,,keyactionsincludedigitalfoundations,generatingideasandintellectualproperty,digitalskillsandtalent,financingdigitalgrowth,enhancingtheUKspower,theUKgovernmentisalsotakingstepsintheintellectualpropertyarena:WewillincreaseUKRIexpenditurefrom¡ê¡ê(BEIS).WewillincreaseRDinvestmentto¡ê20billionayearby2024/25(BEIS,HMT).WewillconsiderincreasingthegenerosityoftheResearchandDevelopmentExpenditureCredittoboostRDinvestmentintheUK(HMT).WewillcontinuetoreviewRDtaxreliefstoensuretheyareinternationallycompetitiveandwelltargeted(HMT).Wewillsupportthecommercialisationofuniversity-basedresearchbypublishingasuggestedbest-practiceblueprintbyMarch2023(BEIS).Weannouncedanexternalreviewintothefutureofcomputetoinformourlong-termapproachtothetechnology(DCMS).Wepublishingafinalversionof¡®Datasaveslives,thedatastrategyforhealthandsocialcare(DHSC).Inspring2022,weareduetopublishaplanfordigitalhealthandsocialcare(DHSC).UKdataprotectionlawwaslastsubstantiallyupdatedin2018whentheGeneralDataProtectionRegulation(GDPR)cameintoforce,thoughtheEUlegislationwassubsequentlyconverteyedrecentlyreportedseeingbenefitsfromtheGDPR,,Culture,MediaandSport(DCMS)consultedonpossiblereformstodataprotectionlawlastyear,andthegovernmentsignalleditsplanstointroduceaDataReinistrativeburdensfromdataprotectionlawinamovethatwouldenshrinetheconceptofmoreflexible,(DPIAs)andconsultationoverhigh-riskpersonaldataprocessingwouldberemoved,ionwerealsoconsultedon,includingpl¨C,criticalbuildingblocksofthedigitaleconomy,fromsuper-fastinternetaccessacro,whichtracksunicornbirths,ear¨Carounddoublethelevelofsecond-placedGermany,andmorethantriplethelevelofFranceinthirdplace.

¡±ÅíÖÐÔÆÊÇÕò±±ÉçÇøµÄÒ»ÃûÇàÄêÍ»»÷¶ÓÔ±£¬ËýÿÌì³ýÁ˵½¶«Ô·Ð¡ÇøÒßÇé·À¿ØÒýµ¼µãÖµÇÚ£¬»¹¸ºÔðÉçÇøµÄ·À¿ØÐÅÏ¢Éϱ¨¡¢ÈËÔ±µÇ¼Ç¡¢·À¿ØÐû´«£¬´Ó°×Ììæµµ½ÍíÉÏ£¬´ÓÀ´²»ËµÒ»Éù¿à£¬²»½ÐÒ»ÉùÀÛ¡£

Recently,TianjinIntellectualPropertyCourtsolvedacaseinvolvingtrademarkinfringementandunfaircompetitionbymediation,inwhichthefamousautomobilecompanyMaseratiChinaCarsTradingCo.,,thedefendantofthecasehasusedMaserati¡¯sbrandname¡°,theChinesesubsidiary¡¯snameandregisteredtrademarks¡°ÂêɯÀ­µÙ¡±¡°MASERATI¡±¡°¡±onitseyeglassesmanufacturedorforsale,dtrademarksinthecategoryof¡°eyeglassesandotherrelatedtrademarks¡±.Asthecasewassettled,theplaintiff¡¯swell-knowntrademarkshavesuccessfullygainedadditionalprotectionbeyondclass.

TheCourtofAppealinTheHaguehasupheldafir,,KPN,NokiaNokiaandKPNhaveonceagainbeensuccessfulintheongoingcaseagainstAssiaoverDSLtechnologyMaryia/ADOBESTOCKInJanuary2021,,theDistrictCourtofTheHaguefoundthatKPNhadnotinfringedEP790,,unlikeinparallelproceedings,,becauseKPNappliestheprocesslaidoutinthepatent¡¯,AssiaarguedthatitsDSLproductoperateswiththepatent¡¯,thecourtthrewouttheclaimofinfringement,¡¯sinitialvictory(caseID:C/09/571729).NokiadeliverskeyDSLtechnologycomponentstoKPN,turningoutasaninter,¡¯sEP2259456,theCourtofAppealconfirmedinMarch2021aninvaliditydecision,56(caseID:C/09/563488).Here,,whichisstandardessential,,Assiaw,theCourtofAppealnullifiedallclaimsofEP456.

Nationallegislatorsandexpertsonintellectualpropertyrightshavewelcomedstrongerprotectionofonlinecopyrightsandharsherpunishmentsforcopycatsinnewlyreleaseddraftamendmentstoexistinglawwhilesugges,technologicalandculturalgrowthnorsolvednewproblemsintheindustry,saidLiRui,,thecountrystoplegislature,,whichhasbeenineffectfor30years,hadplayedanimportantroleinencouraginginnovationandprotectingcopyrights,Lisaid,butitcannotgivemorelegalsupporttonewtypesofonlinecopyrights,letaloneendrelateddisputes,tmonthshowedthattherewere904millioninternetusersacrossthecountrybyMarch,,thenationisalsoseeingabigincreaseofIP-relatedconflictsonline,,2018,toMarch31,forexample,theBeijingInternetCourtfiled42,121casesononlineIPrights,s,includingnovels,picturesandvideos,areemergingonline,andbecauseofhowfastinformationspreadsontheinternet,saidKangLixia,,theworkscreatorswillfacegreatereconomiclosses,ascollectingevidenceonlineforthemisalsoabigchallenge,shesaid,addingthathighlightingprommittee,,sayingtheyposedabiggerisorherworks,peopleusingtheworkswithoutpayingorthosedeliberatelyinfringinosstocopyrightholdersandbenefitsgainedbyinfringerscannotbedetermined,thedraftraisestheceilingforcompensationthatpirateswillhavetopayto5millionyuan($706,000),upfrom500,,protectionandapplicationofcopyrights,saidLiXueyong,,balancingcopyrightprotection,,sayingweshouldgive,weneedtopaymoreattentiontoimprovingthedraftsowecanfindbetterwayst,aseniorlawmaker,saidtherewereafewproblems-suchashowtoprotectcopyrightsonlivestreamingplatformsandwhetherworksmadebyrobotsshouldbesafeguarded-thatstillhadnoclearsolution,whichrequiresustoconductfurtherstudiesandpromotethedraftinatimelymanner.

TheshapeofaLondonblackhacktaxiisnotdistinctiveenoughtobeeligiblefortrademarkprotection,otrademarksheldbyTheLondonTaxiCorporation(LTC)lywereitstrademarksvalidbutthatFrazer-NashResearchandEcotivehadinfringeditsrightsinthosemarksaxisLTCmanufactureddidnothaveinherentdistinctivecharacter,hattheywereinherentlydistinctive,suchasthesizeandslopingofthewindscreen,theshapeofthebonnet,thepositioningofthetaxilight,,thejudgesruledthatthosefeaturerademarksthatLTCwereassertingtodete,however,thattheHighCourtwasrighttodeterminethattherewasnotenoughevidencetoshowthattaxihirershadcometoperceivetheshapeoftresentedgraphicallycanqualifyfortrademarkprotectioniftheyarecapableofdistinguishingonecompany,wheremarksarenotinherentlydistinctive,theycanneverthelessberegisteredastrademarksifitcanbeshownthatthemarkhasacquiredadistinctivecharacterinarksandbrandstomerittrademarkprotectioninvolvesevaluatingwhattheaverageconsumerofatypeofproductperceiveswhentheyseeamark,,,saidthefactthattheCoucceptedthattheaverageconsumerforthepurposesofthelegaltesttodeterminewhetherthetrademarkwasvalidincludedpeoplewhohiredtaxis,uchpeoplewereaverageconsumersofataxi;whileitistruethatsuc,rightsholdersshouldconsiderallpotentialconsumerswhointeractwiththetrademarkedgoodswhentryingtoassesstheappropriateaverageconsumer.

Synopsys,(DMCA)actionagainstLibraryTechnologies,accesstoSynopsys¡¯ssoftwareinviolationoftheDMCAandtheparties¡¯¡°spoof[ed]¡±Synopsys¡¯slicenseserversbyalteringidentifyinginformationonvariouslicenseservercomputersto¡°leadingproviderofElectronicDesignAutomation(¡°EDA¡±)solutionsforthesemiconductorindustry.¡±Itreportedlyoffersasuiteofsoftwarequalityandsecuritysolutions,includingits¡°HSPICE¡±,LibraryTechnologiesisaprivatelyheldcompanybasedinSiliconValleythat¡°developsandmarketsdesignandanalysistoolsforintegratedcircuitdesign.¡±Itssuiteoftoolsandproductsareintegratedwithandinterfaceto¡°popularchipdesignflowsincludingSynopsystools.¡±Thecomplaintcontendsthatthepartiesenteredintoan¡°EndUserLicenseandMaintenanceAgreement¡±¡°licenseseats¡±,thethree-countcomplaintavers,LibraryTechnologiesbreachedtheagreementwhenit¡°alteredtheHostIDsofitslicenseservercomputerstoimpersonateaserverauthorizedtouseSynopsysTools,inordertocircumventSynopsys¡¯accesscontrollicensekeyprotections,therebygainingaccesstomoreconcurrentusageofSynopsysToolsthanauthorized.¡±SynopsyscontendsthatLibraryTechnologiesaccessedthesoftware¡°inexcessofitslicenseover400,000times,¡±¡¯unauthorizedandunpaidforaccess,Synopsysargues,notonlybreachedtheparties¡¯,Synopsysseeksinjunctiverelief,statutoryandactualdamages,attorneys¡¯feesandlitigationcosts,anaccounting,,HerringtonSutcliffeLLP.

ASouthAfricanjudgmentdealin,,however,(Pty)(the¡°organiser¡±)inthiscaseorganisesacharitableeventthattakestheformofasleep-out¨Cbusinessleadersareaskedfordonationsandthey¡¯rerequestedtosleepoutdoorsonawinter¡¯st(the¡°charity¡±).Intheprocessoforganisingthefirstsleep-out,theorganiserestablishedanelectronicdatabase,whichcameaboutbecauseeverydonorhadtoregisterontheorganiser¡¯¡¯tforeseenwasthatcertaincompanieswouldwanttopaybyelectronicfundstransfer(¡°EFT¡±).Toaccommodatethesecompanies,,,infact,createdbyanemployeeofthecharity,andthisemployeewasalsoresponsibleforinputtingthedonors¡¯rdidn¡¯ved,theorganiserandthecharityagreedthatalldonationswouldbepaiddirectlyintothebankaccountofthecharity,whichhadthenece,thecharitymadeuseoftheelectronicdatabase,,theorganiserarrangedfurthersleep-outs,butontheseoccasions,,thecharitystart,,erSouthAfricancopyrightlawasa¡°literarywork¡±.Thissomewhatmisleadingtermisdefinedtoinclude¡±tablesandcompilationsofdatastoredorembodiedinacomputer¡±.Thejudgewentontosaythatinordertoenjoycopyrightprotection,aliteraryworkmustbe¡°original¡±.(Pty)LtdvSaundersValveCompanyLtd,thecourtsaidthatforthepurposesofcopyright,¡°allthatisrequiredisthattheworkshouldemanatefromtheauthorhimselfandnotbecopied.¡±InHauptt/aSoftcopyvBrewersMarketingIntelligence(Pty)LtdandOthers,thecourtheldthataworkisoriginalifithasnotbeencopiedfromanexistingsource,andifitsproductionrequiredasubstantialdegreeofskill,,1978,theauthoroftheliteraryworkistheownerofthecopyrightunlessthecopyrighthasbeenassignedand,ifgeneratedbyacomputer,theauthoristhepe,,thecontributionofthecharity¡¯semployeedidnotmeettheoriginalitytest,astheformthatitsemployeehadcreatedforEFTpayerswassubstantial¡°nosubstantialdegreeofskill,judgementorlabour¡±.Thejudgewentontomakeanumberoffurtherpoints:theformforEFTpaymentswas¡°ancillary¡±tothedatabase:¡°butforitsincorporationonthewebsitetherespondentwouldnothavehadthemeanstocollectthedataitclaimstohavecollectedinthemanneritcollectedit...forthatreasonitwouldbeabsurdtoseparatethemanualformfromthewebsite.¡±eveniftheemployeehadinnovatedtheideaofEFTpayments,thisdidnotelevatethecharity¡°tothestatusofapersonwhomadearrangementsnecessaryforthecreationofthewebsite¡±.Thecharityneeded¡°theconcurrenceoftheapplicant¡±,andwithoutthisit¡°wouldnothavebeenabletocollectthedataitclaimstoown¡±.thepurposeoftheEFTinnovationwassimplytomakeitpossiblefordonorstopaybyEFTandgettaxexemptioncertificates,,soitsclaimtobeingapartnerwas¡°absurd¡±.Thejudgeconcludedthatgivingthecharitythestatusofanauthorofthedatabaseonthebasisofdatamanuallyaddedtothedatabasethatisautomaticallygeneratedfromthewebsitewouldbean¡°overbroadinterpretation¡±.Theorganiserwast(injunction).Ifthere¡¯salessontobelearnedfromthiscase,it¡¯sthis:copyrightissuesneedtobeconsideredandclarifiedrightfromthestart.

ChinahasoutpacedtheUnitedStatesinthenumberofworldwideartificialintelligence-relatedpatentapplications,accordingtoanewreportissuedbytheChinaIndustrialControlSystemsCyberEmergencyResponseteam,,,712AI-relatedpatentapplications,rankingfirstinChinaforthesecondconsecutiveyear,followedbyTencent(4,115),MicrosoftChina(3,978),Inspur(3,755)andHuawei(3,656).ThereportshowedthatBaiduisthepatentapplicationleaderinseveralkeyareasofAI,includingthedeeplearning(1,429),naturallanguageprocessing(938)andspeechrecognition(933).Sofar,AI-enabledtechnologieshavebeenappliedinseveralsectors,suchasfinance,healthcare,omywillleapfrom$2trillionin2018to$,($)AIcoreindustryby2030,whrialupgrading,andthecountrysstrategicplanforAIoffersabroadspacef,fromtheperspectiveofapplicants,enterprisessuchasBatablishintellectualpropertysystemsrelatedtoAI,aswellasintroducehigh-leveltalents,,vice-presidentofTencent,saidatthesixthWorldInternetConferenceinWuzhen,Zhejiangprovince,thatthecompanyhasfiledover3,000AIpatentappli,particularlyinthefieldofAI,saidZhuWei,seniormanagingdirectorandchairmanofAccentureChina,whilenotingChinesecompanieshavedemonstratedgreatdeterminationtodiger,butalsogivefullplaytothevalueofAI,saidHongJing,founderofGaochengCapital,whoindicatedthatAIcanbeappliedinallwalksoflife,,chairmanandCEOofSinovationVentures,aleadingventurecapitalfirm,saidChinaandtheUSareleadingthefourthindustrialrevolutionbroughtbyAIthathasard,,otherwise,$,a44percentincreaseover2018,accordingtotheconsultancyInternationalDataCorporation.

June14,2022announcedthat,theUnitedStatesDistrictCourtfortheCentralDistrictofCalifornia(theCourt)issuedanordergr¡¯smaterialbreachesofthepartiesJointDevelopmentandLicenseAgreement,whereonFebruary15,2022,,NetlistsDirectorofIPStrategy,said,WearepleasedthattheCourtrecognizedSamsungsfailuretoadmitrequestsforadmissions,,2022,withatrialbeginningnextyearonMay1,fcustomandspecialtymemoryproductsbringindustry-leadingperformats,inservermemory,hybridmemoryandstorageclassmemory,tocompaniesthatimplementNetlist¡¯,entsndoftenaddressfutureeventsorNetlist¡¯nsregardingfutureeventsandaresubjecttoknownandunknownrisks,uncertaintiesandotherfactorsthatcouldcauseactualresultstodiffermateri,uncertaintiesandotherfactorsinclude,amongothers:risksrelatedtoNetlistsplansforitsintellectualproperty,includingitsstrategiesformonetizing,licensing,expanding,anddefendingitspatentportfolio;risksassociatedwithpatentinfringementlitigationinitiatedbyNetlist,orbyothersagainstNetlist,aswellasthecostsandunpredictabilityofanysuchlitigation;risksassociatedwithNetlistsproductsales,includingthemarketanddemandforproductssoldbyNetlistanditsabilitytosuccessfullydevelopandlaunchnewproductsthatareattractivetothemarket;thesuccessofproduct,jointdevelopmentandlicensingpartnerships;thecompetitivelandscapeofNetlistsindustry;andgeneraleconomic,politicalandmarketconditions,includingquarantines,factoryslowdownsorshutdowns,s,expectationsandbeliefsregardingfutureeventsandaresubjecttoknownandunknownrisks,uncertaintiesandotherfactorsthatcouldcauseactualresultstodiffermateri¡¯sannualreportonForm10-KforitsmostrecentlycompletedfiscalyearfiledonMarch1,2022,,,uncertaintiesandotherfactors,theseforward-¡¯sassumptions,expectationsandbeliefsonlyasofthedatetheyaremade,andexceptasrequiredbylaw,Netlistundertakesnoobligationtoreviseorupdateanyforward-lookingstatementsforanyreason.

ASouthAfricanjudgmentdealin,,however,(Pty)(the¡°organiser¡±)inthiscaseorganisesacharitableeventthattakestheformofasleep-out¨Cbusinessleadersareaskedfordonationsandthey¡¯rerequestedtosleepoutdoorsonawinter¡¯st(the¡°charity¡±).Intheprocessoforganisingthefirstsleep-out,theorganiserestablishedanelectronicdatabase,whichcameaboutbecauseeverydonorhadtoregisterontheorganiser¡¯¡¯tforeseenwasthatcertaincompanieswouldwanttopaybyelectronicfundstransfer(¡°EFT¡±).Toaccommodatethesecompanies,,,infact,createdbyanemployeeofthecharity,andthisemployeewasalsoresponsibleforinputtingthedonors¡¯rdidn¡¯ved,theorganiserandthecharityagreedthatalldonationswouldbepaiddirectlyintothebankaccountofthecharity,whichhadthenece,thecharitymadeuseoftheelectronicdatabase,,theorganiserarrangedfurthersleep-outs,butontheseoccasions,,thecharitystart,,erSouthAfricancopyrightlawasa¡°literarywork¡±.Thissomewhatmisleadingtermisdefinedtoinclude¡±tablesandcompilationsofdatastoredorembodiedinacomputer¡±.Thejudgewentontosaythatinordertoenjoycopyrightprotection,aliteraryworkmustbe¡°original¡±.(Pty)LtdvSaundersValveCompanyLtd,thecourtsaidthatforthepurposesofcopyright,¡°allthatisrequiredisthattheworkshouldemanatefromtheauthorhimselfandnotbecopied.¡±InHauptt/aSoftcopyvBrewersMarketingIntelligence(Pty)LtdandOthers,thecourtheldthataworkisoriginalifithasnotbeencopiedfromanexistingsource,andifitsproductionrequiredasubstantialdegreeofskill,,1978,theauthoroftheliteraryworkistheownerofthecopyrightunlessthecopyrighthasbeenassignedand,ifgeneratedbyacomputer,theauthoristhepe,,thecontributionofthecharity¡¯semployeedidnotmeettheoriginalitytest,astheformthatitsemployeehadcreatedforEFTpayerswassubstantial¡°nosubstantialdegreeofskill,judgementorlabour¡±.Thejudgewentontomakeanumberoffurtherpoints:theformforEFTpaymentswas¡°ancillary¡±tothedatabase:¡°butforitsincorporationonthewebsitetherespondentwouldnothavehadthemeanstocollectthedataitclaimstohavecollectedinthemanneritcollectedit...forthatreasonitwouldbeabsurdtoseparatethemanualformfromthewebsite.¡±eveniftheemployeehadinnovatedtheideaofEFTpayments,thisdidnotelevatethecharity¡°tothestatusofapersonwhomadearrangementsnecessaryforthecreationofthewebsite¡±.Thecharityneeded¡°theconcurrenceoftheapplicant¡±,andwithoutthisit¡°wouldnothavebeenabletocollectthedataitclaimstoown¡±.thepurposeoftheEFTinnovationwassimplytomakeitpossiblefordonorstopaybyEFTandgettaxexemptioncertificates,,soitsclaimtobeingapartnerwas¡°absurd¡±.Thejudgeconcludedthatgivingthecharitythestatusofanauthorofthedatabaseonthebasisofdatamanuallyaddedtothedatabasethatisautomaticallygeneratedfromthewebsitewouldbean¡°overbroadinterpretation¡±.Theorganiserwast(injunction).Ifthere¡¯salessontobelearnedfromthiscase,it¡¯sthis:copyrightissuesneedtobeconsideredandclarifiedrightfromthestart.

TheshapeofaLondonblackhacktaxiisnotdistinctiveenoughtobeeligiblefortrademarkprotection,otrademarksheldbyTheLondonTaxiCorporation(LTC)lywereitstrademarksvalidbutthatFrazer-NashResearchandEcotivehadinfringeditsrightsinthosemarksaxisLTCmanufactureddidnothaveinherentdistinctivecharacter,hattheywereinherentlydistinctive,suchasthesizeandslopingofthewindscreen,theshapeofthebonnet,thepositioningofthetaxilight,,thejudgesruledthatthosefeaturerademarksthatLTCwereassertingtodete,however,thattheHighCourtwasrighttodeterminethattherewasnotenoughevidencetoshowthattaxihirershadcometoperceivetheshapeoftresentedgraphicallycanqualifyfortrademarkprotectioniftheyarecapableofdistinguishingonecompany,wheremarksarenotinherentlydistinctive,theycanneverthelessberegisteredastrademarksifitcanbeshownthatthemarkhasacquiredadistinctivecharacterinarksandbrandstomerittrademarkprotectioninvolvesevaluatingwhattheaverageconsumerofatypeofproductperceiveswhentheyseeamark,,,saidthefactthattheCoucceptedthattheaverageconsumerforthepurposesofthelegaltesttodeterminewhetherthetrademarkwasvalidincludedpeoplewhohiredtaxis,uchpeoplewereaverageconsumersofataxi;whileitistruethatsuc,rightsholdersshouldconsiderallpotentialconsumerswhointeractwiththetrademarkedgoodswhentryingtoassesstheappropriateaverageconsumer.

Withdigitaltechnologiescontinuingtotransformpeopleslives,theUKseconomicfuture,jobs,wagelevels,prosperity,nationalsecurity,costofliving,productivity,globalcompetitiveness,aswellasitsgeopol,itspoliciestosupportandstrengthenthedigitaleconomycouldleadtoanadditional¡ê(GVA)and678,iononthedataprotectionregime(dueinJune2022).NewsoftheexpectedannouncementwassetoutinanannextoitsnewUKdigitalstrategy,,keyactionsincludedigitalfoundations,generatingideasandintellectualproperty,digitalskillsandtalent,financingdigitalgrowth,enhancingtheUKspower,theUKgovernmentisalsotakingstepsintheintellectualpropertyarena:WewillincreaseUKRIexpenditurefrom¡ê¡ê(BEIS).WewillincreaseRDinvestmentto¡ê20billionayearby2024/25(BEIS,HMT).WewillconsiderincreasingthegenerosityoftheResearchandDevelopmentExpenditureCredittoboostRDinvestmentintheUK(HMT).WewillcontinuetoreviewRDtaxreliefstoensuretheyareinternationallycompetitiveandwelltargeted(HMT).Wewillsupportthecommercialisationofuniversity-basedresearchbypublishingasuggestedbest-practiceblueprintbyMarch2023(BEIS).Weannouncedanexternalreviewintothefutureofcomputetoinformourlong-termapproachtothetechnology(DCMS).Wepublishingafinalversionof¡®Datasaveslives,thedatastrategyforhealthandsocialcare(DHSC).Inspring2022,weareduetopublishaplanfordigitalhealthandsocialcare(DHSC).UKdataprotectionlawwaslastsubstantiallyupdatedin2018whentheGeneralDataProtectionRegulation(GDPR)cameintoforce,thoughtheEUlegislationwassubsequentlyconverteyedrecentlyreportedseeingbenefitsfromtheGDPR,,Culture,MediaandSport(DCMS)consultedonpossiblereformstodataprotectionlawlastyear,andthegovernmentsignalleditsplanstointroduceaDataReinistrativeburdensfromdataprotectionlawinamovethatwouldenshrinetheconceptofmoreflexible,(DPIAs)andconsultationoverhigh-riskpersonaldataprocessingwouldberemoved,ionwerealsoconsultedon,includingpl¨C,criticalbuildingblocksofthedigitaleconomy,fromsuper-fastinternetaccessacro,whichtracksunicornbirths,ear¨Carounddoublethelevelofsecond-placedGermany,andmorethantriplethelevelofFranceinthirdplace.

ÔÚÒßÇé·À¿ØÖУ¬¸ÃÕò´Ó³ÇÇøµ½Å©´å£¬Ò¹Ä»ÖС¢³¿êØÀÿ¸ö´å¡¢ÉçÇøÒßÇé·À¿ØÒýµ¼µãËæ´¦¶¼¿É¼ûµ½ÇàÄêÍ»»÷¶ÓÔ±ÃÇѲÂßÖµÊØ¡¢¼ì²éµÇ¼ÇµÄÉíÓ°¡£

ÔçÉÏ7µãÍõ¾ê¾Íµ½Á˺½ÔËÐ¡ÇøÖµÊØµã£¬Ã¿ÌìµÄ¹¤×÷¾ÍÊÇÅŲ顢²âΡ¢µÇ¼Ç¡¢Ïû¶¾£¬ËäÖܶø¸´Ê¼£¬µ«Ò²±ØÐë¼þ¼þÂäʵ£¬²»ÄÜÊè©һÈË¡£

In2018,WatchTowerfiledforaDMCAsubpoenathatwouldverequiredYouTubetohandove,,,,theWatchTowerBibleandTractSociety,thesupervisingbodyandpublisherfortheJehovah¡¯sWitnessreligiousgroup,eitherdoesn¡¯tlikecriticism,dislikescopyrightinfringement,,WatchTowerkeepsaneyeoutforpeoplewhocriticizethereligionbyleveragingitsowncopyrightedmaterial,suchasvideosorsongs,:¡®KevinMcFree¡¯¡®KevinMcFree¡¯(nothisrealname)isthecreatorofthe¡®Dubtown¡¯seriesofstop-motionLegoanimationsthattakeplaceinafictitiousJehovah¡¯¡¯scriticalvideosusecopyrightedmaterialownedbyWatchTowersoin2018,thegroupfiledanapplicationforaDMCAsubpoenawhichaskedacourttocompelYouTube/,arguingthat,inparallelWatchT,¡°stronggrounds¡±torequestserviceonthedefendantbyemailbutsinceithasnorealnametohand,theclerkofthecourtwouldn¡¯eldeclined,insteadindicatingapreferencetowaitforthedecisionofJudgeRoman,whowaspresidingovertheDMCAsubpoenamatterandMcFree¡¯ewYorkdistrictcourt,JudgeRomanacknowledgesthatMcFreecriticizedthereligion,includingits¡°depictionsofviolenceagainstwomen,theremovalofamanofAfricandescentfromthedenomination¡¯siconography,thedenomination¡¯sattitudetowardtechnology,anditsattitudetowardoutsideacademicpursuitsamongitsfollowers.¡±HealsonotesthatfollowingaWatchTowerDMCAnoticein2018,,WatchTowerfollowedupwithitsDMCAsubpoenatoYouTube/,then,iswhethersuchasubpoenashouldbegrantedafterfairuseconsiderationsandalongsideMcFree¡¯sclaimsthatthesubpoenawasreallydesignedto¡°disfellowshiphimasanapostate.¡±FairUseConsiderationsInconsideringthefirstfactoroffairuse(thepurposeandcharacteroftheuse,includingwhethersuchuseisofacommercialnatureorisfornonprofiteducationalpurposes),JudgeRomanrejectsWatchTower¡¯sclaimthatthevideowasnottransformativeonthebasisthatituseduneditedsegmentsofthevideowithoutcommentaryorcriticism.¡°WhileitistruethattheDubtownVideodisplayscertainexcerptsfromWatchTower¡¯sworksintheiroriginalandunalteredstates,physicalchangesarenotrequiredforanewusetobetransformative,¡±,headds,isthatMcFreeexpressed¡°somethingnew,withafurtherpurposeordifferentcharacter,alteringthefirstwithnewexpression,meaning,ormessage.¡±Bluntly,McFree¡¯s¡®message¡¯,theJudgeagreesthatMcFree¡¯suseofthecopyrightworkswasindeedcommercial,,becausethevideowastransformative,,,theJudgeweighedexpressionandcreativityelementsagainstthosethatwerefactualorinformational,,theJudgedecidesslightlyinWatchTower¡¯sfavorgiventhecontent¡¯,theJudgenotesthatthelawcanallowanallegedinfringertocopyanentirework,providingtheamountusedis¡°reasonablynecessary¡±inrelationtothework¡¯¡°parody,criticize,andcomment¡±and¡°interjects,superimposes,andoverdubsparodiccommentaryandmusicovertheexcerptedfootage¡±,(whetherthesecondaryuseusurpsthemarketoftheoriginalwork)theJudgealsorulesinfavorofMcFree.¡°[T]herecordshowsthatthereisnodangerthatthe,therecordshowsthatthetransformativenatureoftheDubtownVideo¡ªnamely,tocriticize,satirize,andcommentonthepracticesofJehovah¡¯sWitnesses¡ªisclearlynotthesameasWatchTower¡¯stargetaudience,¡±¡¯sfavor,theJudgeconcludesthatsinceMcFreemadefairuseofWatchTower¡¯scopyrightedworks,therei,WatchTowerdoesn¡¯tseeminterestedinapplyingthisrulingtoitsseparatecopyrightlawsuitagainstMcFree,sionintheDMCAsubpoenamattermightprovehelpfulinmovingthecopyrightlawsuitalong,,WatchTowerlaidoutitspredicamentregardingMcFree¡¯strueidentity,notingthatithadcorrespondedwithMcFreeviaemaillastyearandthedefendanthadrefusedtowaiveservicebecausehedidn¡¯¡¯sfavorintheDMCAsubpoenamatter,WatchTowertriedagainbutgotthesameanswer,¡°Asyoulikelyareaware,JudgeRom¨¢nhasgranintheinfringementaction,¡±WatchTower¡¯,aclearlysurprisedMcFreeclarifiedhisrationale¨CitwouldbeunreasonableforWatchTowertopursuetwocases¡°forprettymuchthesamething¡±atthesametime.¡°Ihadhopedthatthejudgmentinthesubpoenacasewouldresultinresolvingthewholecase,¡±hetoldthereligiousgroup.¡°copyrightwhenJudgeRomanhasalreadyjudgeditasfairuse¡±Areasonableassumption¨CbutWatchTowerseesthingsdifferently.¡°ItisWatchTower¡¯spositionthatJudgeRom¨¢n¡¯sdecisiondidnotdecidetheissueofcopyrightinfringementandfairuseforpurposesoftheinfringementactionsincethemotiontodismisswasnotafullandfairadjudicationonthemerits,includingbecausenodiscoverywasconductedonthemotiontoquash,¡±,however,thatMcFreehadn¡¯tpublishedanymoreDubtownvideosinyears,suggestingthatas¡¯tbite,insteadreferringbacktotherulingintheDMCAsubpoenamatter.¡°ImustconcludethatJudgeRoman¡¯sdecisionintheGooglesubpoenacasemakesthislawsuitforcopyrightinfringement,¡¯tse,Imustrefusetoacceptservice.¡±Asaresult,WatchTowerwantsthecourttoissueasummonsinthenameofJohnDoesoitcanpursueitscopyrightinfringementcaseagainstMcFreewho,incidentally,rthatifWatchTowerprevails,anyonewhodarestorelyonafairusecriticismofthereligiousgroupmovingforwardwillreceivethesamesilencingtreatment,evenifajudgesaystheyactedentirelywithinthelaw.

Incase(2021£©×î¸ß·¨ÖªÃñÖÕ1298ºÅrecentlyhighlightedbytheIntellectualPropertyTribunaloftheSupremePeople¡¯sCourtofChina(SPC),theSPCruledthatasettlementagreementtoapatentinfringementlawsuitconstitutedahorizontalmonopolyagreementasthescopetheagreementwasnot,WuhanTaipuTransformerSwitchCo.,Ltd.(TaipuCompany)suedShanghaiHuamingPowerEquipmentManufacturingCo.,Ltd.(HuamingCompany)forinfringingitsinventionpatententitled¡°Off-circuittap-changerwithshieldingdevice.¡±InJanuary2016,thetwopartiesre:HuamingCompanycanonlyproducecertainkindsofnon-excitationtap-changers,andotherkindsofnon-excitationtap-changerscouldonlyberesoldtodownstreamcustomersthroughTaipuCompany,andthesale,HuamingCompanyactsasamarketagentforTaipurelatedentities,andshallnotproduceoractasanagentfortheproductsofthesamecategoryofotherenterprisesonitsown,an,,HuamingCompanyfiledalawsuitinthiscasewiththeIntermediatePeople¡¯sCourtofWuhanCity,HubeiProvince,claimingthatthesettlementagreenotamonopolyagreement,¡¯sCourt,,theSupremePeople¡¯sCourtheldthattodeterminewhethertheagreementinvolvedinthecaseisinvalidduetoviolationofthemandatoryprovisionsoftheAnti-MonopolyLaw,itmustfirstdeterminewhethertheagreementinvolvedinthecaseconstitutesahorizontalmonopolyagreementexpresslyprohibitedbytheAnti-MonopolyLaw,andthende,astowhethertheagreementinvolvedinthecaseconstitutesahorizontalmonopolyagreementexpresslyprohibitedbyArticle13,paragraph1oftheAnti-MonopolyLaw,theSupremePeople¡¯sCourtheldthatHuamingC,bothpartieshavecertainmarketinfluence,andthereisacompetit,withArticles1,5and10asthecore,agreedtostoptheproductionofspecificvarietiesofcommodities,restrictthesalesofspecificvarietiesofcommodities,coordinateandfixprices,andsupplem,restrictingtheproductionandsalesvolumeofcommodities,andfixingcommoditypriceshasbeenstrengthened,anditmeetstheformalrequirementsstfArticle13oftheAnti-MonopolyLawarecommontypesoftypicalhorizontalmonopolyagreementswiththeeffectofeliminatingandrestrictingcompetition,onceagreedupon,willgenerallyeliminateandrestrictcompetitionanditca,Taipushouldbeartheburdenofproofthattheagreementinvolvedi,theevidenceinthecasealsoshowsthataftertheagreementinvolvedinthecasewassigned,theunitpriceoftheoff-circuittap-changerinthepriceguidesentbyTaiputoHuamingwasmuchhigherthanHuaming¡¯sownexternalsalespriceandthelegalrepresentativesofbothpartiesWeChatchatrecordsalsowillleadtoanincreaseinthepriceofrelatedproducts,,regardingtherelationshipbetweentheagreementinvolvedandthepatentinfringementdispute,theSupremePeople¡¯sCourtheldthatinthiscase,thetechnicaleffectofthepatentinvolvedwasmainlytoreducethecostofswitchmanufacturing,toenhancethestabilityandreliabili,Huaming¡¯srestrictedproductionandsalesofcertaintypesofoff-circuittap-changersarenot,HuamingCompanyandTaipuComparket,andusesthistodetermi,salesvolume,salestype,salesarea,,wh,buttousetheexerciseofthepatentrightasacover,infact,itpursuesdividingthesalesmarketandrestrictingtheproductionandsalesofgoodswiththeeffectoffixingprices,whichisanabuseofpatentrights,constitutesanactofexcludingandrestrictingcompetition,,thefactthatTaipuownsandexercisesthepatentrightinth,regardingthelegaleffectoftheagreement,theSupremePeople¡¯sCourtheldthatArticles1,5and10oftheagreementinvolvedviolatedtheprovisionsofArticle13oftheAnti-Mono,Taipudidnotclaimthattheagre,Articles1,nthecase,andtheotherclausesrelatetoth,theagreementcannotsurviveseverabilityafterstrippingoutthethreeclauses,,2022isavailablehere(Chineseonly).

װжʳƷ¡¢°Ù»õµÈ£¬Ê¹Óò泵ºÍ´«ËÍ´ø¸¨Öú×÷Òµ£¬¼òµ¥Ò×ÉÏÊÖ£¬ÈÕ¹¤×Ê360-480Ôª£¬ÈýÌìÒ»·¢£¬ÌìÌìÓл°üסËÞ£¬³Ô·¹×ÔÀí£¬¸ÉÂúÒ»¸öÔÂÓлïʳ²¹Öú¡£

TheSupremeCourtwillhearanongoingcopyrightcasebetweenSwedishfastfashiongiantHMandpattern-makingcompanyUnicolors,ent,aswellasthefindingsofothercircuitsandtheCopyrightOfficeinholdingthattheCopyrightActrequiresadistrictcourttoseekguidancefromtheCopyrightOfficewhentherearequestionsaboutthevalidityofacopyrightregistrationbutnoevid,accusingthefastfashionbehemothofinfringingoneofitsgeometricpatterns¨Cbywayofa¡°remarkablysimilar¡±print¨C,inwhichajuryfoundthatHMhadwillfullyinfringedUnicolors¡¯scopyright-protectedpattern,andawardedthepatterncompany$846,720indamages,attorney¡¯sfees,andcosts,¡¯sappealwasitsclaimthatUnicolorslacksavalidcopyrightregistrationforthefabricpatternatthecenterofthecasebecauseUnicolorshadimpher,makingthemanappropriate¡°singleunit¡±foronecollectivecopyrightapplicationandregistration,HMclaimedthatUnicolorsactuallysoldsomeofthepatternsseparatelytodifferentcustomers¨Catdifferenttimes,thereby,makingthecompany¡¯,2020,theNinthCircuitreversedthejuryverdictandsidedwithHMonthebasisthatthereisnointent-to-defraudrequirementforreg¡ì411(b)(2)¨CwhichrequiresdistrictcourtstoasktheRegisterofCopyrightswhetherregistrationwouldhavebeenrefusediftheCopyrightOfficehadknowntheinformationwasinaccurate¨CwhenitdidnotreferthemattertotheCopyrightOfficeafterHMallegedthattheregistrationcontainsinac,andUnicolorsfiledapetitionforawritofcertiorari,¡¯spetition,theNinthCircuitgotthecasewrong,asthejudges¡¯rulingconcerningthetimelineofthepublicationoftheworkscoveredbythesingle-unitcopyrightregistrationwas¡°flawedbecausetherewasnoevidencesupporting[their]conclusionthatthedesignswereseparatelypublishedbeforecertaindesignswerecategorizedasconfinedinUnicolors¡¯registrationcertificate.¡±Withthatinmind,Unicolorsclaimedthattherewas¡°insufficientevidencetodeduceany¡ì411(b).¡±¡°Thepanel¡¯¡ì411(b)wasalsoflawed,¡±accordingtoUnicolorsbecause¡°manycourts,legislativeandadministrativeauthorities,andtheleadingcopyrighttreatisehaveuniformlyinterpretedthePrioritizingResourcesandOrganizationforIntellectualPropertyActof2008¡­tocodifythedoctrineoffraudontheCopyrightOfficeandthus,toallowinvalidationundersection411(b)onlywhentheregistrantisshowntohaveactedinbadfaithorintendedtodefraudtheCopyrightOffice.¡±LookingaheadtotheSupremeCourt¡¯sconsiderationofthecase,ractitionersthatthesection411(b)issueis¡°ripeforreview,¡±particularlygiventhatdisputesaboutcopyrightregistrationerrors¨Cwhichcanstemfrom¡°anumberoffactors,includingunclearguidanceaboutregistrationrules,asimplemisunderstandingofwhattheapplicationrequiresand,mostrelevanttotheissueathand,purposefulorknowinginaccuracies¡±¨Care¡°commoninlitigation.¡±MeanwhileFinneganattorneysSamuelEichnerandMargaretEsquenethavenotedthatingrantingcertiorari,theSupremeCourtmaybelookingto¡°resolveanapparentcircuitsplitontheissueofwhetherthereisanintent-to-defraudrequirementbeforeareferralismadetotheCopyrightOfficeunderSection411(b).¡±Atthesametime,theCourtmayalsobeaiming¡°toclarifythestrengthofacopyrightregistration¡¯spresumptivevalidityand/ortheextenttowhichtheCopyrightActrequirescourtstodefertoCopyrightOfficedeterminationsundersection411(b)(2)astowhetherinaccuracies,ifknown,wouldhavecausedtheCopyrightOfficetorefuseregistration.¡±Ultimately,EichnerandEsquenetassertthatbecauseintenttodefraudisgenerallydifficulttoprove,¡°theSupremeCourt¡¯sdecisionshouldhaveasignificantimpactonthestrengthofcopyrightregistrations¡±¨Cwhicharenowprerequisitestofilingcopyrightinfringementactions¨C¡°andtheirsusceptibilitytovalidityattacksbasedonperceivedinaccuraciesinregistrations.¡±Assuch,thedecisionhasthepotentialtoimpactcopyrightapplicationpractices.

ºÄ·ÑÁË´óÁ¿Ê±¼äȥѡװÐÞ¹«Ë¾¡£

TheSupremeCourtwillhearanongoingcopyrightcasebetweenSwedishfastfashiongiantHMandpattern-makingcompanyUnicolors,ent,aswellasthefindingsofothercircuitsandtheCopyrightOfficeinholdingthattheCopyrightActrequiresadistrictcourttoseekguidancefromtheCopyrightOfficewhentherearequestionsaboutthevalidityofacopyrightregistrationbutnoevid,accusingthefastfashionbehemothofinfringingoneofitsgeometricpatterns¨Cbywayofa¡°remarkablysimilar¡±print¨C,inwhichajuryfoundthatHMhadwillfullyinfringedUnicolors¡¯scopyright-protectedpattern,andawardedthepatterncompany$846,720indamages,attorney¡¯sfees,andcosts,¡¯sappealwasitsclaimthatUnicolorslacksavalidcopyrightregistrationforthefabricpatternatthecenterofthecasebecauseUnicolorshadimpher,makingthemanappropriate¡°singleunit¡±foronecollectivecopyrightapplicationandregistration,HMclaimedthatUnicolorsactuallysoldsomeofthepatternsseparatelytodifferentcustomers¨Catdifferenttimes,thereby,makingthecompany¡¯,2020,theNinthCircuitreversedthejuryverdictandsidedwithHMonthebasisthatthereisnointent-to-defraudrequirementforreg¡ì411(b)(2)¨CwhichrequiresdistrictcourtstoasktheRegisterofCopyrightswhetherregistrationwouldhavebeenrefusediftheCopyrightOfficehadknowntheinformationwasinaccurate¨CwhenitdidnotreferthemattertotheCopyrightOfficeafterHMallegedthattheregistrationcontainsinac,andUnicolorsfiledapetitionforawritofcertiorari,¡¯spetition,theNinthCircuitgotthecasewrong,asthejudges¡¯rulingconcerningthetimelineofthepublicationoftheworkscoveredbythesingle-unitcopyrightregistrationwas¡°flawedbecausetherewasnoevidencesupporting[their]conclusionthatthedesignswereseparatelypublishedbeforecertaindesignswerecategorizedasconfinedinUnicolors¡¯registrationcertificate.¡±Withthatinmind,Unicolorsclaimedthattherewas¡°insufficientevidencetodeduceany¡ì411(b).¡±¡°Thepanel¡¯¡ì411(b)wasalsoflawed,¡±accordingtoUnicolorsbecause¡°manycourts,legislativeandadministrativeauthorities,andtheleadingcopyrighttreatisehaveuniformlyinterpretedthePrioritizingResourcesandOrganizationforIntellectualPropertyActof2008¡­tocodifythedoctrineoffraudontheCopyrightOfficeandthus,toallowinvalidationundersection411(b)onlywhentheregistrantisshowntohaveactedinbadfaithorintendedtodefraudtheCopyrightOffice.¡±LookingaheadtotheSupremeCourt¡¯sconsiderationofthecase,ractitionersthatthesection411(b)issueis¡°ripeforreview,¡±particularlygiventhatdisputesaboutcopyrightregistrationerrors¨Cwhichcanstemfrom¡°anumberoffactors,includingunclearguidanceaboutregistrationrules,asimplemisunderstandingofwhattheapplicationrequiresand,mostrelevanttotheissueathand,purposefulorknowinginaccuracies¡±¨Care¡°commoninlitigation.¡±MeanwhileFinneganattorneysSamuelEichnerandMargaretEsquenethavenotedthatingrantingcertiorari,theSupremeCourtmaybelookingto¡°resolveanapparentcircuitsplitontheissueofwhetherthereisanintent-to-defraudrequirementbeforeareferralismadetotheCopyrightOfficeunderSection411(b).¡±Atthesametime,theCourtmayalsobeaiming¡°toclarifythestrengthofacopyrightregistration¡¯spresumptivevalidityand/ortheextenttowhichtheCopyrightActrequirescourtstodefertoCopyrightOfficedeterminationsundersection411(b)(2)astowhetherinaccuracies,ifknown,wouldhavecausedtheCopyrightOfficetorefuseregistration.¡±Ultimately,EichnerandEsquenetassertthatbecauseintenttodefraudisgenerallydifficulttoprove,¡°theSupremeCourt¡¯sdecisionshouldhaveasignificantimpactonthestrengthofcopyrightregistrations¡±¨Cwhicharenowprerequisitestofilingcopyrightinfringementactions¨C¡°andtheirsusceptibilitytovalidityattacksbasedonperceivedinaccuraciesinregistrations.¡±Assuch,thedecisionhasthepotentialtoimpactcopyrightapplicationpractices.

TheMannheimRegion,NokiasuedOPPOinfourdifferentcountri,,thisisthefirstrulingregardingthedisputedpatentsrelatedto4G(LTE)and5GStandardEssentialPatents(SEPs).NokiasuedOPPOovernineSEPsandfiveimplementationpatentsinthreeGermanregionalcourtsincludingMunichandD¡§,beingaleaderin5GSEPs,hasinvestedatotalof€umerproducts,itsprev,luxurycarmanufacturer,Daimler,hassettleditshigh-profilepatentlitigationwithNokia,follow,NokiawasgrantedaceaseanddesistorderbytheMannheimRegionalCourt,,whileBirdBirdstandforthecompanyduringitsLenovolawsuit.

·¢ÏÖÒ»´Î¼Ç¾¯¸æÒ»´Î£¬¾¯¸æÂúÈý´Î£¬ÏµÍ³×ÔÐнûÑÔÈýÌ죡ÃâÔðÉùÃ÷£º¹àÄϰÙÐÕÍø£¨¹àÄÏÂÛ̳£©ÎÞ·¨100%±£Ö¤ÔÚ±¾°æ·¢²¼µÄÐÅÏ¢µÄÕæÊµÐԺͿɿ¿ÐÔ£¬Çë´ó¼ÒÎñ±Ø½øÐÐ×ÐϸµÄÕç±ð£¬½÷·ÀÉϵ±ÊÜÆ­£¡Ò»¸öÐÅÏ¢Àà°å¿éZÖØÒªµÄ¾ÍÊÇÁ½¸ö×Ö---ÕæÊµ£¡»¶Ó­Ó»Ô¾¾Ù±¨½Ò·¢Í¨¹ýµÃÒâ²éѯµ½µÄÐÅÏ¢£¬È»ºó±»ºöÓÆºÍÆÛÆ­µÄÖнéÒÔ¼°¸öÈË£¬ÌáÐÑÆäËûÒâ·Û±ÜÃâÉϵ±¡£

OnJuly20,ViaLicensingannouncedthatXiaomihasreneweditslicensingagreementfortheViaAdvancedAudioCodingPatentPool,,XiaomiandViareachedanagreementforXiaomitousepatentedtechnologyundertheAdvancedAudioCoding(AAC),anditthuscouldenableconsumerstoenjoyhigh-qualityaudiothroughhighcompressionefficiency,,GeneralManagerofGlobalBusinessDevelopmentandIPStrategyofXiaomi,said:WearehappytocontinueouragreementwithViasAACpatentpool,abalancedcollaborativicatedtoinnovationinpartnershipwithtechfirms,iesintheaudio,wireless,,,LeiJun,CEOofXiaomi,saidthatthefirmhadobtained25,000patentsworldwide,andithadanother20,:XiaomiAutoAnnouncesNewAutomatedDrivingPatentXiaomihasappliedformorethan2,300patents,ithasachievedtheindustrysfirst120Wsinglebatterycellchargingtechnologyand200Wwiredchargingtechnology,andithasover1,400globalpatentapplicationsforchargingt,

Clearingtheaironlabyrinthinesubject-mattereligibilitystandardsforcomputer-implementedinventions(CIIs),a,,thecourt,whilesettinganewtest,rejected,forthesecondtime,aproblem-solutionapproachtoclaimconstructionfollowedbytheCanadianIntellectualPropertyOffice(CIPO)entsfindingtwoCanadianPatentApplicantsnumbered2,695,130and2,695,146aspatentineligibleundersections2and27(8)(IPIC),anIPpolicyadvocacyorganization,intervenedintheappealproceedings,affiinesinventiontoincludeanynewandusefulart,process,machine,(8),however,,2000SCC66,theSupremeCourtofCanadaclarifiedthatbeforeassessingsubject-mattereligibility,essentialeleme,whereinonlythoseelementsinclaimsthatwerenecessarytosolveth,,CIPOintroducedaPracticeNote,titledExaminationPracticeRespectingComputer-ImplementedInventions,whichindicatedthatifacomputercomponentisfoundtobeanessentialelement,,iftheessentialelementslackanyphysicality,(AttorneyGeneral),2020FC837,CIPOintroducedanewPracticeNoteinNovember2020,titledPatentableSubject-MatterunderthePatentAct,whichnotedthatinordertobepatent-eligible,thecomputercomponentsmustcooperatewithotherelementsoftheclaimedinvention,andthatactualinventioncations,bothtitledColorSelectionSystem,filedbyBenjaminMooreCo.,icalequationthatmodeledhumanpsychologicalperceptionstocolor,associatingacoloremotionscoretovariouscolorsinadatabase,andselecti,bothpatentapplicationswererejectedbyExaminersforencompassingnon-statutorysubject-matter,,theExaminer,uponpurposivelyconstruingtheclaims,,asnotedbytheExaminer,includedcalculatinghumanpsychophysicalperceptionvaluestocolorelementsbasedonmathematicalmodels,andothe,eviewedbyathree-memberPatentAppealBoard,,theApplicantreliedonFreeWorldTrustinemphasizingthatcomputercomponentscau,theApplicantclaimed,theApplicantconcededthatnoattemptwasmadetosolveac,however,concludedthatidentifyingamathematicalcorrelationbetweencolorsandhumanemotiveresponsestoaidcolorselectionwasnotatechnicalproblemforsubject-matterconsiderations,andcompsionerofPatents1981,FCA204,thatuseofcomputersforconduct,theBoardagreedwiththeExaminerandnotedthattheessentialelements,,theAppellantchallengedtheCommissionersclaimcons,Appellantargued,wouldhavebeenidentifyingclaimelementsthathaveamater,theCommissionerhadincorrectlyconcludedthattheremainingcationssuchasidentifyingadjacencyofcolorpairs,storingthecolorlibrary,,,,thePracticeN,theCommissionersapproachofconsideringonlythenovelelementsintheclaimsasessenti,theofficeoftheAttorneyGeneralofCanada(AGC)incorrectbutsoughttoremittheapplicationsbacktotheCommissi,theRespondentarguedthatjudicialinterventionwouldbeprematureastheCommissionerdidnothavetheopportunitytoconsidertheAppeyhavingtheexpert,theRespondentcontendedthata,implementingascientificprincipleormathematicaltheoremonagen,IPIC,generallyalignedwiththeAppellantspositionandca,CIPOstendencyo,gdetrimentaltoCIIs,ntedworldwide,,notingmaterialeffecnon-essentialandallegi,theIntervenorrequestedthecourttore-cessiontotheproblem-so,includingWhirlpoolCorpvCamcoInc,2000SCC67,FreeWorldTrust,andCanada(AttorneyGeneral),2011FCA328thecourtheldthatnoneofthedecisionssuggestaproblem-solutionapproach,andins,wheretheproblem-solutionapproachwasdiscredited,andaddedthatpracticalapplicationofs,theproblem-solutionapproach,consideringonlynovelaspectsofclaimsinsubject-matteranalysis,andholdingcomputercomponentsasnon-essentialfornotsolvingacomputerproblem,ectmatter,thecourtacceptedtheframeworksuggestedbytheIntervenor,isasfollows:Purposivelyconstruetheclaim;Askwhethertheconstruedclaimasawholeconsistsofonlyamerescientificprincipleorabstracttheorem,orwhetheritcomprisesapracticalapplicationthatemploysascientificprincipleorabstracttheorem;andIftheconstruedclaimcomprisesapracticalapplication,assesstheconstruedclaimfortheremainingpatentabilitycriteria:statutorycategoriesandjudicialexclusions,aswellasnovelty,obviousness,ifyingessentialclaimelements,thecourthasdirectedthatclaimsshouldbeassessed,CIPOsrequirementthatapplicationsinvolvingCIIsmu,CIPOspracticeoflimitingthesubject-matterassessmentonlytonovelele,abrightlinetowardscon

ChinawillcontinuetostrengthentheprotectionofintellectualpropertyrightsandprovideafavorableenvironmentforglobalinnovatorsandentrepreneurstoensurethatscientificandtechnologicalachievementscanbetterbenefitChinaandtheworldatlarge,enceandTechnologyInnovationCooperationConferenceheldinBeijing,sayingthatChinastandsreadytoworkwiththerestoftheworldtobuildanopen,fair,justandnondllastheslowdowninglobaleconomicgrowth,itismorenecessarythaneverforallcountriestostrengtheninclusivecooperationinscienceandtechnologyandmakeinnovationssoastojointlydealwithglobalchallenges,sbenefitedfrominclusivecooperation,andglobalprogressinscienceandtechnologyalsoneedsChina,notingthatChinahasalreadyestablisheds,Chinawillimplementamoreinclusiveandmutuallybeneficialstrategyoninternationalscientificandtechnologicalcooperationandtakeamoreopenattitudetowardspromotingglobalcoordinationonscientificinnovations,ationnetwork,jointlypushforbreakthroughsinsuchareasasfundamentalscienceresearchandtheapplicationofsci,themedTechnologyEmpowerstheFuture,InnovationLeadsDevelopment,wasattendedbo,assistantdirectorgeneraloftheWorldIntellectualPropertyOrganization,saidinavideospeechthatChinaisnowaleadingcountryinglobalinnovationandWIPaladdressthatChinasprogressinscienceandtechnologyaswellasitseconomicgrowthhavemghitsscientificdevelopment.

TheSupremeCourtwillhearanongoingcopyrightcasebetweenSwedishfastfashiongiantHMandpattern-makingcompanyUnicolors,ent,aswellasthefindingsofothercircuitsandtheCopyrightOfficeinholdingthattheCopyrightActrequiresadistrictcourttoseekguidancefromtheCopyrightOfficewhentherearequestionsaboutthevalidityofacopyrightregistrationbutnoevid,accusingthefastfashionbehemothofinfringingoneofitsgeometricpatterns¨Cbywayofa¡°remarkablysimilar¡±print¨C,inwhichajuryfoundthatHMhadwillfullyinfringedUnicolors¡¯scopyright-protectedpattern,andawardedthepatterncompany$846,720indamages,attorney¡¯sfees,andcosts,¡¯sappealwasitsclaimthatUnicolorslacksavalidcopyrightregistrationforthefabricpatternatthecenterofthecasebecauseUnicolorshadimpher,makingthemanappropriate¡°singleunit¡±foronecollectivecopyrightapplicationandregistration,HMclaimedthatUnicolorsactuallysoldsomeofthepatternsseparatelytodifferentcustomers¨Catdifferenttimes,thereby,makingthecompany¡¯,2020,theNinthCircuitreversedthejuryverdictandsidedwithHMonthebasisthatthereisnointent-to-defraudrequirementforreg¡ì411(b)(2)¨CwhichrequiresdistrictcourtstoasktheRegisterofCopyrightswhetherregistrationwouldhavebeenrefusediftheCopyrightOfficehadknowntheinformationwasinaccurate¨CwhenitdidnotreferthemattertotheCopyrightOfficeafterHMallegedthattheregistrationcontainsinac,andUnicolorsfiledapetitionforawritofcertiorari,¡¯spetition,theNinthCircuitgotthecasewrong,asthejudges¡¯rulingconcerningthetimelineofthepublicationoftheworkscoveredbythesingle-unitcopyrightregistrationwas¡°flawedbecausetherewasnoevidencesupporting[their]conclusionthatthedesignswereseparatelypublishedbeforecertaindesignswerecategorizedasconfinedinUnicolors¡¯registrationcertificate.¡±Withthatinmind,Unicolorsclaimedthattherewas¡°insufficientevidencetodeduceany¡ì411(b).¡±¡°Thepanel¡¯¡ì411(b)wasalsoflawed,¡±accordingtoUnicolorsbecause¡°manycourts,legislativeandadministrativeauthorities,andtheleadingcopyrighttreatisehaveuniformlyinterpretedthePrioritizingResourcesandOrganizationforIntellectualPropertyActof2008¡­tocodifythedoctrineoffraudontheCopyrightOfficeandthus,toallowinvalidationundersection411(b)onlywhentheregistrantisshowntohaveactedinbadfaithorintendedtodefraudtheCopyrightOffice.¡±LookingaheadtotheSupremeCourt¡¯sconsiderationofthecase,ractitionersthatthesection411(b)issueis¡°ripeforreview,¡±particularlygiventhatdisputesaboutcopyrightregistrationerrors¨Cwhichcanstemfrom¡°anumberoffactors,includingunclearguidanceaboutregistrationrules,asimplemisunderstandingofwhattheapplicationrequiresand,mostrelevanttotheissueathand,purposefulorknowinginaccuracies¡±¨Care¡°commoninlitigation.¡±MeanwhileFinneganattorneysSamuelEichnerandMargaretEsquenethavenotedthatingrantingcertiorari,theSupremeCourtmaybelookingto¡°resolveanapparentcircuitsplitontheissueofwhetherthereisanintent-to-defraudrequirementbeforeareferralismadetotheCopyrightOfficeunderSection411(b).¡±Atthesametime,theCourtmayalsobeaiming¡°toclarifythestrengthofacopyrightregistration¡¯spresumptivevalidityand/ortheextenttowhichtheCopyrightActrequirescourtstodefertoCopyrightOfficedeterminationsundersection411(b)(2)astowhetherinaccuracies,ifknown,wouldhavecausedtheCopyrightOfficetorefuseregistration.¡±Ultimately,EichnerandEsquenetassertthatbecauseintenttodefraudisgenerallydifficulttoprove,¡°theSupremeCourt¡¯sdecisionshouldhaveasignificantimpactonthestrengthofcopyrightregistrations¡±¨Cwhicharenowprerequisitestofilingcopyrightinfringementactions¨C¡°andtheirsusceptibilitytovalidityattacksbasedonperceivedinaccuraciesinregistrations.¡±Assuch,thedecisionhasthepotentialtoimpactcopyrightapplicationpractices.

£¨¶þ£©ÎÒÃÇ»á²ÉȡһÇкÏÀí¿ÉÐеĴëÊ©£¬È·±£Î´ÊÕ¼¯Î޹صĸöÈËÐÅÏ¢¡£

Õò¶«ÉçÇøÇàÄêÍ»»÷¶ÓÔ±ÕÔÀÚ£¬»ý¼«Ö÷¶¯ÒªÇóÌæÄêÁä½Ï´óµÄÀÏͬ־ֵҹ°à¡£

TheMannheimRegion,NokiasuedOPPOinfourdifferentcountri,,thisisthefirstrulingregardingthedisputedpatentsrelatedto4G(LTE)and5GStandardEssentialPatents(SEPs).NokiasuedOPPOovernineSEPsandfiveimplementationpatentsinthreeGermanregionalcourtsincludingMunichandD¡§,beingaleaderin5GSEPs,hasinvestedatotalof€umerproducts,itsprev,luxurycarmanufacturer,Daimler,hassettleditshigh-profilepatentlitigationwithNokia,follow,NokiawasgrantedaceaseanddesistorderbytheMannheimRegionalCourt,,whileBirdBirdstandforthecompanyduringitsLenovolawsuit.

June14,2022announcedthat,theUnitedStatesDistrictCourtfortheCentralDistrictofCalifornia(theCourt)issuedanordergr¡¯smaterialbreachesofthepartiesJointDevelopmentandLicenseAgreement,whereonFebruary15,2022,,NetlistsDirectorofIPStrategy,said,WearepleasedthattheCourtrecognizedSamsungsfailuretoadmitrequestsforadmissions,,2022,withatrialbeginningnextyearonMay1,fcustomandspecialtymemoryproductsbringindustry-leadingperformats,inservermemory,hybridmemoryandstorageclassmemory,tocompaniesthatimplementNetlist¡¯,entsndoftenaddressfutureeventsorNetlist¡¯nsregardingfutureeventsandaresubjecttoknownandunknownrisks,uncertaintiesandotherfactorsthatcouldcauseactualresultstodiffermateri,uncertaintiesandotherfactorsinclude,amongothers:risksrelatedtoNetlistsplansforitsintellectualproperty,includingitsstrategiesformonetizing,licensing,expanding,anddefendingitspatentportfolio;risksassociatedwithpatentinfringementlitigationinitiatedbyNetlist,orbyothersagainstNetlist,aswellasthecostsandunpredictabilityofanysuchlitigation;risksassociatedwithNetlistsproductsales,includingthemarketanddemandforproductssoldbyNetlistanditsabilitytosuccessfullydevelopandlaunchnewproductsthatareattractivetothemarket;thesuccessofproduct,jointdevelopmentandlicensingpartnerships;thecompetitivelandscapeofNetlistsindustry;andgeneraleconomic,politicalandmarketconditions,includingquarantines,factoryslowdownsorshutdowns,s,expectationsandbeliefsregardingfutureeventsandaresubjecttoknownandunknownrisks,uncertaintiesandotherfactorsthatcouldcauseactualresultstodiffermateri¡¯sannualreportonForm10-KforitsmostrecentlycompletedfiscalyearfiledonMarch1,2022,,,uncertaintiesandotherfactors,theseforward-¡¯sassumptions,expectationsandbeliefsonlyasofthedatetheyaremade,andexceptasrequiredbylaw,Netlistundertakesnoobligationtoreviseorupdateanyforward-lookingstatementsforanyreason.

Ifyouinvestincreativity,youllendupwithamuchstrongerb,whatanawfulnameIfyoudid,,,yourlocation,,thegreaterthechancet,distinctivename,,youllendupwithamuchstrongerb,doyourresearchandmakesureyourcho,youmightnotwanttonameyourproductafteratermthatisassociatedwithaglobaldisease.[Sorry,ifIdashedyourhopesofnamingyournewwidgetEBOLA.]TataMotors,thelargestautomobilecompanyinIndia,rofessionalsportsfigures,,protectabletrademark:,anexperiencedtrademarkattorneycanassistyouwithamorethoroughsearch,includingsourcesfromfederalregistrations,statetrademarkregistrations,tradepublications,onlineresources,redcancreatewh,makesu,,however,rmatradem,forbestclearanceresults,tthatsomeyahoohasthedomainyouwantandissuddenlywillingtosellitfor$50,,makesureyourmarkdoesntstinkbecauseithasanotherun,andmakesureyourmarkisnotgoingtobeassociatedwiths,,C,andisevenratedbyIFCasoneofTheTenCoolestCarsinMovieHistoryforitsappearanceintheaction-horrormovieDeathProof(2007),andmanyconsumerscouldassociatethenewZICAcarwiththosenegativeconnotationsinvastcontrastirstnameofPortugueseoriginthattranslatestoJamesinEnglish.

¡°Intworecentdesignpatentcases,twocourtswereatthesamestageoflitigationdealingwiththesamedesignpatent,yetcametooppositeconclusions.¡±Formostpeople,whatcomestomindwhentheyheartheword¡°patent¡±mightbeaninventionlikethelightbulb¡ªThomasEdison¡¯sversionratherthanSawyerandMan¡¯s,probably¡ªorthetelephone¡ªanotherhotly-contestedoprotect¡°anynew,original,andornamentaldesignforanarticleofmanufacture.¡±Thisisthedomainofthedesignpatent,¡ì171,¡°ABriefHistoryofDesignPatents.¡±Designpatentinfringementoccurswhenadefendantappliesa¡°patenteddesign,oranycolorableimitationthereof,toanyarticleofmanufactureforthepurposeofsale,¡±¡ì289,ormakes,uses,offerstosell,sellso¡ì,designpatentscoveredphysicaldesignsthathadsometangibleeffectontheshape,ortextureofthe¡°articleofmanufacture.¡±See,,,Inc.,,1361();EthiconEndo-Surgery,,Inc.,,1327().Overtime,designpatentprotectionextendedtocoverscreenlayoutsandgraphicaluserinterfaces(¡°GUIs¡±).,,1375(),¡ªPhone,andonedesignpatentfocusedontheornamentaldesignofiPhone¡¯¡¯ssuccessonremand,andmuchofthejaw-dropping$,designpatentscanbepowsrelyontheordinaryobservertest,whichasksifatypicalconsumeroftheaccusedproduct,or¡°ordinaryobserver,¡±wouldfindsubstantialsimilaritiesbetweenthepatenteddesignandtheaccuseddesignsuchthatheorshewouldbedecei,Inc.,,1321().Inpractice,,,LLC,,1052().Then,thecourtmakesacomparisonoftheclaimedandaccuseddesignsinlightofthepriorarttoidentifydifference,,WePayGlobalPayment,LLClaunchedsuitsagainst14defendants,includingPayPalandPNCBank,(b)(6)motion,or¡°motiontodismiss,¡±¡°ordinaryobserver¡±testatthisstage,aplaintiff¡¯scomplaintonlyneedstostateaplausible,notnecessarilyprobable,,,548(2007).Forpatentinfringementcases,inadditiontomeetingtheTwomblyrequirements,thepleadingsneedto¡°(i)allegeownershipofthepatent,(ii)nameeachdefendant,(iii)citethepatentthatisallegedlyinfringed,(iv)statethemeansbywhichthedefendantallegedlyinfringes,and(v)pointtothesectionsofthepatentlawinvoked.¡±Hall,().Thedesignpatent-at-issue,,702(¡°¡¯702Patent¡±),claimsananimateddesignconsistingofaseriesofdisplayscreensthatonemightnavigatethroughinamobileapplication-¡ªlikelyinafinancialtransaction:OnJune9ofthisyear,JudgeAlbrightintheWesternDistrictofTexasdeniedPayPal¡¯(b)(6)motionwas¡°notthepropervehicletoassesstheDefendant¡¯sargumentsagainstthecomplaint.¡±,,,Inc.,:21-cv-1094(,2022)().Incontrast,eightdaysearlier,JudgeHoranoftheWesternDistrictofPennsylvaniagrantedPNCBank¡¯,¡°asamatteroflaw,noreasonablefactfindercouldfindinfringement.¡±,,at*6(,2022)(citingCurverLuxembourg,,:17-cv-4079-KM-JBC,2018WL340036,at*4(,2018)).,aside-by-sidecomparisonofWePayandPNC¡¯sdesignsdemonstratedtheywere¡°sufficientlydistinct¡±and¡°plainlydissimilar¡±*,accountingforpriorart,anysimilaritywiththeaccusedandasserteddesignsappeared¡°likethepriorartofaQRcode¡±¡ªaninternationalstandardadoptedbeforethefilingdateofthe¡®¡¯,oneofthenotabledifferencesinJudgeHoran¡¯sreasoningstemsfromherholdingthat¡°noreasonablefactfindercouldfindinfringement.¡±*¡¯sopinionisbrief,itseemsthatt,becausethesamepatentisbeingassertedagainstthesametypeofinfringingarticle¡ªifnoreasonablefactfindercouldfindinfringementwiththePNCmobilebankingapplication,itislikelythesamewouldbetrueofPayPal¡¯yobserverstandarddoesn¡¯tseemtohavechanged(bothdecisionsreliedonit),however,atleastintheWesternDistrictofPennsylvania,visualqualitieslikesimila¡ªasofJune27,WePayappealedtotheFederalCircuit¡ªfornow,donappeal.

¿ªÌùÀ²£¡¿ªÌùÀ²!ÉϸöÔÂ28ºÅ¿ª¹¤µÄ£¬ÒòΪһֱæ×Å£¬Ö±µ½½ñÌì²ÅºÃºÃµØ×øÏÂÀ´¿ªÌù£¬ºÃºÃµØ¼Ç¼һÏÂÀÏ·¿¸ÄÔìµÄÕû¸öÀú³Ì¡£

Fairuseisacommondefenceintrademarkinfringementactions,withajurisprudentialbasisthatatrademarkownercannotexclusivelymonopoliseadescriptiash(Ç໨½·)caseandtheSupremePeople¡®sCourt¡¯strialintheJapanesehoneysuckle(½ðÒø»¨):Wherearegisteredtrademarkcontainsthegenericname,depictionormodelnumberofthegoodconcerned,directlydesignatesthequality,mainrawmaterials,function,intendedpurpose,weight,quantityorothercharacteristicofthegoodorcontainsaplacename,theholderoftheexclusiverighttousetheregisteredtradem,thereisnospecificionsConcerningtheTrialofCivilTrademarkDisputeCasesof2006statesthatanactoffairuseofatrademarkisrequiredtosatisfythefollowingconditions:(1)theuseisingoodfaith;(2)itisnotusedasatrademarkforonesowngoods;and(3),somecourtswillalsoc,itisnecessarytocomprehensivelyconsiderthefameofatrademarkandtheuserspurp,inthe2021greenprickleyashcase,theSichuanHighCourtheldthattheChinesecharactersforgreenprickleyashintheallegedinfringingmarkwereanobjectivedescriptionoftheseasoningcontainedinaspecialfishhotpotdish,anghaiandJiangsu,,theallegedinfringerdisplayednosubjectiveintentiontofree-rideonthetrademark,,fontsizeandprominencetodeterminewhetheritconstitutestrademarkuse,(µÂÖݰǼ¦)case,thecourtheldthattheChinesecharactersforDezhoubraisedchickenusedontheallegedinfringinggoodsweredistinctiveandprominent,aneupperleftcornerofthegoodsandwassignificantlysmallerthanthecharactersforDezhoubraisedchicken,themannerofuseindicatedthatitwasnotsimplytodescribethatitsbraisedchickenwassourcedfromDezhou,¡ãCcase,heardin2016and2018,thecourtatfirstinstanceheldthat85¡ãCwasprominentlyusedinaconspicuouslocationontheouterpackagingoftheallegedinfringingproduct,exceedingthelimitoffairuse,,theappealscourtheldthatalthoughthetypesizeontheexternalpackagingoftheallegedinfringingproductwaslargerthanothersurroundingtexts,thecharacters85¡ã,ribethefeaturesofth(·ôר¼Ò)case,thecourtheldthattheavailableevideemark,itwasrejectedbytheTr,thecontestedpointinthecasewaswhethertheuseofSkinExpertinfringedtheexclusiverighttousetheregisteredtrademarkFuExpert(·òר¼Ò,pronouncedinChineseidenticallytoSkinExpert)ratherthanwhethertheinfringingmarkcouldberegisteredasatrademark,,theShanghaicourtheldthatthemannerofuseoftheallegedinfringinggreenprickleyashfish(Ç໨½·Óã)hadtheeffectofidentifyingthesourceoftheservice,whileusercommentsintheDianpingapp,usedasevidenceinthecase,showedconsumersreliedonthemarktodeterminewhetherthemerchantsprovidingthecateringservicewerethesame,ic,,itcanbegleanedthat,eveninthesamecase,ofcomprehensiveconsiderationaftertakingintoaccounttheusersintention,,itmustconsiderwhetherthedefendantwillinvokefairuseandpayattentiontocollectingandpreparingpertinentevidence,suchaswhethertheinfringerhadthemaliciousintentoffree-riding,theusewasfairandproper,activitiesand,wherethereisapriorregisteredtrademark,stresscomplianceinusetowardoffrisksoftrademarkinfringement.

ChinawillcontinuetostrengthentheprotectionofintellectualpropertyrightsandprovideafavorableenvironmentforglobalinnovatorsandentrepreneurstoensurethatscientificandtechnologicalachievementscanbetterbenefitChinaandtheworldatlarge,enceandTechnologyInnovationCooperationConferenceheldinBeijing,sayingthatChinastandsreadytoworkwiththerestoftheworldtobuildanopen,fair,justandnondllastheslowdowninglobaleconomicgrowth,itismorenecessarythaneverforallcountriestostrengtheninclusivecooperationinscienceandtechnologyandmakeinnovationssoastojointlydealwithglobalchallenges,sbenefitedfrominclusivecooperation,andglobalprogressinscienceandtechnologyalsoneedsChina,notingthatChinahasalreadyestablisheds,Chinawillimplementamoreinclusiveandmutuallybeneficialstrategyoninternationalscientificandtechnologicalcooperationandtakeamoreopenattitudetowardspromotingglobalcoordinationonscientificinnovations,ationnetwork,jointlypushforbreakthroughsinsuchareasasfundamentalscienceresearchandtheapplicationofsci,themedTechnologyEmpowerstheFuture,InnovationLeadsDevelopment,wasattendedbo,assistantdirectorgeneraloftheWorldIntellectualPropertyOrganization,saidinavideospeechthatChinaisnowaleadingcountryinglobalinnovationandWIPaladdressthatChinasprogressinscienceandtechnologyaswellasitseconomicgrowthhavemghitsscientificdevelopment.

NFT(non-fungibletoken)i,musicians,collectorsandinvestors,withthesalesofNFTsresultinginabillion-dollarsizedmarket;yetthelawsandregulationsaroundthisspecificassetclassarefailingtokeepupwiththefastpaceofdevelopmentandfallshortinaddressingmanykeylegalissuesandcontroversiessurroundingNFTsintraditionallegalareas,,similartomarketselsewhere,,asidefromtheregulationsandrestrictionsfromafinancialperspective,untilnow,neithertheChineseauthoritiesnortheChinesecourtshadeverformallyrespondedtoanyotherkeylegalissuespertainingtoNFTs,InternetCourtonacopyrightinfringementcaserelatingtoanNFT,,thecourtshareditsviewsonseveralcopyrightissuesinrelationtoNFTs,:pertyoftheunderlyingartwork(unlessthesalesagreementprovidesotherwise).ThesaleofanunauthorizedNFTdoesnotinfringeuponthecopyrightowner¡¯srightofdistributionintheunderlyingworkwhichislimitedbythefirst-saledoctrine,butinstead,infringesupontherightofcommunicationbyinformationnetworks(whichisahighlycontroversialissueinrelationtocopyrightinfringementofanNFT).ThelegitimatecreatorofanNFTshouldnotbethepersonwhosimplypossessesacopyoftheunderlyingwork,butthepersonwhoownsthecopyrightin,orobtainsaduelicensefor,,thevettingobligationsofanNFTplatformshouldberelativelyhigher,because:TheNFTbusiness,,theunderlyingtechnologyofNFTswasbuilttocreateatrustworthyecosystemforallpartiestoatransaction,henceitiscriticallyimportantforanNFTplatformtoensuretherearenoobviousflawsinthecopyrightownershipoftheunderlyingworkofanNFT(whichistheverybasisandstartofallsubsequenttransactionsoftheNFT);otherwise,theentireNFTtransactionchainwouldbecomeveryunstableandallrelatedparties¡¯(profits)directlyfromsalesofNFTsonitsplatform,mechanismandusereasonableeffortstoverifythecopyrightownershipofeachunderlyingwork,(suchasmanuscripts,originalwork,publicpublications,copyrightregistrationcertificate,certificateissuedbycertificationagency,etc.)toprovecopyrightownership,andtoprovideguaranteesifnecessary,,thecourtacceptsthefactthatNFTscannotbedeletedduetotheirspecialtechnicalfeatures,butstipulatesthatplatformscansendinfringingNFTstoaneateraddress(wheretheNFTisburnedandremovedfromcirculation),dthelegalnatureofanNFT,aswellastheobligationsofanNFTplatform,,asthecourtisonlyadistrict-levelcourt,itremainsunclearastowhetheritsrulingwillbewidelyfollow,astheauthoritieshavenotyetenactedanyformalNFTlawsorregulations,thecourt¡¯sinsightsinthejudgmentaremeaningful,andNFTplayersinChinashouldwithoutdoubtcarefullyconsidertheimplicationsoftheruling.

Ϊ¹æ·¶¹ÜÀí£¬±ÜÃâ·¿Ô´ÐÅÏ¢²»¼°Ê±£¬ËùÓз¢ÌûÒ»Öܺó¾ùµ÷Õû״̬Ϊ(ÒÑ×â)(ÒÑÊÛ)£¬Çë֪Ϥ¡¾¶þÊÖ·¿¡¿ÊǹàÄϰÙÐÕÍø£¨¹àÄÏÂÛ̳£©·¢²¼³öÊÛ·¿ÎÝ¡¢ÉÌÆÌ¡¢×ÉѯÌÖÂÛµÄÏà¹ØÐÅÏ¢µÄר°æ¡£

»áÒé½áÊøÒѾ­ÊÇÏÂÎç3µã¶à£¬µÈ³µµÄʱºò£¬Ò»Î»Ö¾Ô¸Õß´óÊåÖ÷¶¯ÒªÇóËÍÎÒÃÇ£¬Ò»Â·ÉÏ˾»úʦ¸µËµ¸ÐлÎÒÃÇÀ´³ÛÔ®ËûÃÇ£¬ÎÊÎÒÃÇÉú»îÉÏÓÐʲôÐèÒªµÄ£¬ËûÃǼҶ¼ÓУ¬¶¼ÊÇÐµģ¬¿ÉÒÔË͸øÎÒÃÇ¡£

ChinawillcontinuetostrengthentheprotectionofintellectualpropertyrightsandprovideafavorableenvironmentforglobalinnovatorsandentrepreneurstoensurethatscientificandtechnologicalachievementscanbetterbenefitChinaandtheworldatlarge,enceandTechnologyInnovationCooperationConferenceheldinBeijing,sayingthatChinastandsreadytoworkwiththerestoftheworldtobuildanopen,fair,justandnondllastheslowdowninglobaleconomicgrowth,itismorenecessarythaneverforallcountriestostrengtheninclusivecooperationinscienceandtechnologyandmakeinnovationssoastojointlydealwithglobalchallenges,sbenefitedfrominclusivecooperation,andglobalprogressinscienceandtechnologyalsoneedsChina,notingthatChinahasalreadyestablisheds,Chinawillimplementamoreinclusiveandmutuallybeneficialstrategyoninternationalscientificandtechnologicalcooperationandtakeamoreopenattitudetowardspromotingglobalcoordinationonscientificinnovations,ationnetwork,jointlypushforbreakthroughsinsuchareasasfundamentalscienceresearchandtheapplicationofsci,themedTechnologyEmpowerstheFuture,InnovationLeadsDevelopment,wasattendedbo,assistantdirectorgeneraloftheWorldIntellectualPropertyOrganization,saidinavideospeechthatChinaisnowaleadingcountryinglobalinnovationandWIPaladdressthatChinasprogressinscienceandtechnologyaswellasitseconomicgrowthhavemghitsscientificdevelopment.

Lastweek,theItalianSocietyofAuthorsandEditors(SIAE)saiditpartnered,forexample,asimilarprojectincollaborationwiththeLaSapienzaUniversityofRomeandthestartupBlockchainCore,,SIAEisworkingwithAlgorandtoleveragethelatter¡¯bysomeone,andtheplatformwillkeeptrackoftheroyaltiestheywouldreceive.¡°Theworldisevolving,butthefoundingmissionoftheItalianSocietyofAuthorsandPublishers,theprotectionofcreativity,doesnotchange,¡±saidSIAEGeneralManagerGaetanoBlandini.¡°OurcollaborationwithAlgorandispartofaprocessalreadystartedandisalignedwithresearchandinnovationonanationalandglobalscale.¡±CommentingonthepartnershipwithSIAE,SilvioMicali,thefounderofAlgorand,said,¡°Collaborationbetweentechnologyprovidersandforward-thinkingorganizationssuchasSIAEopensupvastopportunitiesforprogressiontowardsneweconomicmodelsthatpromoteinclusivity,transparency,andfrictionlesstransactions.¡±Blockchainisbeingseenastheperfectmat,ab,,potentially,eachpieceofcopyrightedworkcanbeassigneduniqueidentifiers,androyaltypaymentscouldbedirectlysenttotheowner¡¯,,,Ba,HTCandafewotherfirmshaveinvestedinTaiwan-basedpropertyrightsstartupBitmarkInc,,SouthKorea¡¯sCJOliveNetworks,theITdivisionofCJGroup,launchedablockchaindigitalcopyrightssystemwhichfocusesonmusicalworks.

Therepresentativeclaimwasineligiblebecauseitdescribed¡®basicstepsofusingandmarketingadual-accesslockforluggageinspection,along-standingfundamentaleconomicpracticeandmethodoforganizinghumanactivity.¡¯¡±Dual-AccessLockSource:,021,537OnFebruary14,(CAFC)affirmedtheEasternDistrictofNewYork¡¯sgrantofsummaryjudgmentthatinventorDavidTropp¡¯spa¡ì,,021,537(the¡¯537patent)and7,036,728(¡®728patent).Representativeclaim1ofthe¡¯537patentrelatestoamethodofmakingavailableadual-accstillallowingluggagescreenerstoaccessluggage(withamarkedlock)theld,andtheCAFCagreed,thattherepresentativeclaimwasineligiblebecauseitdescribed¡°basicstepsofusingandmarketingadual-accesslockforluggageinspection,along-standingfundamentaleconomicpracticeandmethodoforganizinghumanactivity.¡±Specifically,thedistrictcourtheld¡°theclaimtobedirectedtoanabstractidea,notingthatourprecedentsconsistentlyrecognizetheabstractcharacterofsuchpracticesandmethods.¡±Further,theCAFCagreedwiththedistrictcourtthatTroppfailedtoidentifyan¡°inventiveconcept¡±,particularlytheclaim¡¯sreferencetoa¡°special¡±,intheclaimsorspecification,¡°technicalspecificationorconcreteimprovements.¡±Nordidheidentifyphysicalchangesmadetothelocktomakethelock¡°special.¡±Theabsenceofthisinformationonlyfurthersupportedthedistrictcourt¡¯sfindingofthe¡°genericnature¡±ofthe¡°special¡±,thedistrictcourtnotedthatdual-accesslockswere¡°familiarandusedinluggagescreening,withbagsidentifiedbyatagtoenablesuchuse.¡±Asaresult,thedistrictcourtheldthat¡°theclaimfail[ed]topassthemusterunderbothstepsoftheeligibilityinquiry.¡±ArgumentNotPreservedOnappeal,Tropparguedthattherepresentativeclaimisdirectedto¡°thecreationofnovelphysicallockswithauniformmasterkey(thatworkswithavarietyoflocksthathavedifferentlockingmechanisms).¡±TheCAFCnotedthatTropp¡¯sargumentraisedtwosubstantialquestionsbearingoneligibilityunderSection101:(1)didtheclaimrequireadual-accesslockinwhichthekeyforthemaster-keylockportionisthesamefordifferentcombination-lockmechanisms;andifso,(2)couldtheclaimpassmusterunderSection101intheabsenceofanythinginthespecification,oreveninthesummaryjudgmentrecord,thatprovidesdetailsregardingthephysicalmakeup,mechanism,oroperationofsuchalockindicatingaconcretetechnicaladvanceoverearlierdual-accesslocksHowever,theCAFCrefusedtoaddressthesequestionsbecause¡°Tropp[had]notpreservedthisargumentforeligibility.¡±InhisoppositiontotheSection101summaryjudgmentmotion,Troppdescribedthe¡°special¡±lockas¡°havingacombinationlockportionandamasterkeylockportion¡±andthe¡°identificationstructure¡±astheclaimedimproved¡°physicalcomponents.¡±ButtheCAFCnotedTroppfailedinhisoppositiontoarguethat¡°theinventiveconceptintheclaimswas,orincluded,thecreationofanewdual-accesslockwithamasterkeycapableofopeningdual-accesslockswhosecombination-lockmechanismsdifferedfromoneanother.¡±TheCAFCfoundTropp¡¯sargumentfortheSection101significanceofthelock-mechanismimprovementheclaimedonappealtobe¡°materiallydifferent¡±,theCAFC¡°declinedtoupsetthedistrictcourt¡¯sjudgmentbasedonanargumentlikethismadeforthefirsttimeonappeal.¡±

Yesterday,theUnitedStates,LLC,inedaviabledefensetopatentinfringementactionswhenthechargeofp,theSupremeCourtfoundthatthedefenseoflachesisinappropriateforclaimsbroughtwithinthestatuteoflimitations,thesamerulingreachedonlyseveralyea,Inc.,___(2014).,whowasjoinedbytheChiefJustice,aswellasJusticesKennedy,Thomas,Ginsburg,Sotomayor,,tyallowedforalachesdefensetopatentinfringementactions,explainingthatinveryoldcasesin,,inaratherexasperatedway,thattheFederalCircuitseemedtoignorepreviousSupremeCourtpronouncementsthatlachescouldnotbeusedasadefensetoaclaimbroughtduringthestatuteoflimitationsperiodbecaus,thistimebycitingtoJudgeHughesenbancdissent,whichexplainedthatpatentsandpatentcasesarenotspecial,oflimitationsforpatentinfringementactionsnotbeingatruestatuteoflimitationsbecauseitcountsbackwardsfromth,withoutalachesdefensepossible,apatentownercouldlieinwaitforinfringementtobecomewidespreadandthen,thefactthatlachescannotbeusedasadefensetoapatentinfringementactionbroughtd,,inthewakeoftheSupremeCourtsdecisioninSCAHygiene,,allowinfringementtoaccrueandthensuefor,patentscanlastfor20years,thestatuteoflimitationsissix-years,andwithoutalachesdefenseavailabletoinfringersyouwils,,inthemajorityopinionJusticeAlitowrote:[A]pplyinglacheswithinalimitationsperiodspecifiedbyCongresswouldgivejudgesalegislation-overridingrolethatisbeyondtheJudiciaryspower.(Slipop.,at4)TheSupremeCourtneverseemstobebotheredwithlegislation-overridingwh,,process,manufactureorcompositionofmatter,,oranysupportintheConstitution,theSupremeCourthasaddedtwoadditionalinquiriesthroughwhattheyrefertoastheAlice/derstandtheroleoftheJudiciaryandatothertimescompletelyignoreseparationofpowers,,inhisdissentJusticeBreyerwrote:Iwouldbemorecautiousbeforeadopting,,739(2002).(Breyerdissent,at11)SettledexpectationsmeantabsolutelynothingtoJusticeBreyer,oranyoftheotherJusticesoftheSupremeCourt,,thereissimplynowaytointerpretMyriadinanyotherwaythanoverrulingthesettatterdidnotexistinnatureitwasstill,nevertheless,,,theSupremeCourtflatoutignoredtheentirestat,atleasttotheextentthatinDiehrthenAssociateJustic,inMayotheSupremeCourtintentionallyconflatednoveltyandobviousnesswithpatenteligibility,requiringthatdecisionmakersconsiderwhetherconventionalitemsareaddedtoclaimsandproclaimingthattheadditionofconventional,,,,whethersomethingisconventionalisnowaskedabsenttheapplicationofpriorart,:,thosetwoquotesf,theSupr

TheshapeofaLondonblackhacktaxiisnotdistinctiveenoughtobeeligiblefortrademarkprotection,otrademarksheldbyTheLondonTaxiCorporation(LTC)lywereitstrademarksvalidbutthatFrazer-NashResearchandEcotivehadinfringeditsrightsinthosemarksaxisLTCmanufactureddidnothaveinherentdistinctivecharacter,hattheywereinherentlydistinctive,suchasthesizeandslopingofthewindscreen,theshapeofthebonnet,thepositioningofthetaxilight,,thejudgesruledthatthosefeaturerademarksthatLTCwereassertingtodete,however,thattheHighCourtwasrighttodeterminethattherewasnotenoughevidencetoshowthattaxihirershadcometoperceivetheshapeoftresentedgraphicallycanqualifyfortrademarkprotectioniftheyarecapableofdistinguishingonecompany,wheremarksarenotinherentlydistinctive,theycanneverthelessberegisteredastrademarksifitcanbeshownthatthemarkhasacquiredadistinctivecharacterinarksandbrandstomerittrademarkprotectioninvolvesevaluatingwhattheaverageconsumerofatypeofproductperceiveswhentheyseeamark,,,saidthefactthattheCoucceptedthattheaverageconsumerforthepurposesofthelegaltesttodeterminewhetherthetrademarkwasvalidincludedpeoplewhohiredtaxis,uchpeoplewereaverageconsumersofataxi;whileitistruethatsuc,rightsholdersshouldconsiderallpotentialconsumerswhointeractwiththetrademarkedgoodswhentryingtoassesstheappropriateaverageconsumer.

Yesterday,theUnitedStates,LLC,inedaviabledefensetopatentinfringementactionswhenthechargeofp,theSupremeCourtfoundthatthedefenseoflachesisinappropriateforclaimsbroughtwithinthestatuteoflimitations,thesamerulingreachedonlyseveralyea,Inc.,___(2014).,whowasjoinedbytheChiefJustice,aswellasJusticesKennedy,Thomas,Ginsburg,Sotomayor,,tyallowedforalachesdefensetopatentinfringementactions,explainingthatinveryoldcasesin,,inaratherexasperatedway,thattheFederalCircuitseemedtoignorepreviousSupremeCourtpronouncementsthatlachescouldnotbeusedasadefensetoaclaimbroughtduringthestatuteoflimitationsperiodbecaus,thistimebycitingtoJudgeHughesenbancdissent,whichexplainedthatpatentsandpatentcasesarenotspecial,oflimitationsforpatentinfringementactionsnotbeingatruestatuteoflimitationsbecauseitcountsbackwardsfromth,withoutalachesdefensepossible,apatentownercouldlieinwaitforinfringementtobecomewidespreadandthen,thefactthatlachescannotbeusedasadefensetoapatentinfringementactionbroughtd,,inthewakeoftheSupremeCourtsdecisioninSCAHygiene,,allowinfringementtoaccrueandthensuefor,patentscanlastfor20years,thestatuteoflimitationsissix-years,andwithoutalachesdefenseavailabletoinfringersyouwils,,inthemajorityopinionJusticeAlitowrote:[A]pplyinglacheswithinalimitationsperiodspecifiedbyCongresswouldgivejudgesalegislation-overridingrolethatisbeyondtheJudiciaryspower.(Slipop.,at4)TheSupremeCourtneverseemstobebotheredwithlegislation-overridingwh,,process,manufactureorcompositionofmatter,,oranysupportintheConstitution,theSupremeCourthasaddedtwoadditionalinquiriesthroughwhattheyrefertoastheAlice/derstandtheroleoftheJudiciaryandatothertimescompletelyignoreseparationofpowers,,inhisdissentJusticeBreyerwrote:Iwouldbemorecautiousbeforeadopting,,739(2002).(Breyerdissent,at11)SettledexpectationsmeantabsolutelynothingtoJusticeBreyer,oranyoftheotherJusticesoftheSupremeCourt,,thereissimplynowaytointerpretMyriadinanyotherwaythanoverrulingthesettatterdidnotexistinnatureitwasstill,nevertheless,,,theSupremeCourtflatoutignoredtheentirestat,atleasttotheextentthatinDiehrthenAssociateJustic,inMayotheSupremeCourtintentionallyconflatednoveltyandobviousnesswithpatenteligibility,requiringthatdecisionmakersconsiderwhetherconventionalitemsareaddedtoclaimsandproclaimingthattheadditionofconventional,,,,whethersomethingisconventionalisnowaskedabsenttheapplicationofpriorart,:,thosetwoquotesf,theSupr

Ñ×ÈȵÄÏļ¾£¬ÎÒÃÇÓ­À´ÁË×îºÃµÄÏà¾Û¡£

ASouthAfricanjudgmentdealin,,however,(Pty)(the¡°organiser¡±)inthiscaseorganisesacharitableeventthattakestheformofasleep-out¨Cbusinessleadersareaskedfordonationsandthey¡¯rerequestedtosleepoutdoorsonawinter¡¯st(the¡°charity¡±).Intheprocessoforganisingthefirstsleep-out,theorganiserestablishedanelectronicdatabase,whichcameaboutbecauseeverydonorhadtoregisterontheorganiser¡¯¡¯tforeseenwasthatcertaincompanieswouldwanttopaybyelectronicfundstransfer(¡°EFT¡±).Toaccommodatethesecompanies,,,infact,createdbyanemployeeofthecharity,andthisemployeewasalsoresponsibleforinputtingthedonors¡¯rdidn¡¯ved,theorganiserandthecharityagreedthatalldonationswouldbepaiddirectlyintothebankaccountofthecharity,whichhadthenece,thecharitymadeuseoftheelectronicdatabase,,theorganiserarrangedfurthersleep-outs,butontheseoccasions,,thecharitystart,,erSouthAfricancopyrightlawasa¡°literarywork¡±.Thissomewhatmisleadingtermisdefinedtoinclude¡±tablesandcompilationsofdatastoredorembodiedinacomputer¡±.Thejudgewentontosaythatinordertoenjoycopyrightprotection,aliteraryworkmustbe¡°original¡±.(Pty)LtdvSaundersValveCompanyLtd,thecourtsaidthatforthepurposesofcopyright,¡°allthatisrequiredisthattheworkshouldemanatefromtheauthorhimselfandnotbecopied.¡±InHauptt/aSoftcopyvBrewersMarketingIntelligence(Pty)LtdandOthers,thecourtheldthataworkisoriginalifithasnotbeencopiedfromanexistingsource,andifitsproductionrequiredasubstantialdegreeofskill,,1978,theauthoroftheliteraryworkistheownerofthecopyrightunlessthecopyrighthasbeenassignedand,ifgeneratedbyacomputer,theauthoristhepe,,thecontributionofthecharity¡¯semployeedidnotmeettheoriginalitytest,astheformthatitsemployeehadcreatedforEFTpayerswassubstantial¡°nosubstantialdegreeofskill,judgementorlabour¡±.Thejudgewentontomakeanumberoffurtherpoints:theformforEFTpaymentswas¡°ancillary¡±tothedatabase:¡°butforitsincorporationonthewebsitetherespondentwouldnothavehadthemeanstocollectthedataitclaimstohavecollectedinthemanneritcollectedit...forthatreasonitwouldbeabsurdtoseparatethemanualformfromthewebsite.¡±eveniftheemployeehadinnovatedtheideaofEFTpayments,thisdidnotelevatethecharity¡°tothestatusofapersonwhomadearrangementsnecessaryforthecreationofthewebsite¡±.Thecharityneeded¡°theconcurrenceoftheapplicant¡±,andwithoutthisit¡°wouldnothavebeenabletocollectthedataitclaimstoown¡±.thepurposeoftheEFTinnovationwassimplytomakeitpossiblefordonorstopaybyEFTandgettaxexemptioncertificates,,soitsclaimtobeingapartnerwas¡°absurd¡±.Thejudgeconcludedthatgivingthecharitythestatusofanauthorofthedatabaseonthebasisofdatamanuallyaddedtothedatabasethatisautomaticallygeneratedfromthewebsitewouldbean¡°overbroadinterpretation¡±.Theorganiserwast(injunction).Ifthere¡¯salessontobelearnedfromthiscase,it¡¯sthis:copyrightissuesneedtobeconsideredandclarifiedrightfromthestart.

QingYuNian,apopularChinesecostumedramaadaptedfromtheChinesewebnovelofthesamename,hasbeenaccusedbyChinesenetizensofplagiarizingcontentfromthefantasynovelseriesTheTwelveKingdoms(1992)ofdialoguefromQingYuNianthat,tonotbediscouragedevenwhenencounteringdisaster,tocorrectinjusticewithoutfear,donotyieldandflatterthemonstersintheJapanesenovelisbeingcomparedtoQingYuNianstobeunyieldingwhenabusedbyothers,tonottobefrustratedwhendisastersoccur,ifanythingisunfair,befearlessincorrectingit,,themeaningandstructureofbothareverysimilar,,itdefinitelyborrowedsomeideasfromTheTwelveKingdoms,buttocallitplagiarism,Idoubtit,,eventheirlogicandstructurearethesameandyousayitsnotplagiarismpostedanothernetizenwhoconfrontedQi,butifthetakenbithasbeenwashedthoroughly,andhasnodramaticsimilarities,andthebithappenstobelessimportantandhaslessfunctionwhenevaluatingitintheentirework,then,itisnoteasytodefineitasplagiarism,said,alawyerspecializingincopyrightlaw,,theconceptofanovel,filmandTVscript;,,thelawprotectsexpression,,sometimescanbeconfusinganddependsontheparticularcase,,QingYuNianisawell-ratedalternativehistorynovelthatte,theworkwasadaptedintoa46-episodeTVdramastarringfamousactorssuchasZhangRuoyun,ChenDaomingandXiaoZhan,acontr,theIPhasbee,iftheplagiarismscandalgainsground,willtherebeasecondseasonPleasedontcancelit,IliketheTVdramaalot,Tanni,afanoftheshowinBeijing,,theofficialproductionteamfortheshowannouncedthatasecondseasonisindevelopmentandwilllikelyairin2022.

TheSupremeCourtwillhearanongoingcopyrightcasebetweenSwedishfastfashiongiantHMandpattern-makingcompanyUnicolors,ent,aswellasthefindingsofothercircuitsandtheCopyrightOfficeinholdingthattheCopyrightActrequiresadistrictcourttoseekguidancefromtheCopyrightOfficewhentherearequestionsaboutthevalidityofacopyrightregistrationbutnoevid,accusingthefastfashionbehemothofinfringingoneofitsgeometricpatterns¨Cbywayofa¡°remarkablysimilar¡±print¨C,inwhichajuryfoundthatHMhadwillfullyinfringedUnicolors¡¯scopyright-protectedpattern,andawardedthepatterncompany$846,720indamages,attorney¡¯sfees,andcosts,¡¯sappealwasitsclaimthatUnicolorslacksavalidcopyrightregistrationforthefabricpatternatthecenterofthecasebecauseUnicolorshadimpher,makingthemanappropriate¡°singleunit¡±foronecollectivecopyrightapplicationandregistration,HMclaimedthatUnicolorsactuallysoldsomeofthepatternsseparatelytodifferentcustomers¨Catdifferenttimes,thereby,makingthecompany¡¯,2020,theNinthCircuitreversedthejuryverdictandsidedwithHMonthebasisthatthereisnointent-to-defraudrequirementforreg¡ì411(b)(2)¨CwhichrequiresdistrictcourtstoasktheRegisterofCopyrightswhetherregistrationwouldhavebeenrefusediftheCopyrightOfficehadknowntheinformationwasinaccurate¨CwhenitdidnotreferthemattertotheCopyrightOfficeafterHMallegedthattheregistrationcontainsinac,andUnicolorsfiledapetitionforawritofcertiorari,¡¯spetition,theNinthCircuitgotthecasewrong,asthejudges¡¯rulingconcerningthetimelineofthepublicationoftheworkscoveredbythesingle-unitcopyrightregistrationwas¡°flawedbecausetherewasnoevidencesupporting[their]conclusionthatthedesignswereseparatelypublishedbeforecertaindesignswerecategorizedasconfinedinUnicolors¡¯registrationcertificate.¡±Withthatinmind,Unicolorsclaimedthattherewas¡°insufficientevidencetodeduceany¡ì411(b).¡±¡°Thepanel¡¯¡ì411(b)wasalsoflawed,¡±accordingtoUnicolorsbecause¡°manycourts,legislativeandadministrativeauthorities,andtheleadingcopyrighttreatisehaveuniformlyinterpretedthePrioritizingResourcesandOrganizationforIntellectualPropertyActof2008¡­tocodifythedoctrineoffraudontheCopyrightOfficeandthus,toallowinvalidationundersection411(b)onlywhentheregistrantisshowntohaveactedinbadfaithorintendedtodefraudtheCopyrightOffice.¡±LookingaheadtotheSupremeCourt¡¯sconsiderationofthecase,ractitionersthatthesection411(b)issueis¡°ripeforreview,¡±particularlygiventhatdisputesaboutcopyrightregistrationerrors¨Cwhichcanstemfrom¡°anumberoffactors,includingunclearguidanceaboutregistrationrules,asimplemisunderstandingofwhattheapplicationrequiresand,mostrelevanttotheissueathand,purposefulorknowinginaccuracies¡±¨Care¡°commoninlitigation.¡±MeanwhileFinneganattorneysSamuelEichnerandMargaretEsquenethavenotedthatingrantingcertiorari,theSupremeCourtmaybelookingto¡°resolveanapparentcircuitsplitontheissueofwhetherthereisanintent-to-defraudrequirementbeforeareferralismadetotheCopyrightOfficeunderSection411(b).¡±Atthesametime,theCourtmayalsobeaiming¡°toclarifythestrengthofacopyrightregistration¡¯spresumptivevalidityand/ortheextenttowhichtheCopyrightActrequirescourtstodefertoCopyrightOfficedeterminationsundersection411(b)(2)astowhetherinaccuracies,ifknown,wouldhavecausedtheCopyrightOfficetorefuseregistration.¡±Ultimately,EichnerandEsquenetassertthatbecauseintenttodefraudisgenerallydifficulttoprove,¡°theSupremeCourt¡¯sdecisionshouldhaveasignificantimpactonthestrengthofcopyrightregistrations¡±¨Cwhicharenowprerequisitestofilingcopyrightinfringementactions¨C¡°andtheirsusceptibilitytovalidityattacksbasedonperceivedinaccuraciesinregistrations.¡±Assuch,thedecisionhasthepotentialtoimpactcopyrightapplicationpractices.

ASouthAfricanjudgmentdealin,,however,(Pty)(the¡°organiser¡±)inthiscaseorganisesacharitableeventthattakestheformofasleep-out¨Cbusinessleadersareaskedfordonationsandthey¡¯rerequestedtosleepoutdoorsonawinter¡¯st(the¡°charity¡±).Intheprocessoforganisingthefirstsleep-out,theorganiserestablishedanelectronicdatabase,whichcameaboutbecauseeverydonorhadtoregisterontheorganiser¡¯¡¯tforeseenwasthatcertaincompanieswouldwanttopaybyelectronicfundstransfer(¡°EFT¡±).Toaccommodatethesecompanies,,,infact,createdbyanemployeeofthecharity,andthisemployeewasalsoresponsibleforinputtingthedonors¡¯rdidn¡¯ved,theorganiserandthecharityagreedthatalldonationswouldbepaiddirectlyintothebankaccountofthecharity,whichhadthenece,thecharitymadeuseoftheelectronicdatabase,,theorganiserarrangedfurthersleep-outs,butontheseoccasions,,thecharitystart,,erSouthAfricancopyrightlawasa¡°literarywork¡±.Thissomewhatmisleadingtermisdefinedtoinclude¡±tablesandcompilationsofdatastoredorembodiedinacomputer¡±.Thejudgewentontosaythatinordertoenjoycopyrightprotection,aliteraryworkmustbe¡°original¡±.(Pty)LtdvSaundersValveCompanyLtd,thecourtsaidthatforthepurposesofcopyright,¡°allthatisrequiredisthattheworkshouldemanatefromtheauthorhimselfandnotbecopied.¡±InHauptt/aSoftcopyvBrewersMarketingIntelligence(Pty)LtdandOthers,thecourtheldthataworkisoriginalifithasnotbeencopiedfromanexistingsource,andifitsproductionrequiredasubstantialdegreeofskill,,1978,theauthoroftheliteraryworkistheownerofthecopyrightunlessthecopyrighthasbeenassignedand,ifgeneratedbyacomputer,theauthoristhepe,,thecontributionofthecharity¡¯semployeedidnotmeettheoriginalitytest,astheformthatitsemployeehadcreatedforEFTpayerswassubstantial¡°nosubstantialdegreeofskill,judgementorlabour¡±.Thejudgewentontomakeanumberoffurtherpoints:theformforEFTpaymentswas¡°ancillary¡±tothedatabase:¡°butforitsincorporationonthewebsitetherespondentwouldnothavehadthemeanstocollectthedataitclaimstohavecollectedinthemanneritcollectedit...forthatreasonitwouldbeabsurdtoseparatethemanualformfromthewebsite.¡±eveniftheemployeehadinnovatedtheideaofEFTpayments,thisdidnotelevatethecharity¡°tothestatusofapersonwhomadearrangementsnecessaryforthecreationofthewebsite¡±.Thecharityneeded¡°theconcurrenceoftheapplicant¡±,andwithoutthisit¡°wouldnothavebeenabletocollectthedataitclaimstoown¡±.thepurposeoftheEFTinnovationwassimplytomakeitpossiblefordonorstopaybyEFTandgettaxexemptioncertificates,,soitsclaimtobeingapartnerwas¡°absurd¡±.Thejudgeconcludedthatgivingthecharitythestatusofanauthorofthedatabaseonthebasisofdatamanuallyaddedtothedatabasethatisautomaticallygeneratedfromthewebsitewouldbean¡°overbroadinterpretation¡±.Theorganiserwast(injunction).Ifthere¡¯salessontobelearnedfromthiscase,it¡¯sthis:copyrightissuesneedtobeconsideredandclarifiedrightfromthestart.

OnJuly11,theDelhiHCrestrainedaBengaluru-basedcakeryfromusingthenameFacebakeorFacecake,oranyotherFacebook-relatedtrademarkforitsproductsandservicesThecourtintheSnapdealcasealsodirectedDomainNameRegistrarstocreateamechanismforbrandstoseekcancellationortransferofdomainnamesthatinfringetrademarkIndiascurrentlawsthatgoverntrademarkinfringementsincludetheTrademarkAct,1999,whichwasdevelopedtocomplywiththeTRIPSagreementoftheWTOTru-basedcakeryfromusingthenameFacebakeorFacecake,,JusticeNavinChawla,whowashearingthecase,orderedthebakerytodeliverallfinishedandunfinishedproductsbearingthetrademarksimilartoMeta,theparentcompanyofFacebook,,theCourtalsoawardedINR50,,£¨DNRs£©oughttocreateamechanismviawhichtrademarkownerscouldapproachtheDNRsandsec,whileDNRsarecompaniesthatallowuserstoregisterthem,suchasGoDaddy,Namecheap,oumthathasseeninfringementcasesfiledleft,,manybrandswithnomanufacturingaddressespopulatethestreetsandcorners,,itisdifficulttotrackthesedubiousoperatorsinmostcases.

TheSupremeCourtwillhearanongoingcopyrightcasebetweenSwedishfastfashiongiantHMandpattern-makingcompanyUnicolors,ent,aswellasthefindingsofothercircuitsandtheCopyrightOfficeinholdingthattheCopyrightActrequiresadistrictcourttoseekguidancefromtheCopyrightOfficewhentherearequestionsaboutthevalidityofacopyrightregistrationbutnoevid,accusingthefastfashionbehemothofinfringingoneofitsgeometricpatterns¨Cbywayofa¡°remarkablysimilar¡±print¨C,inwhichajuryfoundthatHMhadwillfullyinfringedUnicolors¡¯scopyright-protectedpattern,andawardedthepatterncompany$846,720indamages,attorney¡¯sfees,andcosts,¡¯sappealwasitsclaimthatUnicolorslacksavalidcopyrightregistrationforthefabricpatternatthecenterofthecasebecauseUnicolorshadimpher,makingthemanappropriate¡°singleunit¡±foronecollectivecopyrightapplicationandregistration,HMclaimedthatUnicolorsactuallysoldsomeofthepatternsseparatelytodifferentcustomers¨Catdifferenttimes,thereby,makingthecompany¡¯,2020,theNinthCircuitreversedthejuryverdictandsidedwithHMonthebasisthatthereisnointent-to-defraudrequirementforreg¡ì411(b)(2)¨CwhichrequiresdistrictcourtstoasktheRegisterofCopyrightswhetherregistrationwouldhavebeenrefusediftheCopyrightOfficehadknowntheinformationwasinaccurate¨CwhenitdidnotreferthemattertotheCopyrightOfficeafterHMallegedthattheregistrationcontainsinac,andUnicolorsfiledapetitionforawritofcertiorari,¡¯spetition,theNinthCircuitgotthecasewrong,asthejudges¡¯rulingconcerningthetimelineofthepublicationoftheworkscoveredbythesingle-unitcopyrightregistrationwas¡°flawedbecausetherewasnoevidencesupporting[their]conclusionthatthedesignswereseparatelypublishedbeforecertaindesignswerecategorizedasconfinedinUnicolors¡¯registrationcertificate.¡±Withthatinmind,Unicolorsclaimedthattherewas¡°insufficientevidencetodeduceany¡ì411(b).¡±¡°Thepanel¡¯¡ì411(b)wasalsoflawed,¡±accordingtoUnicolorsbecause¡°manycourts,legislativeandadministrativeauthorities,andtheleadingcopyrighttreatisehaveuniformlyinterpretedthePrioritizingResourcesandOrganizationforIntellectualPropertyActof2008¡­tocodifythedoctrineoffraudontheCopyrightOfficeandthus,toallowinvalidationundersection411(b)onlywhentheregistrantisshowntohaveactedinbadfaithorintendedtodefraudtheCopyrightOffice.¡±LookingaheadtotheSupremeCourt¡¯sconsiderationofthecase,ractitionersthatthesection411(b)issueis¡°ripeforreview,¡±particularlygiventhatdisputesaboutcopyrightregistrationerrors¨Cwhichcanstemfrom¡°anumberoffactors,includingunclearguidanceaboutregistrationrules,asimplemisunderstandingofwhattheapplicationrequiresand,mostrelevanttotheissueathand,purposefulorknowinginaccuracies¡±¨Care¡°commoninlitigation.¡±MeanwhileFinneganattorneysSamuelEichnerandMargaretEsquenethavenotedthatingrantingcertiorari,theSupremeCourtmaybelookingto¡°resolveanapparentcircuitsplitontheissueofwhetherthereisanintent-to-defraudrequirementbeforeareferralismadetotheCopyrightOfficeunderSection411(b).¡±Atthesametime,theCourtmayalsobeaiming¡°toclarifythestrengthofacopyrightregistration¡¯spresumptivevalidityand/ortheextenttowhichtheCopyrightActrequirescourtstodefertoCopyrightOfficedeterminationsundersection411(b)(2)astowhetherinaccuracies,ifknown,wouldhavecausedtheCopyrightOfficetorefuseregistration.¡±Ultimately,EichnerandEsquenetassertthatbecauseintenttodefraudisgenerallydifficulttoprove,¡°theSupremeCourt¡¯sdecisionshouldhaveasignificantimpactonthestrengthofcopyrightregistrations¡±¨Cwhicharenowprerequisitestofilingcopyrightinfringementactions¨C¡°andtheirsusceptibilitytovalidityattacksbasedonperceivedinaccuraciesinregistrations.¡±Assuch,thedecisionhasthepotentialtoimpactcopyrightapplicationpractices.

ËûÃÇÃæ¶ÔÒßÇ飬ӭÄѶøÉÏ£¬Ö÷¶¯×÷Ϊ£¬´øÍ·ÓÃʵ¼ÊÐж¯£¬Îª´òÓ®ÒßÇé·À¿Ø×è»÷Õ½¹±Ï×Á¦Á¿¡£

Clearingtheaironlabyrinthinesubject-mattereligibilitystandardsforcomputer-implementedinventions(CIIs),a,,thecourt,whilesettinganewtest,rejected,forthesecondtime,aproblem-solutionapproachtoclaimconstructionfollowedbytheCanadianIntellectualPropertyOffice(CIPO)entsfindingtwoCanadianPatentApplicantsnumbered2,695,130and2,695,146aspatentineligibleundersections2and27(8)(IPIC),anIPpolicyadvocacyorganization,intervenedintheappealproceedings,affiinesinventiontoincludeanynewandusefulart,process,machine,(8),however,,2000SCC66,theSupremeCourtofCanadaclarifiedthatbeforeassessingsubject-mattereligibility,essentialeleme,whereinonlythoseelementsinclaimsthatwerenecessarytosolveth,,CIPOintroducedaPracticeNote,titledExaminationPracticeRespectingComputer-ImplementedInventions,whichindicatedthatifacomputercomponentisfoundtobeanessentialelement,,iftheessentialelementslackanyphysicality,(AttorneyGeneral),2020FC837,CIPOintroducedanewPracticeNoteinNovember2020,titledPatentableSubject-MatterunderthePatentAct,whichnotedthatinordertobepatent-eligible,thecomputercomponentsmustcooperatewithotherelementsoftheclaimedinvention,andthatactualinventioncations,bothtitledColorSelectionSystem,filedbyBenjaminMooreCo.,icalequationthatmodeledhumanpsychologicalperceptionstocolor,associatingacoloremotionscoretovariouscolorsinadatabase,andselecti,bothpatentapplicationswererejectedbyExaminersforencompassingnon-statutorysubject-matter,,theExaminer,uponpurposivelyconstruingtheclaims,,asnotedbytheExaminer,includedcalculatinghumanpsychophysicalperceptionvaluestocolorelementsbasedonmathematicalmodels,andothe,eviewedbyathree-memberPatentAppealBoard,,theApplicantreliedonFreeWorldTrustinemphasizingthatcomputercomponentscau,theApplicantclaimed,theApplicantconcededthatnoattemptwasmadetosolveac,however,concludedthatidentifyingamathematicalcorrelationbetweencolorsandhumanemotiveresponsestoaidcolorselectionwasnotatechnicalproblemforsubject-matterconsiderations,andcompsionerofPatents1981,FCA204,thatuseofcomputersforconduct,theBoardagreedwiththeExaminerandnotedthattheessentialelements,,theAppellantchallengedtheCommissionersclaimcons,Appellantargued,wouldhavebeenidentifyingclaimelementsthathaveamater,theCommissionerhadincorrectlyconcludedthattheremainingcationssuchasidentifyingadjacencyofcolorpairs,storingthecolorlibrary,,,,thePracticeN,theCommissionersapproachofconsideringonlythenovelelementsintheclaimsasessenti,theofficeoftheAttorneyGeneralofCanada(AGC)incorrectbutsoughttoremittheapplicationsbacktotheCommissi,theRespondentarguedthatjudicialinterventionwouldbeprematureastheCommissionerdidnothavetheopportunitytoconsidertheAppeyhavingtheexpert,theRespondentcontendedthata,implementingascientificprincipleormathematicaltheoremonagen,IPIC,generallyalignedwiththeAppellantspositionandca,CIPOstendencyo,gdetrimentaltoCIIs,ntedworldwide,,notingmaterialeffecnon-essentialandallegi,theIntervenorrequestedthecourttore-cessiontotheproblem-so,includingWhirlpoolCorpvCamcoInc,2000SCC67,FreeWorldTrust,andCanada(AttorneyGeneral),2011FCA328thecourtheldthatnoneofthedecisionssuggestaproblem-solutionapproach,andins,wheretheproblem-solutionapproachwasdiscredited,andaddedthatpracticalapplicationofs,theproblem-solutionapproach,consideringonlynovelaspectsofclaimsinsubject-matteranalysis,andholdingcomputercomponentsasnon-essentialfornotsolvingacomputerproblem,ectmatter,thecourtacceptedtheframeworksuggestedbytheIntervenor,isasfollows:Purposivelyconstruetheclaim;Askwhethertheconstruedclaimasawholeconsistsofonlyamerescientificprincipleorabstracttheorem,orwhetheritcomprisesapracticalapplicationthatemploysascientificprincipleorabstracttheorem;andIftheconstruedclaimcomprisesapracticalapplication,assesstheconstruedclaimfortheremainingpatentabilitycriteria:statutorycategoriesandjudicialexclusions,aswellasnovelty,obviousness,ifyingessentialclaimelements,thecourthasdirectedthatclaimsshouldbeassessed,CIPOsrequirementthatapplicationsinvolvingCIIsmu,CIPOspracticeoflimitingthesubject-matterassessmentonlytonovelele,abrightlinetowardscon

NFT(non-fungibletoken)i,musicians,collectorsandinvestors,withthesalesofNFTsresultinginabillion-dollarsizedmarket;yetthelawsandregulationsaroundthisspecificassetclassarefailingtokeepupwiththefastpaceofdevelopmentandfallshortinaddressingmanykeylegalissuesandcontroversiessurroundingNFTsintraditionallegalareas,,similartomarketselsewhere,,asidefromtheregulationsandrestrictionsfromafinancialperspective,untilnow,neithertheChineseauthoritiesnortheChinesecourtshadeverformallyrespondedtoanyotherkeylegalissuespertainingtoNFTs,InternetCourtonacopyrightinfringementcaserelatingtoanNFT,,thecourtshareditsviewsonseveralcopyrightissuesinrelationtoNFTs,:pertyoftheunderlyingartwork(unlessthesalesagreementprovidesotherwise).ThesaleofanunauthorizedNFTdoesnotinfringeuponthecopyrightowner¡¯srightofdistributionintheunderlyingworkwhichislimitedbythefirst-saledoctrine,butinstead,infringesupontherightofcommunicationbyinformationnetworks(whichisahighlycontroversialissueinrelationtocopyrightinfringementofanNFT).ThelegitimatecreatorofanNFTshouldnotbethepersonwhosimplypossessesacopyoftheunderlyingwork,butthepersonwhoownsthecopyrightin,orobtainsaduelicensefor,,thevettingobligationsofanNFTplatformshouldberelativelyhigher,because:TheNFTbusiness,,theunderlyingtechnologyofNFTswasbuilttocreateatrustworthyecosystemforallpartiestoatransaction,henceitiscriticallyimportantforanNFTplatformtoensuretherearenoobviousflawsinthecopyrightownershipoftheunderlyingworkofanNFT(whichistheverybasisandstartofallsubsequenttransactionsoftheNFT);otherwise,theentireNFTtransactionchainwouldbecomeveryunstableandallrelatedparties¡¯(profits)directlyfromsalesofNFTsonitsplatform,mechanismandusereasonableeffortstoverifythecopyrightownershipofeachunderlyingwork,(suchasmanuscripts,originalwork,publicpublications,copyrightregistrationcertificate,certificateissuedbycertificationagency,etc.)toprovecopyrightownership,andtoprovideguaranteesifnecessary,,thecourtacceptsthefactthatNFTscannotbedeletedduetotheirspecialtechnicalfeatures,butstipulatesthatplatformscansendinfringingNFTstoaneateraddress(wheretheNFTisburnedandremovedfromcirculation),dthelegalnatureofanNFT,aswellastheobligationsofanNFTplatform,,asthecourtisonlyadistrict-levelcourt,itremainsunclearastowhetheritsrulingwillbewidelyfollow,astheauthoritieshavenotyetenactedanyformalNFTlawsorregulations,thecourt¡¯sinsightsinthejudgmentaremeaningful,andNFTplayersinChinashouldwithoutdoubtcarefullyconsidertheimplicationsoftheruling.

June14,2022announcedthat,theUnitedStatesDistrictCourtfortheCentralDistrictofCalifornia(theCourt)issuedanordergr¡¯smaterialbreachesofthepartiesJointDevelopmentandLicenseAgreement,whereonFebruary15,2022,,NetlistsDirectorofIPStrategy,said,WearepleasedthattheCourtrecognizedSamsungsfailuretoadmitrequestsforadmissions,,2022,withatrialbeginningnextyearonMay1,fcustomandspecialtymemoryproductsbringindustry-leadingperformats,inservermemory,hybridmemoryandstorageclassmemory,tocompaniesthatimplementNetlist¡¯,entsndoftenaddressfutureeventsorNetlist¡¯nsregardingfutureeventsandaresubjecttoknownandunknownrisks,uncertaintiesandotherfactorsthatcouldcauseactualresultstodiffermateri,uncertaintiesandotherfactorsinclude,amongothers:risksrelatedtoNetlistsplansforitsintellectualproperty,includingitsstrategiesformonetizing,licensing,expanding,anddefendingitspatentportfolio;risksassociatedwithpatentinfringementlitigationinitiatedbyNetlist,orbyothersagainstNetlist,aswellasthecostsandunpredictabilityofanysuchlitigation;risksassociatedwithNetlistsproductsales,includingthemarketanddemandforproductssoldbyNetlistanditsabilitytosuccessfullydevelopandlaunchnewproductsthatareattractivetothemarket;thesuccessofproduct,jointdevelopmentandlicensingpartnerships;thecompetitivelandscapeofNetlistsindustry;andgeneraleconomic,politicalandmarketconditions,includingquarantines,factoryslowdownsorshutdowns,s,expectationsandbeliefsregardingfutureeventsandaresubjecttoknownandunknownrisks,uncertaintiesandotherfactorsthatcouldcauseactualresultstodiffermateri¡¯sannualreportonForm10-KforitsmostrecentlycompletedfiscalyearfiledonMarch1,2022,,,uncertaintiesandotherfactors,theseforward-¡¯sassumptions,expectationsandbeliefsonlyasofthedatetheyaremade,andexceptasrequiredbylaw,Netlistundertakesnoobligationtoreviseorupdateanyforward-lookingstatementsforanyreason.

WhiletheUSonTuesdayrefusedtojointheinternationalefforttodevelopaCOVID-19vaccine,Chinaispoolingeffortsininternationalcooperationtosecureamicindevelopingcountries,moreUN-backedallianceplacegreathopesonChinatojoinglobalpar(COVAX)andhasbeeninclosecommunicationwiththeWHOandotherinitiatorsoftheplan,daywiththeWHO,VaccineAlliance(GAVI)andtheCoalitionforEpidemicPreparednessInnovations(CEPI)todeliveraconsensustofacilitatetheglobalRDanddistributionofCOVID-19vaccines,,alongsideextensiveongoingvaccineresearchefforts,webelievethereismuchroomforbothChinesepublicandprivateactorstoparticipateinboththeCOVAXFacilityandtheCOVAXAdvanceMarketCommitmentinitiatives,whichwillgoalongwaytowardensuringthattheCOVID-19vaccine,whenready,willbeavailableequitablytoall,th,apublic-privateglobalhealthpartnershiplinkedwiththeWHOandtaskedwithincreasingpoorcountriesaccesstoimmunization,encouragespotentialvaccinedevelopersincludingthoseinChinatosubmitpromisingcandidatesforconsiderationforCOVAXresearchanddevelopment,andmanufacturingfunding,$an170countrieshaveexpressedreadinesstojointheCOVAXFacility,aWorldHealthOrganization(WHO)platformdesignedtoensurerapid,fmeetingonAugust25thatChinafirmlysupportsdevelopingcountrieseffortsinthehealthsectorand,somehavevoicedconcernovertheriskfrompotentiallegaldisputesorunrecov:AFPBiosafetydisputeWithsomeWesterncountriesconsistentlyallegingChinesevaccineresearchispartofaglobalinfluencecampaign,eputationofChinesepharmaceuticalcompaniesandthewholeindustry,,technologytransfersandthemanagementnsinhostcountries,andviceversa,whetherChinesehome-growntechnologycanbewellprotectedfrominfringementbylocalenterprises,,aBeijing-basedlawyerspecializinginintellectualpropertyrights,,waysofresolvingdisputesoverbio-safety(suchascopingwithpotentialsideeffects),ctself-interestsusinginternationalrules,whereasgovernmentalinstitutesordiplovacBiotechLtd.,inBeijing,:XinhuaEconomicrisksAreportbyCenterforInfectiousDiseaseResearchandPolicyofUniversityofMinnesotarevealedtheCOVID19pandemicwilllikelylast18to24months,while60to70percentovelopingcountries,butmostofthosepartnersarelow-incomecountries,igherthanthecost,TaoLina,rofitbutitdoesnotmeanno-profitorbelowcost,ZhaDaojiong,aprofessorofinternationalpoliticaleconomyintheSchoolofInternationalStudiesandInstituteofSouth-SouthCooperationandDevelopment,PekingUniversity,,whilereturnssers,especiallythoseinlowincomecountries,canbeformidable,Zhasaid.

¡°ÕâÀïÃæÓÐÑΡ¢»¨½·¡¢°Ë½ÇÒ»¹²ÓÐ8ÖÖµ÷ÁÏ£¬ÎªÊ²Ã´Òª³´ÄØ£¬¾ÍÊdz´ÊìÒÔºóëçÖÆµÄʱºòÈÝÒ×Èëζ¡£

OnFebruary4,(CAFC)affirmedtwodecisionsofthePatentTrialandAppealBoard(PTAB)onrelatedinterpartesreviews(IPRs)broughtbyQuanergyagainstVelodyne,explainingthattheBoard¡¯sdecisiontoupholdthevalidityofthedisputedcl,969,558,coveringalidar-based3-Dpointcloudmeasuri,thePTABheldthatseveralclaimsofthe¡¯,(¡°Mizuno¡±)describingadevicethatemitslighttowardano,theCAFCaddressedBerkovic,anarticlepublishedin2012whichreviewsvarioustechniquesformeasuringdistancetoobjects,including¡°triangulationandtime-of-flightsensing.¡±Notably,Berkovicpointsoutthat¡°problemsarisewhenusinglasertime-of-flightsensorstoobtainaccuratemeasurementsatshorterdistances.¡±TheUnderlyingDisputeQuanergypetitionedthePTABtoreviewtheclaimsofthe¡¯atthetimeandwhattechnologiesaskilledartisanmightuseinasystemlikeMizuno,,theBoardconsideredtheevidenceprovidedbyVelodynewhichpointedto¡°unresolvedlong-feltneed,industrypraise,andcommercialsuccess.¡±Onappeal,,QuanergyarguedonappealthatthePTABerredinitsconstructionoftheterm¡°lidar.¡±RelyingonVeritas,Quanergyassertedthattheindicationsinthespecificationthat¡°lidar¡±mayinvolvepulsedtime-of-flighttechniquesdonotprecludeabr¡¯,here,thespecificat,thepatentdescribes¡°measuringdistanceusingapulsedtime-of-flighttechnique,identifiestheshortcomingsofexistingpointcloudsystemsthatcollectdistancepointsbypulsinglightanddetectingitsreflection,anddisclosesalidarsystemthatcollectstime-of-flightmeasurements.¡±Inlightoftheintrinsicevidence,theCAFCfoundQuanergy¡¯sbroaderconstructioninconsistentwiththespecification,¡¯sconstructionoftheterm¡°lidar¡±,QuanergychallengedthePTAB¡¯,QuanergydisputedtheBoard¡¯sfindingsthatMizunoneit¡¯sandQuanergy¡¯sexpertssupportedtheBoard¡¯,Quanergy¡¯sexpertconcededthatMizuno¡¯g¡°onlyoneparticularembodimentofMizuno¡¯sdevice.¡±ButtheBoardrejectedthisargumentas¡°anattempttodrawanarbitrarydistinctioninthetestimonyofitsexpertbetweenoneofMizuno¡¯sfiguresandMizuno¡¯sdisclosureaswhole.¡±Similarly,theCAFCwasunpersuadedandnotedthatthetestimonyofQuanergy¡¯sexpertonredirectwas¡°incomplete,unspecific,andultimatelyconclusory.¡±TheBoardalsofoundthataskilledartisanwouldnothaveusedpulsedtime-of-flightlidarinMizuno¡¯sshort-rangemeasuringdevicebecauseBerkovicsuggeststhat¡°theaccuracyofpulsedtime-of-flightlidarmeasurementsdegradesinshorterranges.¡±Naturally,theBoardwasleftunpersuadedbyQuanergy¡¯sexpert¡¯sfailuretoexplain¡°howorwhyaskilledartisanwouldhavehadanexpectationofsuccess¡±inovercomingtheproblemsinimplementingapulsedtime-of-flightsensorintoashort-rangemeasurementsystemsuchasMizuno¡¯,theBoardstatedQuanergy¡¯sevidenceofferedtoshowanexpectationofsuccesswas¡°speculationfromitsexpertabouttheendlesspossibilitiesofMizuno¡¯steachings.¡±NexusOnappeal,QuanergyalsochallengedtheBoard¡¯spresumptionofanexusbetweentheclaimedinventionandVelodyne¡¯sevidenceofanunresolvedlong-feltneed,industrypraise,¡°ampleevidence¡±thatitscommercialproducts¡°embodythefullscopeoftheclaimedinventionandthattheclaimedinventionisnotmerelyasubcomponentofthoseproducts.¡±Forexample,theBoardnotedVelodyne¡¯sexperthadprovidedadetailedanalysismappingclaim1ofthe¡¯558patenttoeachofVelodyne¡¯scommercialproducts,rsensorthatcouldcapturedistancepointsrapi,Quanergyidentifieda360-degreehorizontalfieldofview,awideverticalfieldofview,andadense3-DpointcloudasunclaimedfeaturessuchthatVelodyne¡¯¡°clearlysupportedbythechallengedclaims.¡±Onappeal,QuanergyassertedtheBoardtconsideru,theCAFCfound¡°theBoard¡¯sexplanationofhoweachallegedunclaimedfeatureresultsdirectlyfromclaimlimitations¡ªsuchthatVelodyne¡¯sproductsareessentiallytheclaimedinvention¡ªbothadequateandreasonable.¡±Ultimately,theCAFCaffirmedthePTAB¡¯sfindingonnon-obviousnessbasedonthesecondaryindiciaofnon-obviousnessshowingbytheexternalevidenceprovidedbyVelodyne.

Manysoftware-relatedandbusinessmethod-relatedpatentshavebeeninvalidatedforbeingdirectedto¡°abstractideas.¡±OnJanuary10,2018,inFinjan,Inc.,,Inc.,theFederalCircuitaffirmedthedistrictcourt¡¯sholdingthatFinjan¡¯,154,844(¡°the¡¯844patent¡±)[1]wasnotdirectedtoa¡ì¡¯sthresholdtestforpatenteligibilityunder¡ì101is¡°whethertheclaimsfocusonthespecificassertedimprovementincomputercapabilities...or,insteadonaprocessthatqualifiesasan¡®abstractidea¡¯forwhichcomputersareinvokedmerelyasatool.¡±[2]Thecourt¡¯srecentdecisionprovidesadditionalguidanceregardingthetypesofclaimsthatconstitutespecifiofCaliforniaonAugust28,2013,forinfringementofmultiplepatentsbyBlueCoat¡¯¡¯844patentscansfilesforpotentialsecuritythreats(,viruses),createsrespectivesecurityprofileslinkedtothescannedfiles,andthenmakesthescannedfilesavailabletousers.[3]Thejudgefoundthatthe¡¯¡ì101,,amongotherrulings,thedistrictcourt¡¯¡ì101asappliedtothe¡¯,inpart,thattheassertedclaimsofthe¡¯844patentshouldbeinvalidatedbecausetheclaimswereanalogoustothoseinApple,,Inc.;[4]AffinityLabsofTex.,,LLC;[5],[6],theFederalCircuitdistinguisheditspreviousdecisionsinvalidatingclaims,inpart,bycitingbacktoacoreconceptofpatentetandingforthe¡°foundationalpatentlawprinciple:thataresult,evenaninnovativeresult,isnotitselfpatentable.¡±[7]Rather,patents¡°aregranted¡®forthediscoveryorinventionofsomepracticablemethodormeansofproducingabeneficialresultoreffect...andnotfortheresultoreffectitself.¡¯¡±[8]Akeydistinguishingfeaturethatthecourtfoundwasthattheclaimsinthe¡¯844patent¡°recitespecificsteps...thataccomplishthedesiredresult.¡±[9]Notably,the¡¯844patentdoesnotclaimeithertheresultofperformingtheclaimedmethodstepsortheimprovementsoftheclaimedmethodoverthepriorart.[10]However,thecourtstilldistinguishedtheclaimsinthe¡¯844patentfromtheinvalidatedclaimsinApple,AffinityLabs,andIntellectualVentures[11]becausethoseclaimsgenerallyreciteddesirableresultsthatwereimplementedbygenericcomputercomponentsperformingkn¡¯844patent,theFederalCircuitfoundthatthepatent¡°enablesacomputersecuritysystemtodothingsitcouldnotdobefore...allow[ing]accesstobetailoredfordifferentusersandensur[ing]thatthreatsareidentifiedbeforeafilereachesauser¡¯scomputer.¡±[12]Thisnewfunctionalitywasfoundtobesufficientlyenabledbasedonthespecificationofthe¡¯844patent,whichdistinguishedtheadvantagesof¡°behavior-based¡±virusscanningtopriorart¡°code-matching¡±¡¯844patentrecitespecificstepstoaccomplishanadvantageousresultbasedontheenablingdescriptioninthespecification.[13]Thus,thepatenteligibilityinquiryunder¡ì101endedwithdeterminingthattheclaimsweredirectedt,theFederalCircuitprovidesnewguidanceforpatenteligibilityunder¡ì,thecourtbaseditsanalysisonanovelapproachinoneembodimentfoundinthespecificationofthe¡¯844patent,eventhoughtheclaimsarenotlimitedtothatspecificembodiment.[14]Thus,thecourtfoundthattheclaimsarenotrequiredtoexplicitlyrecitearesultorimprovementwherethespecificationadequatelydescr¡ì101maythereforebebasedonacombinationofthestepsrecitedinaclaimforaccomplishingaresultandthespecification¡¯sdescription,whenassessingthepatenteligibilityofcomputer-relatedpatentclaims,emphasisshouldbeplacedonthespecification¡¯sdescriptionofthestateoftheartascomparedtohowanimprovementincom(eg,tables,footnotes),pleaseaccesstheoriginalhere.

NFT(non-fungibletoken)i,musicians,collectorsandinvestors,withthesalesofNFTsresultinginabillion-dollarsizedmarket;yetthelawsandregulationsaroundthisspecificassetclassarefailingtokeepupwiththefastpaceofdevelopmentandfallshortinaddressingmanykeylegalissuesandcontroversiessurroundingNFTsintraditionallegalareas,,similartomarketselsewhere,,asidefromtheregulationsandrestrictionsfromafinancialperspective,untilnow,neithertheChineseauthoritiesnortheChinesecourtshadeverformallyrespondedtoanyotherkeylegalissuespertainingtoNFTs,InternetCourtonacopyrightinfringementcaserelatingtoanNFT,,thecourtshareditsviewsonseveralcopyrightissuesinrelationtoNFTs,:pertyoftheunderlyingartwork(unlessthesalesagreementprovidesotherwise).ThesaleofanunauthorizedNFTdoesnotinfringeuponthecopyrightowner¡¯srightofdistributionintheunderlyingworkwhichislimitedbythefirst-saledoctrine,butinstead,infringesupontherightofcommunicationbyinformationnetworks(whichisahighlycontroversialissueinrelationtocopyrightinfringementofanNFT).ThelegitimatecreatorofanNFTshouldnotbethepersonwhosimplypossessesacopyoftheunderlyingwork,butthepersonwhoownsthecopyrightin,orobtainsaduelicensefor,,thevettingobligationsofanNFTplatformshouldberelativelyhigher,because:TheNFTbusiness,,theunderlyingtechnologyofNFTswasbuilttocreateatrustworthyecosystemforallpartiestoatransaction,henceitiscriticallyimportantforanNFTplatformtoensuretherearenoobviousflawsinthecopyrightownershipoftheunderlyingworkofanNFT(whichistheverybasisandstartofallsubsequenttransactionsoftheNFT);otherwise,theentireNFTtransactionchainwouldbecomeveryunstableandallrelatedparties¡¯(profits)directlyfromsalesofNFTsonitsplatform,mechanismandusereasonableeffortstoverifythecopyrightownershipofeachunderlyingwork,(suchasmanuscripts,originalwork,publicpublications,copyrightregistrationcertificate,certificateissuedbycertificationagency,etc.)toprovecopyrightownership,andtoprovideguaranteesifnecessary,,thecourtacceptsthefactthatNFTscannotbedeletedduetotheirspecialtechnicalfeatures,butstipulatesthatplatformscansendinfringingNFTstoaneateraddress(wheretheNFTisburnedandremovedfromcirculation),dthelegalnatureofanNFT,aswellastheobligationsofanNFTplatform,,asthecourtisonlyadistrict-levelcourt,itremainsunclearastowhetheritsrulingwillbewidelyfollow,astheauthoritieshavenotyetenactedanyformalNFTlawsorregulations,thecourt¡¯sinsightsinthejudgmentaremeaningful,andNFTplayersinChinashouldwithoutdoubtcarefullyconsidertheimplicationsoftheruling.

Thefundamentalfunctionofatrademarkistoidentifythesourcesofgoods/servicessothatastablecorrespondingrelationshipbetweenthetrademarkandthedesignatedgoods/,manyenterprisesandapplicantsprefershortandeasytoremembersloganforthepromotionandmarketingfort,,(3)ofTrademarkLawofthePeoplesRepublicofChina,thefollowingsignsshallnotberegisteredastrademarks:,itiscommonthatCNIPAwillbelievesuchtrademarkislikelytomisleadthepublictorecognizeitasasloganoradvertisinglanguage,(3):¡°ÃÀʱÃÀ¿Ë¾¡ÔÚÃÀ¼Ò¡±(3);¡°ÊÍ·ÅÄãµÄ»îÁ¦¡±(3);¡°ENJOYTHEDAY¡±(3);¡°HOTELSTHATDEFINETHEDESTINATION¡±(3);¡°WISHYOUWEREHERE¡±(3);¡°UNLOCKTHEFUTUREWITHTHEPOWEROFLIGHT¡±(3).TheabovetrademarkswereallforbiddenfromtrademarkapplicationsinceCNIPAbelievesthemlackingdistinctivefeaturesandarenoteasilydistinguishable,(3)ofTrademarkLawthoughtheapplicantssubmittedrelevantevi,thesignsmayberegisteredastrademarksaftertheyhave¡°Õ⣡¾ÍÊǽÖÎ衱inClass41,theCNIPAbelievesthismarkhasacquireddistinctivenessandbemortinctivefeatures,itshallbeconsideredwithrelevantevidencetodeterminew,,iftheappliedtrademarkcanbecombinedwithotherdistinctiveelements,suchaswordordesign,,¡°LOREALBECAUSEIMWORTHIT¡±;althoughitwouldbeeasiertoenhancethepublicityandreputationofthebrand,itisquitediff,thechancestillexistsiftheslogancanberecognizedasdistinctivenessanddistinguishablethatconsiderthesign,detailedgoods/servicesitems,actualuse,etc.

ÔçÉÏ7µãÍõ¾ê¾Íµ½Á˺½ÔËÐ¡ÇøÖµÊØµã£¬Ã¿ÌìµÄ¹¤×÷¾ÍÊÇÅŲ顢²âΡ¢µÇ¼Ç¡¢Ïû¶¾£¬ËäÖܶø¸´Ê¼£¬µ«Ò²±ØÐë¼þ¼þÂäʵ£¬²»ÄÜÊè©һÈË¡£

DebevoisePlimptonLLPhassecuredavictoryforDiamondHandsConsulting(DHC)intheSouthernDistrictofNewYorkonJuly20whenJudgeRonnieAbramsgrantedDHCsmotionsforpreliminaryinjuncocialmediaplatformsandwebsites,wherecryptocurrencyenthusiastscangathertodiscusstokens,platforms,,anditsforumsbecamefamouswiththeriseofmemecoinslikeDogecoininearly2021,garne¨CayearafterDHCsfirstuseofitstrademark¨Cthreeco-conspiratorsfromNewYork,Wisconsin,andNorthCarolinabeganacompetingseriesofforumsusingtheexactsamename,andtwodefendantsultimatelylaunchedaninfringingSatoshiStreetBetscryptocurrencyunderthemoniker$,JudgeRonnieAbramsissuedpreliminaryinjunctionsagainstallthreedefendantsonJuly20,findingthatDHChadestablishedalikelihoodofsuccessonthemeritsastoitsclaimsandspecificallyholdingthatDHCsrightsintheSatoshiStreetBetsbrandforprovidingcryptocurrencyinformationserviceseseincommerceoftheSatoshiStreetBetstrademarkpriortoanyofthedefendants(eventhoug),$SSB,JudgeAbramsalsoorderedthedefendantstoturnoveralloftheirinfringingsocialmediaaccountsforthedurationofthelitigation,anddeclinedtorequireanybond.

Therepresentativeclaimwasineligiblebecauseitdescribed¡®basicstepsofusingandmarketingadual-accesslockforluggageinspection,along-standingfundamentaleconomicpracticeandmethodoforganizinghumanactivity.¡¯¡±Dual-AccessLockSource:,021,537OnFebruary14,(CAFC)affirmedtheEasternDistrictofNewYork¡¯sgrantofsummaryjudgmentthatinventorDavidTropp¡¯spa¡ì,,021,537(the¡¯537patent)and7,036,728(¡®728patent).Representativeclaim1ofthe¡¯537patentrelatestoamethodofmakingavailableadual-accstillallowingluggagescreenerstoaccessluggage(withamarkedlock)theld,andtheCAFCagreed,thattherepresentativeclaimwasineligiblebecauseitdescribed¡°basicstepsofusingandmarketingadual-accesslockforluggageinspection,along-standingfundamentaleconomicpracticeandmethodoforganizinghumanactivity.¡±Specifically,thedistrictcourtheld¡°theclaimtobedirectedtoanabstractidea,notingthatourprecedentsconsistentlyrecognizetheabstractcharacterofsuchpracticesandmethods.¡±Further,theCAFCagreedwiththedistrictcourtthatTroppfailedtoidentifyan¡°inventiveconcept¡±,particularlytheclaim¡¯sreferencetoa¡°special¡±,intheclaimsorspecification,¡°technicalspecificationorconcreteimprovements.¡±Nordidheidentifyphysicalchangesmadetothelocktomakethelock¡°special.¡±Theabsenceofthisinformationonlyfurthersupportedthedistrictcourt¡¯sfindingofthe¡°genericnature¡±ofthe¡°special¡±,thedistrictcourtnotedthatdual-accesslockswere¡°familiarandusedinluggagescreening,withbagsidentifiedbyatagtoenablesuchuse.¡±Asaresult,thedistrictcourtheldthat¡°theclaimfail[ed]topassthemusterunderbothstepsoftheeligibilityinquiry.¡±ArgumentNotPreservedOnappeal,Tropparguedthattherepresentativeclaimisdirectedto¡°thecreationofnovelphysicallockswithauniformmasterkey(thatworkswithavarietyoflocksthathavedifferentlockingmechanisms).¡±TheCAFCnotedthatTropp¡¯sargumentraisedtwosubstantialquestionsbearingoneligibilityunderSection101:(1)didtheclaimrequireadual-accesslockinwhichthekeyforthemaster-keylockportionisthesamefordifferentcombination-lockmechanisms;andifso,(2)couldtheclaimpassmusterunderSection101intheabsenceofanythinginthespecification,oreveninthesummaryjudgmentrecord,thatprovidesdetailsregardingthephysicalmakeup,mechanism,oroperationofsuchalockindicatingaconcretetechnicaladvanceoverearlierdual-accesslocksHowever,theCAFCrefusedtoaddressthesequestionsbecause¡°Tropp[had]notpreservedthisargumentforeligibility.¡±InhisoppositiontotheSection101summaryjudgmentmotion,Troppdescribedthe¡°special¡±lockas¡°havingacombinationlockportionandamasterkeylockportion¡±andthe¡°identificationstructure¡±astheclaimedimproved¡°physicalcomponents.¡±ButtheCAFCnotedTroppfailedinhisoppositiontoarguethat¡°theinventiveconceptintheclaimswas,orincluded,thecreationofanewdual-accesslockwithamasterkeycapableofopeningdual-accesslockswhosecombination-lockmechanismsdifferedfromoneanother.¡±TheCAFCfoundTropp¡¯sargumentfortheSection101significanceofthelock-mechanismimprovementheclaimedonappealtobe¡°materiallydifferent¡±,theCAFC¡°declinedtoupsetthedistrictcourt¡¯sjudgmentbasedonanargumentlikethismadeforthefirsttimeonappeal.¡±

AmptLLC,theworldsleadingproviderofpoweroptimizersforlarge-scalephotovoltaic(PV)systems,(ITC)againstSolarEdgeTechnologies,Inc.(NASDAQ:SEDG),requestingthattheITCbantheimp,rplantstolowerthecostofenergyproductionandimproveperformanceinnewsystems;upgradeexistingsystems;enablelow-costsolarenergystoragesystems;asels,inIsrael,China,,itwouldnotbepossibleforSolarEdgetocontinuesellingthoseinfringingproductsintheUnitedStates,howevertherearenumerousothernon-infringingcomeroptimizersandrelatedproductsatitsfacilityinFortCollins,Colorado,whichispri0issuedpatents,adingproductsionandplaysafundamentalroleinloweringthecostsoflarge-scalesolarenergyproduction,saidLeventGun,llyusingour,wearestandingupforouremployees,customersandpartners,aswellastheprinciplesoffaircompetitionandr,ThiscomplaintseekstoblockSolarrEdgeisviolatingourintellectualpropertyandthat,,673,630and11,289,,Amptass,,605,498,7,719,140,10,608,437,10,886,746,11,070,062and11,070,063.

Manysoftware-relatedandbusinessmethod-relatedpatentshavebeeninvalidatedforbeingdirectedto¡°abstractideas.¡±OnJanuary10,2018,inFinjan,Inc.,,Inc.,theFederalCircuitaffirmedthedistrictcourt¡¯sholdingthatFinjan¡¯,154,844(¡°the¡¯844patent¡±)[1]wasnotdirectedtoa¡ì¡¯sthresholdtestforpatenteligibilityunder¡ì101is¡°whethertheclaimsfocusonthespecificassertedimprovementincomputercapabilities...or,insteadonaprocessthatqualifiesasan¡®abstractidea¡¯forwhichcomputersareinvokedmerelyasatool.¡±[2]Thecourt¡¯srecentdecisionprovidesadditionalguidanceregardingthetypesofclaimsthatconstitutespecifiofCaliforniaonAugust28,2013,forinfringementofmultiplepatentsbyBlueCoat¡¯¡¯844patentscansfilesforpotentialsecuritythreats(,viruses),createsrespectivesecurityprofileslinkedtothescannedfiles,andthenmakesthescannedfilesavailabletousers.[3]Thejudgefoundthatthe¡¯¡ì101,,amongotherrulings,thedistrictcourt¡¯¡ì101asappliedtothe¡¯,inpart,thattheassertedclaimsofthe¡¯844patentshouldbeinvalidatedbecausetheclaimswereanalogoustothoseinApple,,Inc.;[4]AffinityLabsofTex.,,LLC;[5],[6],theFederalCircuitdistinguisheditspreviousdecisionsinvalidatingclaims,inpart,bycitingbacktoacoreconceptofpatentetandingforthe¡°foundationalpatentlawprinciple:thataresult,evenaninnovativeresult,isnotitselfpatentable.¡±[7]Rather,patents¡°aregranted¡®forthediscoveryorinventionofsomepracticablemethodormeansofproducingabeneficialresultoreffect...andnotfortheresultoreffectitself.¡¯¡±[8]Akeydistinguishingfeaturethatthecourtfoundwasthattheclaimsinthe¡¯844patent¡°recitespecificsteps...thataccomplishthedesiredresult.¡±[9]Notably,the¡¯844patentdoesnotclaimeithertheresultofperformingtheclaimedmethodstepsortheimprovementsoftheclaimedmethodoverthepriorart.[10]However,thecourtstilldistinguishedtheclaimsinthe¡¯844patentfromtheinvalidatedclaimsinApple,AffinityLabs,andIntellectualVentures[11]becausethoseclaimsgenerallyreciteddesirableresultsthatwereimplementedbygenericcomputercomponentsperformingkn¡¯844patent,theFederalCircuitfoundthatthepatent¡°enablesacomputersecuritysystemtodothingsitcouldnotdobefore...allow[ing]accesstobetailoredfordifferentusersandensur[ing]thatthreatsareidentifiedbeforeafilereachesauser¡¯scomputer.¡±[12]Thisnewfunctionalitywasfoundtobesufficientlyenabledbasedonthespecificationofthe¡¯844patent,whichdistinguishedtheadvantagesof¡°behavior-based¡±virusscanningtopriorart¡°code-matching¡±¡¯844patentrecitespecificstepstoaccomplishanadvantageousresultbasedontheenablingdescriptioninthespecification.[13]Thus,thepatenteligibilityinquiryunder¡ì101endedwithdeterminingthattheclaimsweredirectedt,theFederalCircuitprovidesnewguidanceforpatenteligibilityunder¡ì,thecourtbaseditsanalysisonanovelapproachinoneembodimentfoundinthespecificationofthe¡¯844patent,eventhoughtheclaimsarenotlimitedtothatspecificembodiment.[14]Thus,thecourtfoundthattheclaimsarenotrequiredtoexplicitlyrecitearesultorimprovementwherethespecificationadequatelydescr¡ì101maythereforebebasedonacombinationofthestepsrecitedinaclaimforaccomplishingaresultandthespecification¡¯sdescription,whenassessingthepatenteligibilityofcomputer-relatedpatentclaims,emphasisshouldbeplacedonthespecification¡¯sdescriptionofthestateoftheartascomparedtohowanimprovementincom(eg,tables,footnotes),pleaseaccesstheoriginalhere.

AnationwidecultureandcreativeindustryalliancewasestablishedTuesdayinGuangzhou,thecapitalofGuangdongprovince,,wassetupduringtheTianheSummitoftheChinaCultureandCreativeIndustryConference,willhelpbuildanationwideplatformforcompaniesandorganizationsinthecultu,aleadingwriterandstrategistonthecreativeeconomy,sharedhisviewsduerthepast40years¡ªespeciallyintheareasofdesign,fashionandmodernart,eindustry,,Howkinshasworkedwithawiderangeofpeopleandorganizationsinover30countriesandregionstoincre:HowPeopleMakeMoneyfromIdeashasuralIndustryFair,,acopyrightexpoofinternationalculturalheritagemuseums,aforumfocusingonadvertisement,aninternationalartexpoandaninternationalentertainmenttradefair,accordingtotheorganizers.

June14,2022announcedthat,theUnitedStatesDistrictCourtfortheCentralDistrictofCalifornia(theCourt)issuedanordergr¡¯smaterialbreachesofthepartiesJointDevelopmentandLicenseAgreement,whereonFebruary15,2022,,NetlistsDirectorofIPStrategy,said,WearepleasedthattheCourtrecognizedSamsungsfailuretoadmitrequestsforadmissions,,2022,withatrialbeginningnextyearonMay1,fcustomandspecialtymemoryproductsbringindustry-leadingperformats,inservermemory,hybridmemoryandstorageclassmemory,tocompaniesthatimplementNetlist¡¯,entsndoftenaddressfutureeventsorNetlist¡¯nsregardingfutureeventsandaresubjecttoknownandunknownrisks,uncertaintiesandotherfactorsthatcouldcauseactualresultstodiffermateri,uncertaintiesandotherfactorsinclude,amongothers:risksrelatedtoNetlistsplansforitsintellectualproperty,includingitsstrategiesformonetizing,licensing,expanding,anddefendingitspatentportfolio;risksassociatedwithpatentinfringementlitigationinitiatedbyNetlist,orbyothersagainstNetlist,aswellasthecostsandunpredictabilityofanysuchlitigation;risksassociatedwithNetlistsproductsales,includingthemarketanddemandforproductssoldbyNetlistanditsabilitytosuccessfullydevelopandlaunchnewproductsthatareattractivetothemarket;thesuccessofproduct,jointdevelopmentandlicensingpartnerships;thecompetitivelandscapeofNetlistsindustry;andgeneraleconomic,politicalandmarketconditions,includingquarantines,factoryslowdownsorshutdowns,s,expectationsandbeliefsregardingfutureeventsandaresubjecttoknownandunknownrisks,uncertaintiesandotherfactorsthatcouldcauseactualresultstodiffermateri¡¯sannualreportonForm10-KforitsmostrecentlycompletedfiscalyearfiledonMarch1,2022,,,uncertaintiesandotherfactors,theseforward-¡¯sassumptions,expectationsandbeliefsonlyasofthedatetheyaremade,andexceptasrequiredbylaw,Netlistundertakesnoobligationtoreviseorupdateanyforward-lookingstatementsforanyreason.

ChinaissuedaplanonWednesdayfor2021-2035tostrengthenbuildupandprotectionofintellectualpropertyrights(IPRs),byacceleratinglegislationonIPRsinnewfieldsandformsofbusiness,suchasbigdata,artificialintelligence(AI),forenterpr,promotinghigh-qualitydevelopmentisaninevitablerequirementformaintainingthesustainedandsoundeconomicdevelopmentofChina,accordingtoadocumentissuedbytheGeneralOfficeoftheCommunistPartyofChina(CPC)CentralCommitteeandtheGeneralOfficeoftheStateCouncil,thecabinet,,andtheroleofIPRsasastrategicresourcefornationaldevelopmentandacoreelementofinternationalcompetitivenessisbecomingmoreprominent,veandintelligence-intensive,thedevelopmentofwhich,includingbasicalgorithmsandapplicationscenarios,requiresalotofintellectualproperty(IP),andscientificresearchandproductioncapacityofenterprisesbeimproved,WangPeng,anassistantprofessorattheGaolingSchoolofArtificialIntelligenceattheRenminUniversityofChina,,theaddedvalueofpatent-intensiveindustriesisexpectedtobeequivalentto13percentofChinasGDP,($).By2035,thecomprehensivecompetitivenessofIPRsshallrankamongthetopintheworld,heningtheprotectionofbusinesssecrets,improvethelegalsystemforregulatingtheabuseofIPRs,andimprovelegisl,alegalcounselattheBeijing-basedInternetSocietyofChina,toldtheGlobalTimesonWednesdaythattheblueprintsendsasignalthatChinawillfurtherstepupacrackdownonmonopolisticandunfaircompetitionpracticesthatabuseIPprotection,,TencentmusicannouncedthatitsexclusivelicensingdealswithlabelswouldendasofAugust23,asChinasmarketregulatormovedtoprev,theNationalDevelopmentandReformCommission,Chinastopeconomicplanner,finedchipmakerQualcomm6billionyuan($975million),,Wangsaid,addingthatthequantityofIPislargeinChina,,ChinawillacceleratelegislationonIPRsinnewtechnologies,newindustries,newformsofbusinessandnewmodels,anditwifpatents,trademarks,copyrightsandothertypesofIPRs,andf,ChinawillspeedupthecultivationofanumberofexcellentnewplantvarietieswithIPRsandimprovethequalityoflicensedvarieties.

¡±Öì±û·åµÄÏë·¨µÃµ½ÁË´åÖ§²¿Êé¼ÇÁõ¹ã»ªµÄ´óÁ¦Ö§³Ö¡£

Theself-proclaimedinventorofBitcoin,CraigWright,haswonadefaultjudgmentinLondon¡¯sHighCourtinhisc,thewebsiteanditsownerCobramustremovetheBitcoinwhitepaperfromthewebportalandpay$¡®Satoshi¡¯¡¯,however,onFebruary24viatheIntellecigh,thereissomuchevidencecontradictingCraigWright¡¯sstoryit¡¯sbeensaidhesimply¡°thrivesonattention.¡±¡°He¡¯shadfouryearstocomeforwardwithproofthatheisSatoshi,andI,forone,amnotsatisfied,¡±¡¯soperatorCobra,theCryptoOpenPatentAlliance(COPA)¡¯sclaimstothefamouswhitepaper.¡°Today,r,¡±,arepresentativeofCraigWright,:¡°ThisisexactlywhatwehavewantedtohappenforsometimeandIamverypleasedthisbodyhasagreedtostandupincourtasIcannowhavemycredentialsjudgedlegally.¡±OnJune28andalsoupdatedthefollowingday,¡¯¡¯srequestwhichincludes:AninjunctionprohibitingtheDefendantfrominfringingDrWright¡¯scopyrightintheUnitedKingdo¡±¡°AnorderrequiringtheDefendanttopublishacopyoftheCourt¡¯¡±¡°maintaintheiranonymity.¡±OnTwitter,¡¯spseudonymousoperatorspokeabouttherulingandsaidthatitwastheperfectexampleofwhyuncensorableandpermissionlessnetworkslikeBitcoinareneeded.¡°Allyourfiat-basedassetsareultimatelysecuredbythesamelegalsystemthattodaymadeitillegalformetohosttheBitcoinwhitepaperbecauseanotoriousliarsworebeforeajudgethathe¡¯sSatoshi,¡±Cobratweeted.¡°Asystemwhere¡®justice¡¯dependsonwho¡¯sgotthebiggerwallet.¡±Theanonymousbitcoineradded:¡°Idon¡¯tthinkyoucouldgetabetteradvertisementof*why*donwhoevercanspendhundredsofthousandsofdollarsincourt.¡±

ÁªÏµ:13734371260

Fairuseisacommondefenceintrademarkinfringementactions,withajurisprudentialbasisthatatrademarkownercannotexclusivelymonopoliseadescriptiash(Ç໨½·)caseandtheSupremePeople¡®sCourt¡¯strialintheJapanesehoneysuckle(½ðÒø»¨):Wherearegisteredtrademarkcontainsthegenericname,depictionormodelnumberofthegoodconcerned,directlydesignatesthequality,mainrawmaterials,function,intendedpurpose,weight,quantityorothercharacteristicofthegoodorcontainsaplacename,theholderoftheexclusiverighttousetheregisteredtradem,thereisnospecificionsConcerningtheTrialofCivilTrademarkDisputeCasesof2006statesthatanactoffairuseofatrademarkisrequiredtosatisfythefollowingconditions:(1)theuseisingoodfaith;(2)itisnotusedasatrademarkforonesowngoods;and(3),somecourtswillalsoc,itisnecessarytocomprehensivelyconsiderthefameofatrademarkandtheuserspurp,inthe2021greenprickleyashcase,theSichuanHighCourtheldthattheChinesecharactersforgreenprickleyashintheallegedinfringingmarkwereanobjectivedescriptionoftheseasoningcontainedinaspecialfishhotpotdish,anghaiandJiangsu,,theallegedinfringerdisplayednosubjectiveintentiontofree-rideonthetrademark,,fontsizeandprominencetodeterminewhetheritconstitutestrademarkuse,(µÂÖݰǼ¦)case,thecourtheldthattheChinesecharactersforDezhoubraisedchickenusedontheallegedinfringinggoodsweredistinctiveandprominent,aneupperleftcornerofthegoodsandwassignificantlysmallerthanthecharactersforDezhoubraisedchicken,themannerofuseindicatedthatitwasnotsimplytodescribethatitsbraisedchickenwassourcedfromDezhou,¡ãCcase,heardin2016and2018,thecourtatfirstinstanceheldthat85¡ãCwasprominentlyusedinaconspicuouslocationontheouterpackagingoftheallegedinfringingproduct,exceedingthelimitoffairuse,,theappealscourtheldthatalthoughthetypesizeontheexternalpackagingoftheallegedinfringingproductwaslargerthanothersurroundingtexts,thecharacters85¡ã,ribethefeaturesofth(·ôר¼Ò)case,thecourtheldthattheavailableevideemark,itwasrejectedbytheTr,thecontestedpointinthecasewaswhethertheuseofSkinExpertinfringedtheexclusiverighttousetheregisteredtrademarkFuExpert(·òר¼Ò,pronouncedinChineseidenticallytoSkinExpert)ratherthanwhethertheinfringingmarkcouldberegisteredasatrademark,,theShanghaicourtheldthatthemannerofuseoftheallegedinfringinggreenprickleyashfish(Ç໨½·Óã)hadtheeffectofidentifyingthesourceoftheservice,whileusercommentsintheDianpingapp,usedasevidenceinthecase,showedconsumersreliedonthemarktodeterminewhetherthemerchantsprovidingthecateringservicewerethesame,ic,,itcanbegleanedthat,eveninthesamecase,ofcomprehensiveconsiderationaftertakingintoaccounttheusersintention,,itmustconsiderwhetherthedefendantwillinvokefairuseandpayattentiontocollectingandpreparingpertinentevidence,suchaswhethertheinfringerhadthemaliciousintentoffree-riding,theusewasfairandproper,activitiesand,wherethereisapriorregisteredtrademark,stresscomplianceinusetowardoffrisksoftrademarkinfringement.

TheMannheimRegion,NokiasuedOPPOinfourdifferentcountri,,thisisthefirstrulingregardingthedisputedpatentsrelatedto4G(LTE)and5GStandardEssentialPatents(SEPs).NokiasuedOPPOovernineSEPsandfiveimplementationpatentsinthreeGermanregionalcourtsincludingMunichandD¡§,beingaleaderin5GSEPs,hasinvestedatotalof€umerproducts,itsprev,luxurycarmanufacturer,Daimler,hassettleditshigh-profilepatentlitigationwithNokia,follow,NokiawasgrantedaceaseanddesistorderbytheMannheimRegionalCourt,,whileBirdBirdstandforthecompanyduringitsLenovolawsuit.

Astheproverbsays,wheninRome,,agoodChinesenameforforeignbrandwouldbemucheasierforthelocalconsumerstoremember,,BMWiscalled±¦Âí(baoma)inChina,,±¦Âí,foreignbrandownerswouldhaveconscious,onethingtobeoftenoverlookedis,аÙÂ×(xinbailun)intimeandcontinuingusageofthisunregisteredtrademark,NewBalancewaslatersuedbyZhouLelun,theregistrantofthetrademarkаÙÂ×,,withacompensationof5millionyuan(aboutUSD738thousand).Itwasnot,itcontinuedtousetheChinesenameaftersomeoneelsehadalreadyregisteredthisChinesenameastrademark,,,attentionshallbepaidtothecompositionofthemarktobeapplied,,theforeign-languagem,,warningtheforeigntrademarkownernotonlyregistershisChinesecharactermarkinuse,,(es)(es)inwhi(es)againstpotentialtrademarksquattersinwhichthegoods/servicesarecloselyconnectedwiththecoregoods/,Class9(sunglasses),Class14(jewelry)¡¢Class18(bags)andClass25(clothes)alwayssharethesamemarketingchannel,andtrademarksquattingfrequentlyhappensamongtheseclasses.(Tobecontinued)

UtahscookiecompetitioncontinuedonJuly13whenDirtyDoughandCraveCo,foundedinLoganbySawyerHemsleyandJasonMcGowan,filedalawsuitagainstDirtyDough,acookiebusinessthatstartedinTempe,Arizona,,aCrumblinsiderleftCrumbltofoundDirtyDough,whichsellsandpromotescookiesusingpackaging,decor,andpresentationthatisconfusinglysim,whosbrotherwasaCrumblemployee,toldTheHerald,youguysknowthatDirtyDoughwasalreadystartedin2018,,Ithinkwerethemostdifferent,..,,bigsupporter,Maxwellsaid,expla,allofasuddenoutofnowhere¡­wegethitwithalawsuit,,,,wellseeiftheywanttotalk¡­whatsthesolutionhereMaxwellsaid,,wereachedouttothem¡ªtoldthemweacceptedcounsel,,,anothercookiecompanythathascometoUtah,,afterCrumbldeniedanapplicationbyCravesfoundertobecomeaCrumblfranchisee,Cravebegansellingandpromotingitscopycatgourmetcookies,Crumblscomplaintreadsbeforealletailsofthevaluablegoodwill,reputation,ontobecomeaCrumblefranchiseeorthatCraveisinviolationofanyofCrumblsallegedtrademarks,tradedress,orotherintellectualpropertyrights,rattemptbyathreatenedcompetitortousealawsuittostiflefairandfreecompetitionanddenyconsumersachoiceofproducts,Englishsaidinastatementto,,orelsewhywouldnttheytalkwithusorsendacease-and-desistletter,,,Maxwellsaid,,hesaid,,Crumblsaidtheyareprotectingtheirsuccess:Asafranchisorof30,000+CrumblCrewmembers,1,000+FranchisePartners,andhundredsofCrumblHQemployees,wewillalwaystakeseriouslyourroleinbuildingandprotectingthecompanyanditstrademarksthatweveallworkedsohardtocreatetogether.

UtahscookiecompetitioncontinuedonJuly13whenDirtyDoughandCraveCo,foundedinLoganbySawyerHemsleyandJasonMcGowan,filedalawsuitagainstDirtyDough,acookiebusinessthatstartedinTempe,Arizona,,aCrumblinsiderleftCrumbltofoundDirtyDough,whichsellsandpromotescookiesusingpackaging,decor,andpresentationthatisconfusinglysim,whosbrotherwasaCrumblemployee,toldTheHerald,youguysknowthatDirtyDoughwasalreadystartedin2018,,Ithinkwerethemostdifferent,..,,bigsupporter,Maxwellsaid,expla,allofasuddenoutofnowhere¡­wegethitwithalawsuit,,,,wellseeiftheywanttotalk¡­whatsthesolutionhereMaxwellsaid,,wereachedouttothem¡ªtoldthemweacceptedcounsel,,,anothercookiecompanythathascometoUtah,,afterCrumbldeniedanapplicationbyCravesfoundertobecomeaCrumblfranchisee,Cravebegansellingandpromotingitscopycatgourmetcookies,Crumblscomplaintreadsbeforealletailsofthevaluablegoodwill,reputation,ontobecomeaCrumblefranchiseeorthatCraveisinviolationofanyofCrumblsallegedtrademarks,tradedress,orotherintellectualpropertyrights,rattemptbyathreatenedcompetitortousealawsuittostiflefairandfreecompetitionanddenyconsumersachoiceofproducts,Englishsaidinastatementto,,orelsewhywouldnttheytalkwithusorsendacease-and-desistletter,,,Maxwellsaid,,hesaid,,Crumblsaidtheyareprotectingtheirsuccess:Asafranchisorof30,000+CrumblCrewmembers,1,000+FranchisePartners,andhundredsofCrumblHQemployees,wewillalwaystakeseriouslyourroleinbuildingandprotectingthecompanyanditstrademarksthatweveallworkedsohardtocreatetogether.

PlayboyEnterprisesInternationalIncexpresseditsappreciationforthefairnessandefficiencyofChinasjudicialauthoritiesinthehandlingofintellectualpropertycasesaftertheUScompanysvictoryinacampaignagainsttheillegaluseinChinaofoneofitstrademarks,sCourtruledthatthedefendantShanghaiBaotuInvestmentandManagementLtdsrepeatedinfringementofPlayboy,saidWilliamRosoff,managingpartneroftheBeijingofficeofAkinGumpStraussHauerFeldLLP,theUSlawfirmrepresentingPlayboy,tostealPlayboylegalsystemwillprotecttherightsofIPholders,,thecapitalofAnhuiprovince,,themanagingpartnerofBeijingLawjayPartnersandoneofPlayboyslocalcounselsinthelawsuit,saidtheHefeiintermediatecourthasahistoryofhandlinglitigationcases,citingthecaseofLousCourtrankedthecaseamongChinasauthorizationtousethePlayboyICONbrand,presentingalicenseagreementandtwosshareholder,LinXiance,andwithHongKongICONDesignerBrandsLtdandanotherlocalcompanyin2012,ayafixedsumand,inreturn,SINOwasallowedtoholdhalfofHongKongICON,asSINOonlypaidaportionoftheupfrontpaymentagreedon,andfailedtopaytherest,udicialVerificationCenterandtherelevantrulesonevidence,thecourtrefusedtoacceptthelegitimacyofeithertheso-calledtrademarklicenseagreementandthetwopurportedauthorizationlettersthatShanghaiBaotupresentedtothecourtinsupportofitsclaimtohaveobtainedpermissiontousePlayboy,anditisaveryimportantmarketforthecompany,$,includingadministrativeandcriminalenforcement,toprotecttherightsandinterestsofPlayboyslegitimatelicenseesanddistributorsinChina.

Summary:ChieflawyerXuXinmingactingfortheplaintiffs,FuruiStainlessSteelWaterTowerFactoryofXinchengDistrict,HuaiYuanCounty,(HuaiyuanFuruiFactory)anFuruiShowerEquipmentCo.,Ltd(ZhongshanFraeCompany).OnJuly11,2014,BeijingFirstIntermediatePeoplesCourthandeddowndecisionnumber4321quashingthedecisi¸£Èð(Furui)trademarkandorderedth,,Europe,,2004,HuaiyuanFuruiFactorywasestablishedinXinchengDistrict,HuaiyuanCounty,¸£Èð(Furui)brandedproductssuchaswatertowers,pressurewatertanks,solarwaterheaters,¸£Èð(Furui)¸£Èð(Furui)trademark,HuaiyuanFuruiFactoryappliedforregistrationnumber7405468ofthe¸£Èð(Furui)trademarkwiththeStateTrademarkOfficeunderthespecificuseofgoodsinclass11:watertowers,pressurewatertanks,solarwaterheaters,etc,.Withinthestatutorytimelimitpermittedforobjections,ZhongshanFraeCompanyfiledanobjectionagainstHuaiyu,2012,theStateTradem,20,2013,ZhongshanFraeCompanyappliedtotheTrademarkReviewandAdjudicationBoardtoreviewtheirdecisionandaskedthattheStateTrademarkOfficenotapprovetheapplicationforregistrationofthe¸£Èð(Furui)trademarkbyHuaiyuanFuruiFactoryonthebasisthattheirproducts,salescontracts,advertising,marketingandotherforeignmarketactivitiesusewords¸£ÈðFraeandimagesandassuch,irtradenamerightsthroughpreemptivelyregisteringthe¸£Èð(Furui),2014,TheTrademarkReviewandAdjudicationBoardupheldtheclaimsofZhongshanFraeCompanyandruledthatthe¸£Èð(Furui)ethemandaftercomparingseveral,chosetoretainXuXinming,theChiefLawyeroftheChinaIntellectualPropertyLawyersNet().Aftercarefullyresearchingthecase,LawyerXufiledalawsuitattheBeijingFirstIntermediatePeoplesCourtonthebasisthatthemainevidencesubmittedbyZhongshanFraeCom:onofthe¸£Èð(Furui),theplaintiffswerenotawareofthetradenameofZhongshanFraeCompanyanditwasnotpossiblethatZhongshanFraeCompany,sinceinception,HuaiyuanFuruiFactoryhasbeenusingthemark¸£Èð(Furui)onallitsproducts,therefore,HuaiyuanFuruiFactoryhadabonafide,legitimaterighttohavethe¸£Èð(Furui),HuaiyuanFuruiFactoryhasusedthe¸£Èð(Furui),theplaintiffhasestablishedabusinessintheoperationofwatertowers,pressurewatertanks,solarwaterheaters,¸£Èð(Furui)and¸£Èð(Furui),the¸£Èð(Furui)mngshanFraeCompanyinthe¸£Èð(Furui),¸£Èð(Furui)markwerentinfluencedbyorexcludedbytheuseofthes,ZhongshanFraeCompanyhardlyeverusedtheChinesetradename¸£Èð£¨Furui£©,therearbetweendifferentgoodswhilstthetradenameisusedtoidentifytheenterprise,¸£Èð(Furui),the¸£Èð(Furui)markhasbeenlinkedtoHuaiyuanFuruiFactoryanditisunlikelythatt,thefirsta,Chineseleg,theplaintiffsandZhongshanFraeCompanybothusedthesametradename¸£Èð(Furui)whiletheplaintiffsalsoused¸£Èð(Furui)¸£Èð(Furui)markfirst,theninaccordancewiththeabovelegalprinciple,theTradciplewhenitoverruledtheplaintiffsapplicationforregistrationofthe¸£Èð(Furui),theTrademark,2014,theBeijingFirstIntermediatePeoplesCourtheldapublichearingofthiscaseandonJuly11,2014,iewandAdjudicationBoardandorderedittoreconsiderthecasefromthebeginning.

ChinesevideoplatformKuaishouhasfileda5millionyuan($705,000)lawsuitagainstDouyin,accusingitsrivalof¡°piggybacking¡±onthecompany¡¯,whichhasbeenacceptedbyBeijing¡¯sHaidianDistrictcourt,KuaishouclaimsDouyinusedKuaishou¡¯snametolinktoitsownproductpageon360MobileAssistant,¡ªknowninternationallyasTikTok¡ªofinfringingKuaishou¡¯strademarktodisplayitsownproduct,pro,KuaishouisChina¡¯,Kuaishouclaimedithadsurpassed300milliondailyactiveusersonitsChineseapp,,Douyin¡¯sparentcompany,tolddomesticmediaonWednesdaythatithadfileditsownlawsuitagainstKuaishouinMarchoversimilarissue,andislookingintoitsrival¡¯rchenginesandothersimilarplatforms,onalinformation,raisingconcernsaboutcontentqualityandimpairedfunctionality.¡°IthinkwhatDouyinhasdonecouldconstituteinfringementofKuaishoustrademarkrights,¡±,anintellectualpropertylawyeratBeijingMingtaiLawFirm,toldSixthTone.¡°IfDouyinlinksKuaishouasitskeypaidsearchterminitsadrankings,itbasicallyweakensKuaishou¡¯sconnectiontoitsusers,justasKuaishouarguesinitslawsuit.¡±Usually,third-partyserviceprovidersdon¡¯thavealegalobligationtoreviewkeywords,andit¡¯salsoimpracticaltoanalyzeeverywordinthesearchenginealgorithm,comestodisplayingsearchresults.¡°Iftherightsownerdiscoversinfringementorunfaircompetition,theycannotifytheserviceproviderandaskthemtotakenecessarymeasures,suchasdeleting,blocking,disconnectinglinks,andmore,¡±,Kuaishou,and360MobileAssistantdidnotrespondtoSixthTone¡¯,,short-v,aBeijing-basedconsultancy,averagescreentimeonshort-videoappsduringthisyear¡¯sextendedLunarNewYearholidayincreasedby27minutescomparedwiththesameperiodlastyear,withDo¡¯sovercrowdedvideo,DouyinsuedTencentfordefamationoveranarticlepublishedonthecompany¡¯,TencentandByteDance,suedeachotheroverunfaircompetition.

Fairuseisacommondefenceintrademarkinfringementactions,withajurisprudentialbasisthatatrademarkownercannotexclusivelymonopoliseadescriptiash(Ç໨½·)caseandtheSupremePeople¡®sCourt¡¯strialintheJapanesehoneysuckle(½ðÒø»¨):Wherearegisteredtrademarkcontainsthegenericname,depictionormodelnumberofthegoodconcerned,directlydesignatesthequality,mainrawmaterials,function,intendedpurpose,weight,quantityorothercharacteristicofthegoodorcontainsaplacename,theholderoftheexclusiverighttousetheregisteredtradem,thereisnospecificionsConcerningtheTrialofCivilTrademarkDisputeCasesof2006statesthatanactoffairuseofatrademarkisrequiredtosatisfythefollowingconditions:(1)theuseisingoodfaith;(2)itisnotusedasatrademarkforonesowngoods;and(3),somecourtswillalsoc,itisnecessarytocomprehensivelyconsiderthefameofatrademarkandtheuserspurp,inthe2021greenprickleyashcase,theSichuanHighCourtheldthattheChinesecharactersforgreenprickleyashintheallegedinfringingmarkwereanobjectivedescriptionoftheseasoningcontainedinaspecialfishhotpotdish,anghaiandJiangsu,,theallegedinfringerdisplayednosubjectiveintentiontofree-rideonthetrademark,,fontsizeandprominencetodeterminewhetheritconstitutestrademarkuse,(µÂÖݰǼ¦)case,thecourtheldthattheChinesecharactersforDezhoubraisedchickenusedontheallegedinfringinggoodsweredistinctiveandprominent,aneupperleftcornerofthegoodsandwassignificantlysmallerthanthecharactersforDezhoubraisedchicken,themannerofuseindicatedthatitwasnotsimplytodescribethatitsbraisedchickenwassourcedfromDezhou,¡ãCcase,heardin2016and2018,thecourtatfirstinstanceheldthat85¡ãCwasprominentlyusedinaconspicuouslocationontheouterpackagingoftheallegedinfringingproduct,exceedingthelimitoffairuse,,theappealscourtheldthatalthoughthetypesizeontheexternalpackagingoftheallegedinfringingproductwaslargerthanothersurroundingtexts,thecharacters85¡ã,ribethefeaturesofth(·ôר¼Ò)case,thecourtheldthattheavailableevideemark,itwasrejectedbytheTr,thecontestedpointinthecasewaswhethertheuseofSkinExpertinfringedtheexclusiverighttousetheregisteredtrademarkFuExpert(·òר¼Ò,pronouncedinChineseidenticallytoSkinExpert)ratherthanwhethertheinfringingmarkcouldberegisteredasatrademark,,theShanghaicourtheldthatthemannerofuseoftheallegedinfringinggreenprickleyashfish(Ç໨½·Óã)hadtheeffectofidentifyingthesourceoftheservice,whileusercommentsintheDianpingapp,usedasevidenceinthecase,showedconsumersreliedonthemarktodeterminewhetherthemerchantsprovidingthecateringservicewerethesame,ic,,itcanbegleanedthat,eveninthesamecase,ofcomprehensiveconsiderationaftertakingintoaccounttheusersintention,,itmustconsiderwhetherthedefendantwillinvokefairuseandpayattentiontocollectingandpreparingpertinentevidence,suchaswhethertheinfringerhadthemaliciousintentoffree-riding,theusewasfairandproper,activitiesand,wherethereisapriorregisteredtrademark,stresscomplianceinusetowardoffrisksoftrademarkinfringement.

,foundintheFirstAmendment,maypresentalegalrecourseforcanna,afreespeechargumentwillnotbeofhelptothosewhosimplycopyafamoustrademark,,however,,brandstakethatinspirationtoofar,,,allegingthatitwassellingTHC-containingproductsbearingsomeofFerrarasregisteredtrademarks,,AkimovwasnotusingmarksinspiredbyFerraras,provenance,,itsreputationcouldsufferincaseofanyproblemswithAkimovsproducts,astheproblemscouldbeassociatedwithFerrarastrademarks,,salesofunauthorizedNerdsandTrolliproductstomisledconsumers,whoinfactwantedthegenuinearticle,,theinspirationdrawnfromafamoustrademarkmightbeobvious,,,TerphogzLLC,,,butwhethertheuseofZk,ratingthewordZkittlez,notf,,theConstitutionanditsfreespeechprotectionsmightconstituteanotherarrowinthequiverofbrandsthatseekinspirationfromfamoustrademarks,,theFirstAmendmenttotheConstitutionprovidesthatCongressshallmakenolaw...soffreedomofspeech,ontheonehand,andfederaltrademarkrightsprovidedforunderlawsmadebyCongress,,theLanhamActprohibitstheregistrationofatrademarkthatsocloselyresemblesaregisteredmarkoramarkthatwaspreviouslyusedbyanotherastobelikely,whenusedonorinconnectionwiththegoodsoftheapplication,tocauseconfusion,ortocausemistake,,brandownersfreedomofspeechislimitedbythisprohibition,asitmeanstheycannotusecertainwords,,,eregistra,,theSupremeCourtin2017reache,courtshavegenerallyconsideredthatthecurtailmentofFirstAmendmentprotectionsisacceptablewhendenyingprotectiontoat,theSupremeCourtrecognizedthatthesuppressionofcertainwordsintheinterestoftrademarkprotectionc,thecourtconsideredthatthisriskhadtobeweighedagainsttheimportanceofprotectingthevalueadd,,iffreespeechinterestsareimplicated,aplaintiffcl,key,,,,theNinthCircuitmadeclearth,thekeyiswhethertheu,theuseofelementsassociatedwithJackDanielsbrandimageoksusedbysomecannabisbrandsthatparody,orareinspiredby,,,notallcannabistrademarksbeingchallengedbytheownersoffamoustrademarkswillcrossthethresholdofartisticexpression,,undertheRogerstest,theuseofthesecannabistrademarkswillonlyconstitutei,itsusehasartisticrelevance¡ª,itishardt,theysendanimmediatesignaltoconsumers,totheeffectthatthesetr,itcanbeargunRothschild,,withmanyestablishedbrandsenteringthemetaverse,consumerswouldexpectthatNFTsbearingfamou,itwouldbefarhardertomakethatargumentifthechosennameforthecollectionwasMetaVirkins,orsomecannabisbrandsininfringementhotwater,dlyinfringedtrademarksareusedonproductsthatareunlawfulatthefederallevel,suchasmarijuana,asdefinedintheControlledSubstancesAct,orCBDproductswhoseintroductionintointerstatecommerceviolatestheFederalFood,rkss,phraseorlogoathandisaFirstAmendment-protectedexpressionfirst,,however,itsufficestohighlightthispotentialopeningforacourtlookingforalegaldistinc;,itisworthstressingthattheFirstAmendmentwillnotcometotherescueofthosecannabisbrandsthatcannotregistertheirtrademarksatth,though,theConstitutionmightofferdeliverance.

°å·¿Àï´î½¨ÁËÎę̀£¬ÉèÖÃÁ˱³¾°£¬²¢¹ºÖÃÁËÒôÏ죬»¹×°ÉÏÁËÆß°Ë¸ö´ó·çÉÈ£¬»¹¹Ò×ÅÐí¶àÎåÑÕÁùÉ«µÄСÆìºÍºìµÆÁý£¬Ê®·ÖϲÇì¡£

UtahscookiecompetitioncontinuedonJuly13whenDirtyDoughandCraveCo,foundedinLoganbySawyerHemsleyandJasonMcGowan,filedalawsuitagainstDirtyDough,acookiebusinessthatstartedinTempe,Arizona,,aCrumblinsiderleftCrumbltofoundDirtyDough,whichsellsandpromotescookiesusingpackaging,decor,andpresentationthatisconfusinglysim,whosbrotherwasaCrumblemployee,toldTheHerald,youguysknowthatDirtyDoughwasalreadystartedin2018,,Ithinkwerethemostdifferent,..,,bigsupporter,Maxwellsaid,expla,allofasuddenoutofnowhere¡­wegethitwithalawsuit,,,,wellseeiftheywanttotalk¡­whatsthesolutionhereMaxwellsaid,,wereachedouttothem¡ªtoldthemweacceptedcounsel,,,anothercookiecompanythathascometoUtah,,afterCrumbldeniedanapplicationbyCravesfoundertobecomeaCrumblfranchisee,Cravebegansellingandpromotingitscopycatgourmetcookies,Crumblscomplaintreadsbeforealletailsofthevaluablegoodwill,reputation,ontobecomeaCrumblefranchiseeorthatCraveisinviolationofanyofCrumblsallegedtrademarks,tradedress,orotherintellectualpropertyrights,rattemptbyathreatenedcompetitortousealawsuittostiflefairandfreecompetitionanddenyconsumersachoiceofproducts,Englishsaidinastatementto,,orelsewhywouldnttheytalkwithusorsendacease-and-desistletter,,,Maxwellsaid,,hesaid,,Crumblsaidtheyareprotectingtheirsuccess:Asafranchisorof30,000+CrumblCrewmembers,1,000+FranchisePartners,andhundredsofCrumblHQemployees,wewillalwaystakeseriouslyourroleinbuildingandprotectingthecompanyanditstrademarksthatweveallworkedsohardtocreatetogether.

AUScourthasruledthatrecipescannotbeprotectedbycopyright,,EasternDivisionruledthatalthoughcopyrightcan,insomecircumstances,protectthelayoutofarecipebook,,¡ªKetchuptoUsandTomaydo-Tomadhho¡ª,CarrollpurchasedMoore¡¯,accordingtothejudgment,wassubjecttoasharepurchaseagreementthatcontainedcertaincovenants,MooreandGeorgeVozary,oneofthenameddefendantsinthecaseandaformerTomaydo-Tomadhhoemployee,openedanotherrestaurantinCleveland,,,,thecourtsaid:¡°Theidentificationo,recipesarefunctionaldirectionsforachievingaresultandareexcludedfromcopyrightprotection.¡±Whilethecourtaddedthatalthoughcopyrightprotection¡°mayextendtoarecipebookorcookbooktotheextentitisacompilation¡±,itaddedthatinthiscasethereis¡°simplynoallegationthatdefendantsinfringedonthelayoutorothercreativeexpressioncontainedintherecipebook¡±.:¡°Assetforthabove...therecipesthemselvesarenotcopyrightableand,thus,anyuseoftherecipesisnotinfringement.¡±

ɽ¶«ÁºÉ½Õýµã¶þÊÖÉ豸רҵ¹ºÏú»¯¹¤³§¡¢ÖÆÒ©³§¡¢Ê³Æ·³§¡¢ËÇÁϳ§¡¢ÒûÁϳ§¡¢Æ¡¾Æ³§É豸¡£

AmptLLC,theworldsleadingproviderofpoweroptimizersforlarge-scalephotovoltaic(PV)systems,(ITC)againstSolarEdgeTechnologies,Inc.(NASDAQ:SEDG),requestingthattheITCbantheimp,rplantstolowerthecostofenergyproductionandimproveperformanceinnewsystems;upgradeexistingsystems;enablelow-costsolarenergystoragesystems;asels,inIsrael,China,,itwouldnotbepossibleforSolarEdgetocontinuesellingthoseinfringingproductsintheUnitedStates,howevertherearenumerousothernon-infringingcomeroptimizersandrelatedproductsatitsfacilityinFortCollins,Colorado,whichispri0issuedpatents,adingproductsionandplaysafundamentalroleinloweringthecostsoflarge-scalesolarenergyproduction,saidLeventGun,llyusingour,wearestandingupforouremployees,customersandpartners,aswellastheprinciplesoffaircompetitionandr,ThiscomplaintseekstoblockSolarrEdgeisviolatingourintellectualpropertyandthat,,673,630and11,289,,Amptass,,605,498,7,719,140,10,608,437,10,886,746,11,070,062and11,070,063.

WhiletheUSonTuesdayrefusedtojointheinternationalefforttodevelopaCOVID-19vaccine,Chinaispoolingeffortsininternationalcooperationtosecureamicindevelopingcountries,moreUN-backedallianceplacegreathopesonChinatojoinglobalpar(COVAX)andhasbeeninclosecommunicationwiththeWHOandotherinitiatorsoftheplan,daywiththeWHO,VaccineAlliance(GAVI)andtheCoalitionforEpidemicPreparednessInnovations(CEPI)todeliveraconsensustofacilitatetheglobalRDanddistributionofCOVID-19vaccines,,alongsideextensiveongoingvaccineresearchefforts,webelievethereismuchroomforbothChinesepublicandprivateactorstoparticipateinboththeCOVAXFacilityandtheCOVAXAdvanceMarketCommitmentinitiatives,whichwillgoalongwaytowardensuringthattheCOVID-19vaccine,whenready,willbeavailableequitablytoall,th,apublic-privateglobalhealthpartnershiplinkedwiththeWHOandtaskedwithincreasingpoorcountriesaccesstoimmunization,encouragespotentialvaccinedevelopersincludingthoseinChinatosubmitpromisingcandidatesforconsiderationforCOVAXresearchanddevelopment,andmanufacturingfunding,$an170countrieshaveexpressedreadinesstojointheCOVAXFacility,aWorldHealthOrganization(WHO)platformdesignedtoensurerapid,fmeetingonAugust25thatChinafirmlysupportsdevelopingcountrieseffortsinthehealthsectorand,somehavevoicedconcernovertheriskfrompotentiallegaldisputesorunrecov:AFPBiosafetydisputeWithsomeWesterncountriesconsistentlyallegingChinesevaccineresearchispartofaglobalinfluencecampaign,eputationofChinesepharmaceuticalcompaniesandthewholeindustry,,technologytransfersandthemanagementnsinhostcountries,andviceversa,whetherChinesehome-growntechnologycanbewellprotectedfrominfringementbylocalenterprises,,aBeijing-basedlawyerspecializinginintellectualpropertyrights,,waysofresolvingdisputesoverbio-safety(suchascopingwithpotentialsideeffects),ctself-interestsusinginternationalrules,whereasgovernmentalinstitutesordiplovacBiotechLtd.,inBeijing,:XinhuaEconomicrisksAreportbyCenterforInfectiousDiseaseResearchandPolicyofUniversityofMinnesotarevealedtheCOVID19pandemicwilllikelylast18to24months,while60to70percentovelopingcountries,butmostofthosepartnersarelow-incomecountries,igherthanthecost,TaoLina,rofitbutitdoesnotmeanno-profitorbelowcost,ZhaDaojiong,aprofessorofinternationalpoliticaleconomyintheSchoolofInternationalStudiesandInstituteofSouth-SouthCooperationandDevelopment,PekingUniversity,,whilereturnssers,especiallythoseinlowincomecountries,canbeformidable,Zhasaid.

AmptLLC,theworldsleadingproviderofpoweroptimizersforlarge-scalephotovoltaic(PV)systems,(ITC)againstSolarEdgeTechnologies,Inc.(NASDAQ:SEDG),requestingthattheITCbantheimp,rplantstolowerthecostofenergyproductionandimproveperformanceinnewsystems;upgradeexistingsystems;enablelow-costsolarenergystoragesystems;asels,inIsrael,China,,itwouldnotbepossibleforSolarEdgetocontinuesellingthoseinfringingproductsintheUnitedStates,howevertherearenumerousothernon-infringingcomeroptimizersandrelatedproductsatitsfacilityinFortCollins,Colorado,whichispri0issuedpatents,adingproductsionandplaysafundamentalroleinloweringthecostsoflarge-scalesolarenergyproduction,saidLeventGun,llyusingour,wearestandingupforouremployees,customersandpartners,aswellastheprinciplesoffaircompetitionandr,ThiscomplaintseekstoblockSolarrEdgeisviolatingourintellectualpropertyandthat,,673,630and11,289,,Amptass,,605,498,7,719,140,10,608,437,10,886,746,11,070,062and11,070,063.

ÎÒÃÇ»á²ÉȡһÇкÏÀí¿ÉÐеĴëÊ©£¬±£»¤ÄúµÄ¸öÈËÐÅÏ¢¡£

¡ñAlgorithms,datacomeunderdefinitionoftradesecrets¡ñClientinfonotcollatedorprocessednotrecognizedastradesecret¡ñRequirementstorequestinjunctionspecifiedThedraftjudicialinterpretation(JI)ontradesecretsreleasedbyChina¡¯sSupremePeople¡¯sCourtlightenstheburdenofproofforplaintiffsintradesecretinfringementlawsuits,¨CInterpretationonSeveralIssuesConcerningtheApplicationofLawintheTrialofCivilCasesInfringingonTradeSecretInfringements(draftforcomment)¨C¡¯samendedAnti-UnfairCompetitionLaw(AUCL),thedraftlightensrights-holder¡¯slegaldutybyshiftingtheburdenofprooftotheallegedinfringer,,,enttrial,therights-holderneedstoprovide¡°preliminaryevidence¡±,theallegedinfringer,Article8ofthedraftJIstatesthattherights-holderneedonlysubmitpreliminaryevidencetoprovethereisa¡°highprobability¡±thattheclaimedtradesec,partneratAnjieLawFirm,agreedthedraftJIlowersrights-holder¡¯sburdenofproof,yet,thereisnoquantitativemeasurementof¡°ahighprobabilitythattheclaimedtradesecrethasbeeninfringed¡±andthereforeitishardtoexecuteinpractice,(Article9)oftheamendedAUCLdefinestradesecretsasanytechnicalinformationoroperationalinformationwhichisnotknowntothepublic,hascommercialvalue,andforwh,dataandcomputerprogramsmayconstdprocessing,suchasname,address,contactinformation,tradinghabits,transactioncontent,andspecificneedsofcustomers,mayconstit,Article5(2)ofthedraftJIstatesthatifthepartiesclaimtheinformationofaspecificclientisatradesecretonlyonthebasisofthecontract,invoice,document,voucher,,,thecourtwillnotrecognizeclientinformationunlessitiscollatedorprocessedastradesecrets,,theclausedoesnotspecifywhatqualifiesas¡°collation¡±and¡°processing¡±,anditremainsunclearwhetherthecollationandprocessingneedtobe¡°complicatedandin-depth¡±,tradesecrets,,arights-holdermustclarifyspecificcontentoftheclaimedtradesecretsandprovideevidencetoprovetha¡°relativelylowburdenofproof¡±fortherights-holder,whichisconsistentwiththeamendedAUCL,,itdoesnotmakeacompulsoryrequirementandleavesittothediscretionofthecourt,heinformationrequestedbytherights-holderisnotatradesecretorthereisnoinfringementoftradesecrets,,Article22ofthedraftJIaimstostrikeabalanceandpreventtheover-protectionofarights-holder,Zousaid.

AmptLLC,theworldsleadingproviderofpoweroptimizersforlarge-scalephotovoltaic(PV)systems,(ITC)againstSolarEdgeTechnologies,Inc.(NASDAQ:SEDG),requestingthattheITCbantheimp,rplantstolowerthecostofenergyproductionandimproveperformanceinnewsystems;upgradeexistingsystems;enablelow-costsolarenergystoragesystems;asels,inIsrael,China,,itwouldnotbepossibleforSolarEdgetocontinuesellingthoseinfringingproductsintheUnitedStates,howevertherearenumerousothernon-infringingcomeroptimizersandrelatedproductsatitsfacilityinFortCollins,Colorado,whichispri0issuedpatents,adingproductsionandplaysafundamentalroleinloweringthecostsoflarge-scalesolarenergyproduction,saidLeventGun,llyusingour,wearestandingupforouremployees,customersandpartners,aswellastheprinciplesoffaircompetitionandr,ThiscomplaintseekstoblockSolarrEdgeisviolatingourintellectualpropertyandthat,,673,630and11,289,,Amptass,,605,498,7,719,140,10,608,437,10,886,746,11,070,062and11,070,063.

TheSupremeCourtwillhearanongoingcopyrightcasebetweenSwedishfastfashiongiantHMandpattern-makingcompanyUnicolors,ent,aswellasthefindingsofothercircuitsandtheCopyrightOfficeinholdingthattheCopyrightActrequiresadistrictcourttoseekguidancefromtheCopyrightOfficewhentherearequestionsaboutthevalidityofacopyrightregistrationbutnoevid,accusingthefastfashionbehemothofinfringingoneofitsgeometricpatterns¨Cbywayofa¡°remarkablysimilar¡±print¨C,inwhichajuryfoundthatHMhadwillfullyinfringedUnicolors¡¯scopyright-protectedpattern,andawardedthepatterncompany$846,720indamages,attorney¡¯sfees,andcosts,¡¯sappealwasitsclaimthatUnicolorslacksavalidcopyrightregistrationforthefabricpatternatthecenterofthecasebecauseUnicolorshadimpher,makingthemanappropriate¡°singleunit¡±foronecollectivecopyrightapplicationandregistration,HMclaimedthatUnicolorsactuallysoldsomeofthepatternsseparatelytodifferentcustomers¨Catdifferenttimes,thereby,makingthecompany¡¯,2020,theNinthCircuitreversedthejuryverdictandsidedwithHMonthebasisthatthereisnointent-to-defraudrequirementforreg¡ì411(b)(2)¨CwhichrequiresdistrictcourtstoasktheRegisterofCopyrightswhetherregistrationwouldhavebeenrefusediftheCopyrightOfficehadknowntheinformationwasinaccurate¨CwhenitdidnotreferthemattertotheCopyrightOfficeafterHMallegedthattheregistrationcontainsinac,andUnicolorsfiledapetitionforawritofcertiorari,¡¯spetition,theNinthCircuitgotthecasewrong,asthejudges¡¯rulingconcerningthetimelineofthepublicationoftheworkscoveredbythesingle-unitcopyrightregistrationwas¡°flawedbecausetherewasnoevidencesupporting[their]conclusionthatthedesignswereseparatelypublishedbeforecertaindesignswerecategorizedasconfinedinUnicolors¡¯registrationcertificate.¡±Withthatinmind,Unicolorsclaimedthattherewas¡°insufficientevidencetodeduceany¡ì411(b).¡±¡°Thepanel¡¯¡ì411(b)wasalsoflawed,¡±accordingtoUnicolorsbecause¡°manycourts,legislativeandadministrativeauthorities,andtheleadingcopyrighttreatisehaveuniformlyinterpretedthePrioritizingResourcesandOrganizationforIntellectualPropertyActof2008¡­tocodifythedoctrineoffraudontheCopyrightOfficeandthus,toallowinvalidationundersection411(b)onlywhentheregistrantisshowntohaveactedinbadfaithorintendedtodefraudtheCopyrightOffice.¡±LookingaheadtotheSupremeCourt¡¯sconsiderationofthecase,ractitionersthatthesection411(b)issueis¡°ripeforreview,¡±particularlygiventhatdisputesaboutcopyrightregistrationerrors¨Cwhichcanstemfrom¡°anumberoffactors,includingunclearguidanceaboutregistrationrules,asimplemisunderstandingofwhattheapplicationrequiresand,mostrelevanttotheissueathand,purposefulorknowinginaccuracies¡±¨Care¡°commoninlitigation.¡±MeanwhileFinneganattorneysSamuelEichnerandMargaretEsquenethavenotedthatingrantingcertiorari,theSupremeCourtmaybelookingto¡°resolveanapparentcircuitsplitontheissueofwhetherthereisanintent-to-defraudrequirementbeforeareferralismadetotheCopyrightOfficeunderSection411(b).¡±Atthesametime,theCourtmayalsobeaiming¡°toclarifythestrengthofacopyrightregistration¡¯spresumptivevalidityand/ortheextenttowhichtheCopyrightActrequirescourtstodefertoCopyrightOfficedeterminationsundersection411(b)(2)astowhetherinaccuracies,ifknown,wouldhavecausedtheCopyrightOfficetorefuseregistration.¡±Ultimately,EichnerandEsquenetassertthatbecauseintenttodefraudisgenerallydifficulttoprove,¡°theSupremeCourt¡¯sdecisionshouldhaveasignificantimpactonthestrengthofcopyrightregistrations¡±¨Cwhicharenowprerequisitestofilingcopyrightinfringementactions¨C¡°andtheirsusceptibilitytovalidityattacksbasedonperceivedinaccuraciesinregistrations.¡±Assuch,thedecisionhasthepotentialtoimpactcopyrightapplicationpractices.

UNITEDSTATESDISTRICTCOURTSOUTHERNDISTRICTOFNEWYORK----------------------------------------------------------------------BARCROFTMEDIA,,Plaintiffs,-v-COEDMEDIAGROUP,LLC,Defendant.----------------------------------------------------------------------16-CV-7634(JMF),UnitedStatesDistrictJudge:Plaintiffs,providersofentertainment-relatedphotojournalismandownersofcelebrityphotographs,bringintellectualpropertyclaimsagainstDefendantCoedMediaGroup,LLC(¡°CMG¡±)relatingtotheallegedlyinfringinguseofcertaincelebrityphotographs(the¡°Images¡±)onCMG¡¯¡¯filingoftheirproposedJointPretrialOrder,Plaintiffsfiledtwomotions:amotion,pursuanttoRule37oftheFederalRulesofCivilProcedure,forspoliationsanctions,();andamotioninliminetoprecludethetrialtestimonyofRobertCoakley,().Plaintiffs¡¯,theymoveforspoliationsanctionsonthegroundthatCMGfailedtopreservethewebpagesonwhichithaddisplayedtheImages(the¡°Webpages¡±).().AlthoughunmentionedbyPlaintiff,therelevantprovisionofRule37wasamendedin2015tostatethatacourtmayimposesanctions¡°[i]felectronicallystoredinformationthatshouldhavebeenpreservedintheanticipationorconductoflitigationislostbecauseapartyfailedtotakereasonablestepstopreserveit,anditcannotberestoredorreplacedthroughadditionaldiscovery.¡±(e).Ifthecourtfindsprejudicetotheotherpartyfromsuch¡°loss,¡±itmay¡°ordermeasuresnogreaterthannecessarytocuretheprejudice.¡±(e)(1).Acourtmayimposemoreseveresanctions¡°onlyuponfindingthatthepartyactedwiththeintenttodepriveanotherpartyoftheinformation¡¯suseinthelitigation.¡±(e)(2);seegenerallyCAT3,,Inc.,,495-96()(discussingtheamendedRule37(e)).GiventheplainlanguageoftheRule,Plaintiffs¡¯motionbordersonfrivolous,forthesimplereasonthattheycannotevenshowthattheevidenceatissuewas¡°lost.¡±SeveraloftheImagesarestillhostedonCMG¡¯swebsites.((¡°Def.¡¯sMem.¡±),at19).AndtherecordmakesclearthatPlaintiffsthemselvespossesscopiesoftheotherWebpages¡ªintheformofscreencapturestakenwhentheydisplayedtheImages(the¡°Screenshots¡±).(,;,at2).Infact,PlaintiffsthemselveslisttheScreenshotsastrialexhibits.(,at15).Giventhat(plusthefactthatDefendantdoesnotdisputetheauthenticityoftheScreenshots(seeid.)ordenythatithostedanddisplayedtheImages(seeDef.¡¯)),thereisnofoundationtoimposesanctionsunderRule37(e).Andtotheextentthattherewereafoundation,sanctionswouldbeinappropriatebecausethereisnoevidencewhatsoeverthatDefendant¡°actedwiththeintenttodepriveanotherpartyoftheinformation¡¯suseinthelitigation,¡±(e)(2),andPlaintiffsobviouslycannotshowprejudice¡°as[they]actuallypossess[]copies¡±oftherelevantevidence,¡¯tofEduc.,(CBA)(VMS),2016WL8677285,at*5(,2016),reconsiderationdenied,2016WL756566(,2016).Plaintiffs¡¯motiontoprecludethetestimonyofRobertCoakleyiswithoutmerit,substantiallyforthereasonsstatedinDefendant¡¯smemorandumoflawinoppositiontothemotion.().ItistruethatDefendantfailedtolistCoakleyinitsinitialdisclosuresandtosupplementitsdisclosureswithhisname,intechnicalviolationofRule26(a)and(e),(c)(1)(allowingforpreclusionofawitnesswhowasnotproperlyidentified¡°unlessthefailure[todisclose]...isharmless¡±),asPlaintiffshaveindisputablyknownaboutCoakleyformonths(and,ontopofthat,havebeenprivytoCoakley¡¯sdirecttestimonysinceJuly,whenitwassubmittedinaffidavitforminaccordancewiththeCourt¡¯sprocedures).See,,,LLC,(JMF),2017WL4155402,at*(,2017)(decliningtoprecludeawitnessbecausethewitness¡¯stestimonywasdisclosedtothemovingparty¡°overamonthandahalfbeforeheactuallytestified¡±);,Inc.,,445()(findingthatthefailuretoformallydisclosewitnesseswasharmlessbecausethemovingparty¡°wasawareoftheirexistenceandrelevance,¡±asthewitnesseshadbeenmentionedindiscoveryresponsesandtheirnameshadappearedindocumentsproducedthroughdiscovery);,(HB),2009WL3790191,at*5(,2009)(decliningtoprecludewitnesstestimonywhere¡°allofthechallengedwitnesseswerereferredtoindocumentsproducedindiscovery¡±).Further,uponreviewofCoakley¡¯sdirecttestimony,thereisnomerittoPlaintiffs¡¯contentionsthatCoakley¡¯,theCourthasaseparateconcernwithrespecttotheGoogleAnalyticsdata(markedasDefenseExhibit17)andCoakley¡¯stestimonyconcerningthosedata¡ªnamely,onferenceonOctober10,,Plaintiffs¡¯:September28,2017NewYork,NewYork

Thoseplansarelikelytobedraftedbytheinternet¡¯sglobaldomainnameorganisation,theInternetCorporationforAssignedNamesandNumbers(ICANN),aftertheEuropeanDataProtectionBoard(EDPB)effectivelysaiditneedstogobacktothedrawingboardtomakeitsrulesaroundthecollectionanduseofWHOISdatacompliantwiththeGeneralDataProtectionRegulation(GDPR).TheWHOISsystemInformationthatservestoidentifythepeoplebehinddomainnameregistrationsispublishedontheWHOISsystem,internet,butisalsousedbylredawebsiteofferingcounterfeitgoodswhichinfringetheirtrademarkrights,orsi,theanydomainnameregistrarstotakeaconservativeapproachtotheemptedtoenforcethetermsofitscontractualagreementwithadomainn,domainnameregistrarEPAGDomainservicessuccessfullyfoughtoffabidfromICANNtoforceittocollectthepersonaldataoftechnicalandadmctionofthecontactinformationwasnecessary,,theEDPBrespondedtoICANNscallformoreguauthor(8-page/737KBPDF):ICANNneedstodefineitsspecifiedpurposesandlawfulbasisforprocessingpersonaldataandshouldnotconflatethiswiththelegitimateinterestsandpurposesofthirdpartieswhomaysubsequentlyseekaccesstothedata;thatthereisnobasisforICANNtoinsistupontheprovisionofadditionalinformationonadministrativeandtechnicalcontactsfromregistrants;thatthefactthatregistrantsmaybelegalpersonsdoesnottakeWHOISoutsidethescopeofGDPRwhereICANNisprocessingpersonaldatarelatingtoindividualswithinthoseorganisations,andthereforethepersonaldataofsuchindividualsshouldnotbemadepublicallyavailablebydefault;thatICANNisrequiredtologaccesstopersonaldata,butdoesnotnecessarilyneedtoactivelycommunicate(push)thisloginformationtoregistrantsorthirdparties;thatICANNhasfailedtojustifywhyitisnecessarytoretainpersonaldatafortwoyearsposttheexpiryofthedomainnameregistration,and;thatcodesofconductorcertificatesofaccreditationarevoluntaryaneconta,theArticle29WorkingParty,hasbeenofferingguidancetoICANNonhowt,includingincreasedtransparencyobligations,havenowbroughtthisissuetoaheadandtheEDPBletterisclearinitsmessagethatICANNnessedinthecontextofWHOISmaybemadeavailabletothirdpartieswhohavealegitimateinterestinaccessingthedata,providedthoseinterestsarenotoverriddenbytheinterestsorfundamentalrightsandfreedomsofthedatasubject,andprovidedsafeguardsareputinplacet,thiswillnotnecessarilymeanthatICANNmustactivelynotifythedatasubjectsconcernedthattheirinformationhasbeenaccessed,andbywhom,alaWHOISsearchtofindoutwhoisbehindaninfringingsite,withoutnotifyingthtimatestakeholderstogainaccesstopersonaldataconcerningregistrantsbutalsocontainsappropriatesafeguards,testakeholdersmaystillgainaccesstoWHOISdata,andthatregis,itislikelythatanynewmodelwillinvolvemoretime,effortandexpenseforrightholdersseekingaccesstosuchinformation,whichuptonowhasbeenfreelyandreadilyavailabletothem.

×îºóÎÒ¾ÍÒ»°ÑÈ·¶¨ÔÚÕâÀïÈ«°üÁË£¡£¡Éè¼ÆÊ¦ºÜ¸ºÔ𣬶ÔÓÚÎÒÂòʲô²ÄÁÏ£¬Ã¿´Î¶¼Åã×ÅÎÒÒ»ÆðÈ¥£¡ÎÒÃǵķ¿×ÓÊÇ82µÄ»§ÐÍ£¬ÊʺÏÎÒÕâ¸öµ¥Éí¹·£¡£¡ÔÙÀ´Ò»±éµ¥Éí¹·£¡£¡£¡¹þ¹þ¹þ£¡

ÄóºÏ»ú£ºµç¼ÓÈÈÕæ¿ÕÄóºÏ»ú¡¢ÂݸËÏÂжÁÏÄóºÏ»ú¡¢·´¸×Õæ¿ÕÄóºÏ»ú¡£

TheCantonFair,oneoftheworldslargesttradeshowsthatkickedoffonThursdayinGuangzhou,SouthChinasGuangdongProvince,islocatedinthePazhouarea,agrowingindustrialclusterofinformationtechnology,artificialintelligence,industrialInternetandotherinnovativetechnologies,whereover30,000companieshavesettled,includingAlibaba,Tencent,Xiaomi,,laboratoriesarealsomovingintotheregiontoenhanceresearchanddevelopment(RD).PazhouLab,orAIDEGuangdongProvinceLab(GZ),nomyfortheGuangdong-HongKong-MacaoGreaterBayArea,andvowstobeahubofscienceandtechnologyinnovation,YuanZiwei,apublicityagentofthePazhouLab,,whichcansolvethecoreproblemsofintelligentsystems,,vicedirectoroftheBeijingEconomicOperationAssociation,toldtheGlobalTimesthattheconstructionoflaboratoriesandindustrialparkswillhelpGuangdong,andShenzheninparticular,addressitsshortcomingsineducationandresearch,thussupportingGua,HanJiuqiang,aprofessorofXianJiaotongUniversity,wasoneoftheexperts,,aspeoplesconsumptionlevelishigher,resultinginmorepursuitanddemandforniche,personalizedproducts,,,wehavetohavemachinesandrobotsthatcandodifferentthingsatthesametime,andthatrequiresalotmorefro,,allsmartdevicestodayarenotreallysmart,becausethesemachinesandrobotsareonlycapableoflearning,,forexample,isverygoodatplayingchess,,,ontheotherhand,telligent,,butitstillneedstimetorealizeinindustrialproduction,,ofwhichindependentlydevelopedandproducedintelligentsteelprocessingequipmenthavebeenwidelyusedincivilengineeringfieldssuchashighways,,America,theMiddleEast,SoutheastAsia,SouthAfricaandotherinternationalmarkets,,,whichisthecoreofthesmartmachineryandequipment,,utilitymodelpatentsandsoftwarecopyrightinthefieldofintelligentconstruction,tmentaregreatburdensforenterprises,,theoriginalinnovationofhigh-techinthesmartfield,suchasthethirdgenerationofthesemiconductor,AIandmechanicalautomation,isquitedifficult,,resourcesinmanyfieldsofindustry,,supporttheoreticalresearch,andfinally,completetheprocessfromtheorytoindustrialpractice,ZhangXiaorong,directoroftheBeijing-basedCutting-EdgeTechnologyResearchInstitute,,andmakethecountryconcentrateonresearch,,whatChinaneedstostrengthenisitstheoreticalresearch.

PlayboyEnterprisesInternationalIncexpresseditsappreciationforthefairnessandefficiencyofChinasjudicialauthoritiesinthehandlingofintellectualpropertycasesaftertheUScompanysvictoryinacampaignagainsttheillegaluseinChinaofoneofitstrademarks,sCourtruledthatthedefendantShanghaiBaotuInvestmentandManagementLtdsrepeatedinfringementofPlayboy,saidWilliamRosoff,managingpartneroftheBeijingofficeofAkinGumpStraussHauerFeldLLP,theUSlawfirmrepresentingPlayboy,tostealPlayboylegalsystemwillprotecttherightsofIPholders,,thecapitalofAnhuiprovince,,themanagingpartnerofBeijingLawjayPartnersandoneofPlayboyslocalcounselsinthelawsuit,saidtheHefeiintermediatecourthasahistoryofhandlinglitigationcases,citingthecaseofLousCourtrankedthecaseamongChinasauthorizationtousethePlayboyICONbrand,presentingalicenseagreementandtwosshareholder,LinXiance,andwithHongKongICONDesignerBrandsLtdandanotherlocalcompanyin2012,ayafixedsumand,inreturn,SINOwasallowedtoholdhalfofHongKongICON,asSINOonlypaidaportionoftheupfrontpaymentagreedon,andfailedtopaytherest,udicialVerificationCenterandtherelevantrulesonevidence,thecourtrefusedtoacceptthelegitimacyofeithertheso-calledtrademarklicenseagreementandthetwopurportedauthorizationlettersthatShanghaiBaotupresentedtothecourtinsupportofitsclaimtohaveobtainedpermissiontousePlayboy,anditisaveryimportantmarketforthecompany,$,includingadministrativeandcriminalenforcement,toprotecttherightsandinterestsofPlayboyslegitimatelicenseesanddistributorsinChina.

ËÄ¡¢ÎÒÃÇÈçºÎ±£»¤ÄúµÄ¸öÈËÐÅÏ¢£¨Ò»£©ÎÒÃÇÒÑʹÓ÷ûºÏÒµ½ç±ê×¼µÄ°²È«·À»¤´ëÊ©±£»¤ÄúÌṩµÄ¸öÈËÐÅÏ¢£¬·ÀÖ¹Êý¾ÝÔ⵽δ¾­ÊÚȨ·ÃÎÊ¡¢¹«¿ªÅû¶¡¢Ê¹Óá¢Ð޸ġ¢Ë𻵻ò¶ªÊ§¡£

ÎÒÃÇ»á²ÉȡһÇкÏÀí¿ÉÐеĴëÊ©£¬±£»¤ÄúµÄ¸öÈËÐÅÏ¢¡£

InresponsetoacomplaintfiledbytheleadingSpanishfootballleagueLaLiga,thecountrysNationalPolicehascarriedoutalarge-scaleope,leadingtothedismantlin,top-tierSpanishfootballleagueLaL,LaLiga¡¯spremiumcontentiswidely¡¯thopetovisitthemall,¡¯phoneseffectivelybecamespyingdevicesthatcouldlistentotheirsurroundingsand,whenLaLigamatcheswereidentified,,LaLigawashitwitha250,000eurofinebySpain¡¯sdataprotectionagencyAEPDbutthecompanyvowedtocontinuefighting¡°thisveryseriousscourgethatispiracy¡±.LaLigakeptitswordandanoperationjustannouncedbylocalpolicerevealsthatcommLigainJanuary2022,Spain¡¯sNationalPolicelaunchedaninvestigationintoapsSpainincludingSeville,Malaga,Cordoba,Zaragoza,Valladolid,Murcia,PalmadeMallorca,Gij¨®n,Madrid,Vigo,LasPalmas,tandermatcheswerebeingplayed,and166barswereidentifiedasbeinginvolvedinthefraudulentdisplayofcopyrightedcontent.¡°Asaresultof[theoperation],theentireinfrastructurethatallowedtheillegalviewingofpaidmultimediacontentwasdismantled,withtheidentificationofthoseresponsibleandthecessationoftheillegalservicetheyprovided,¡±alargenumberofpiracy-configureddevicesincludingAmazonFiresticks,genericAndroidboxes,ntellectualpropertyinfringementcrimes.

Withanincreaseinpopulationsothebasicneedoffood,theuseofchemica,13June2021:Withanincreaseinpopulationsothebasicneedoffood,theuseofchemicasandimplementationofdifferentkindsofsustainableagriculturalpracticesamongfarmersIndia¡¯d500LakhMetricTonnes(LMT),(FAO),theconsumptionoffertilizerssuchasnitrogenous,potash,andphosphatefertilizerstoucheda,theGreenrevolutionwasam,thereisnospecifictrendinfertilizersconsumption(UreaPhosphaticandPotassic(PK),India¡¯sfertilizerconsumptionwascloseto500LakhMetricTonnes,roblemsExcessiveuseofchemicalfertilizerswillresultinsoilacidification,heavymetalspollution,soilcompaction,,theplantsandsoilwillbedegradediffertilizersarenotusedjudiciously.

¡°Theobviousnessinquirydoesnotrequirethatthepriorartcombinationisthe¡®preferred,orthemostdesirable¡¯configuration.¡±¨CCAFChttps:///103763568/,(CAFC)affirmedthePatentTrialandAppealBoard¡¯s(PTAB¡¯s)obviousnessdeterminationanditsdenialofpatentownerHoytFleming¡¯,,includingclaims135-139,ofthe¡¯,Flemingmovedtoamend,thecombinationofCirrusDesign¡¯sPilotOperationHandbookfortheSR22,RevisionA7,(,2003)(POH),460,810(James).TheBoardfurtherfoundthatFleming¡¯sproposedamendedclaimsdidnotmeetthestatutoryandregulatoryrequirementsforpatentabilitybecaus,FlemingarguedtheBoarderredindeterminingt¡¯474PatentThe¡¯474patentdescribesballisticparachutesystemsonaircraft,wherethe¡°ballisticparachutesusearockettoquicklydeployaparachute,slowingthefallofacrashingaircraft¡±,thisballisticparachuteismostsuccessfulunderconditions¡°whenitcanbecomefullyinflatedandfunctional[,]¡±,thespecificationdisclosesthat¡°thatitispreferredtoreachkeyoperatingparameters¡ªlikecertainspeed,altitude,andpitch¡ªbefore(or,iftimerequires,while)deployingaballisticparachute.¡±The¡¯474patentisdirectedto¡°intelligentballisticparachutesystems¡±whichis¡°capableofperformingpre-activationandpost-activationactions[,]¡±intendedtohelptheaircraftreachdesiredoperatingparametersfor:(1)increasealtitude;(2)flyatalevelattitude;(3)reducespeed;and(4)enableordisable¡°reefingcontrol.¡±Additionally,thespecificationdisclosesthat,¡°uponreceivingaparachuteactivationrequestfroman¡®activationinterface,¡¯¡®oneormoreprocessors¡¯determinewhetherapre-activationactionmustbeperformedbeforedeployingtheparachute.¡±Ifso,¡°intelligenceoverrideinterface,¡±which¡°allowsanaircraftoccupanttomanuallyby-passtheprocessor-controlledoperationstoimmediatelydeploytheparachute,forexamplebypullingapull-handleorpressingabutton.¡±Specifically,therepresentativeClaim137ofthe¡¯474patentteachesthatuponthereceiptofthewhole-aircraftballisticparachutedeploymentrequest,theautopilotiscommandedto¡°increaseaircraftpitch.¡±Claims138and139areidenticalexcepttheautopilotiscommandedto¡°reduceaircraftroll¡±andto¡°changetheattitudeoftheaircraft,¡±,thePTABdeterminedthatclaims137¨C139ofthe¡¯¡¯soperatinghandbookwhichdescribestheoperationoftheCirrusAirframeParachuteSystem(CAPS),,POHsuggeststheparachuteshouldbeactivatedfroma¡°wings-level,uprightattitude¡±,anaircraftmayautomaticallyinitiateshutdownprocedures,tuation,including,forexample,¡°shuttingoffallengines,terminatingallflightfunctions,[and]deployinganemergencyrecoveryparachute.¡±ObvioustoCombineOnappeal,,hechallengedtheBoard¡¯sobviousnessdetermination,¡°arguingthatnoneofthepriorartdisclosescommandinganaircraft¡¯sautopilottoincreasepitch,reduceroll,orchangeattitudebasedontheaircraft¡¯sreceiptofaparachutedeploymentrequest,asrequiredbyclaims137¨C139.¡±TheCAFCagreedwiththePTAB¡¯thiselement,theBoardneverthelessfoundthat¡°apersonofordinaryskillwouldhavebeenmotivatedtoprogramJames¡¯autopilotinviewofPOHsothatuponthereceiptofaparachutedeploymentrequest,James¡¯autopilotwouldseektoensuresafetybyfollowingPOH¡¯sguidanceforsafeparachutedeployment,includingchangingtheaircraft¡¯spitch,reducingaircraftroll,and/,theCAFCadded,theproposed¡°aircraftautopilotsareprogrammabletoperformcertainactions,forexampleincreasingaircraftpitchanddeployingaparachute.¡±Inaddition,Jamesdisclosesthatuponreceivingasignal,¡°anaircraftmayautomaticallyinitiateshutdownprocedures,includingdeployinganemergencyparachute¡±¡°thesestandardautopilotmaneuvers¡ªslowingaircraftspeed,maintainingasteadyattitude,andchangingaircraftpitch¡ªshouldpreferablybecompletedbeforedeployinganemergencyparachute.¡±Lastly,theCAFCexplainedthat¡°itisappropriatetoconsidertheknowledge,creativity,andcommonsenseofaskilledartisaninanobviousnessdetermination.¡±WhiletheSupremeCourthascautionedagainstthemisuseoftheseconsiderations,ithascontinue,theCAFCfoundthattheBoard¡¯sconclusionisthe¡°resultofafaithfulapplicationofourlawonobviousness.¡±TeachingAwaySecond,Flemingarguedthatthepriorartteachesawayfromtheclaimedinventioninthe¡¯,Flemingarguedthat¡°thepriorartcautionedthatautopilotsshouldnotbeusedincertainemergencysituationswhereaballisticparachutemaybeneeded[,]¡±such,andtheCAFCagreed,¡°areasonablefact-findercouldnonethelessconcludethatthepriorartdoesnotsuggesttotheskilledartisanthatanautopilotshouldneverbeusedinanyemergencysituationforanyaircraft.¡±Forexample,Jamesdisclosesthatthecontinuoupriateintheeventofpilotincapacitation,dedfrommakingtheproposedcombinationbecause¡°usingJames¡¯sautopilotwouldbeunsafeinmanyemergencysituations.¡±However,theCAFCsidedwiththeBoard¡¯sreasoningthat¡°theobviousnessinquirydoesnotrequirethatthepriorartcombinationisthe¡®preferred,orthemostdesirable¡¯configuration.¡±Becausethepriorartcautionedpilotsnottouseanautopilotinsomeemergencysituationsdoesnotmeanthattheskilledaard¡¯sdenialofhismotiontoamendafterconcludingt¡ªagainusingatleastaportionofthedistributedprocessingsystemandbasedonanoccupantpullingthepullhandle¡ª,theproposedamendedclaimsrequirethatthea¡¯scitationstothewrittendescription,theBoardfound,andtheCAFCagreed,thatthecitedportionsdidnotdisclosethelimitationsoftheproposedamendedclaimsandtheseclaimslac,theCAFCheldthattheBoarddidnotabuseitsdiscretionindenyingFleming¡¯smotiontoamend.

Recently,(2021),afindingofunfaircompetitionrequiredmisleadinguseofthemisappropriatedtrademarkorinvolvedthefilingofamalic(Emerson)InSinkEratorfoodwastedisposalsarepopularworldwide,dwasfollowedbyamultiplefurtherregistrationsformarksincorporating¡°In-Sink-Erator¡±and/,(WaterAngels)appliedtoregistermorethan20marksincorporatingtheIn-Sink-Erator¡±mark¡±.TheapplicationwerefiledthroughXiamenXingjunIPFirm(XingjunIP),nds,suchasDOW,CALGONandDJI(awell-knownChinesebrandfordrones).,thelegalrepresentativeofWaterAngels,ap,soughtinvalidations,andpursuedadmini(-¡°OAA-Rivers¡±)in2015and,usingthesameagent,XingjunIP,¡¯MarksFactsofthecaseInMarch2020,EmersonfiledalawsuitwithXiamenIntermediatePeoplesCourtnamingWaterAngels,OAA-Rivers,ingtheapplications,andthefourthdefendantsconductinprovidingassistance,,Wate,thecourtissueditsjudgmentholdingthattheserialattemptstomisappropriatethemarksconstitutedunfaircompetitionandthatthetwocompaniesandtheirdefactocontroller,,,denticalorsimilartoErmerson¡¯strademarksandtocompensateEmersonforitsattorneysfeesandthereasonableexpensesithadincurred,andtoissueas,theappellatecourtissueditsdecision,¡°grabbing¡±anactwithinthejurisdictionoftheAnti-UnfairCompetitionLawWaterAngelsandOAA-Riversarguedthattheywereonlyengagedinfilingapplications,anacttoinitiateadministrativeprocedures,,,theiractionsshouldnotbesubjecttotheAnti-UnfairCompetitionLaw,,thecourtsheldthatthetwocompanies,inregisteringmanyidenticalorsimilarmarks,forcedEmersontodefenditslegitimaterightsandinterestsbyundertakingmultipletrademarkoppositions,invalidationpetitions,administrativelitigationandcivilproceeding,perationst,thelegalrepresentativeofWaterAngelsandOAA-Rivers,arguedthathedidnotapplyforregistrationoftheIn-Sink-Eratorrelatedtrademarksinhisownnameandthereforedidnotcommitjointinfringement,,thecompanieswereresponsiblefortheiractions,bu,inadditiontobeinglegalrepresentativeofthetwocompanies,wasalsotheexecutivedirectorandgeneralmanager,,aftertheapplicationsmadebythefirstcompanywerefoundillegal,hethensetuptarkapplicationsforitsclientsXingjunIParguedthatitsactsoffilingtheapplicationsforaclientwerenotunlawful,,itdidnotviolatethego,though,heldthatXingjunIPrepresentedthevastmajorityofthetwodefendantcompaniesinfringingapplicationsandcontinuedtofileinfringingtrademarkapplicationsforthecompaniesevenaftertheill,itsactsinrepresentingthesecompanieswereactsof,,thesamegroupofp,andthelackofanyobligationonanapplicanttodefendorjustifyitsapplicationifchallenged,itisincreasinglycommonforsquatterstochoosenottorespondtochallengesbroughtbybrandowners,ithend¡°grabbing¡±toconstituteunfaircongandcoolthesquattingphenomenon,emarkprofessionalsbecauseofconcernsthatfilingapplicationsforclientscouldgenerateliability,thisshouldnotimpactundulyonreputableagenciesthatdochoosetoabidebythecodeofprofessionalethics.

ChinahasoutpacedtheUnitedStatesinthenumberofworldwideartificialintelligence-relatedpatentapplications,accordingtoanewreportissuedbytheChinaIndustrialControlSystemsCyberEmergencyResponseteam,,,712AI-relatedpatentapplications,rankingfirstinChinaforthesecondconsecutiveyear,followedbyTencent(4,115),MicrosoftChina(3,978),Inspur(3,755)andHuawei(3,656).ThereportshowedthatBaiduisthepatentapplicationleaderinseveralkeyareasofAI,includingthedeeplearning(1,429),naturallanguageprocessing(938)andspeechrecognition(933).Sofar,AI-enabledtechnologieshavebeenappliedinseveralsectors,suchasfinance,healthcare,omywillleapfrom$2trillionin2018to$,($)AIcoreindustryby2030,whrialupgrading,andthecountrysstrategicplanforAIoffersabroadspacef,fromtheperspectiveofapplicants,enterprisessuchasBatablishintellectualpropertysystemsrelatedtoAI,aswellasintroducehigh-leveltalents,,vice-presidentofTencent,saidatthesixthWorldInternetConferenceinWuzhen,Zhejiangprovince,thatthecompanyhasfiledover3,000AIpatentappli,particularlyinthefieldofAI,saidZhuWei,seniormanagingdirectorandchairmanofAccentureChina,whilenotingChinesecompanieshavedemonstratedgreatdeterminationtodiger,butalsogivefullplaytothevalueofAI,saidHongJing,founderofGaochengCapital,whoindicatedthatAIcanbeappliedinallwalksoflife,,chairmanandCEOofSinovationVentures,aleadingventurecapitalfirm,saidChinaandtheUSareleadingthefourthindustrialrevolutionbroughtbyAIthathasard,,otherwise,$,a44percentincreaseover2018,accordingtotheconsultancyInternationalDataCorporation.

¡°Intworecentdesignpatentcases,twocourtswereatthesamestageoflitigationdealingwiththesamedesignpatent,yetcametooppositeconclusions.¡±Formostpeople,whatcomestomindwhentheyheartheword¡°patent¡±mightbeaninventionlikethelightbulb¡ªThomasEdison¡¯sversionratherthanSawyerandMan¡¯s,probably¡ªorthetelephone¡ªanotherhotly-contestedoprotect¡°anynew,original,andornamentaldesignforanarticleofmanufacture.¡±Thisisthedomainofthedesignpatent,¡ì171,¡°ABriefHistoryofDesignPatents.¡±Designpatentinfringementoccurswhenadefendantappliesa¡°patenteddesign,oranycolorableimitationthereof,toanyarticleofmanufactureforthepurposeofsale,¡±¡ì289,ormakes,uses,offerstosell,sellso¡ì,designpatentscoveredphysicaldesignsthathadsometangibleeffectontheshape,ortextureofthe¡°articleofmanufacture.¡±See,,,Inc.,,1361();EthiconEndo-Surgery,,Inc.,,1327().Overtime,designpatentprotectionextendedtocoverscreenlayoutsandgraphicaluserinterfaces(¡°GUIs¡±).,,1375(),¡ªPhone,andonedesignpatentfocusedontheornamentaldesignofiPhone¡¯¡¯ssuccessonremand,andmuchofthejaw-dropping$,designpatentscanbepowsrelyontheordinaryobservertest,whichasksifatypicalconsumeroftheaccusedproduct,or¡°ordinaryobserver,¡±wouldfindsubstantialsimilaritiesbetweenthepatenteddesignandtheaccuseddesignsuchthatheorshewouldbedecei,Inc.,,1321().Inpractice,,,LLC,,1052().Then,thecourtmakesacomparisonoftheclaimedandaccuseddesignsinlightofthepriorarttoidentifydifference,,WePayGlobalPayment,LLClaunchedsuitsagainst14defendants,includingPayPalandPNCBank,(b)(6)motion,or¡°motiontodismiss,¡±¡°ordinaryobserver¡±testatthisstage,aplaintiff¡¯scomplaintonlyneedstostateaplausible,notnecessarilyprobable,,,548(2007).Forpatentinfringementcases,inadditiontomeetingtheTwomblyrequirements,thepleadingsneedto¡°(i)allegeownershipofthepatent,(ii)nameeachdefendant,(iii)citethepatentthatisallegedlyinfringed,(iv)statethemeansbywhichthedefendantallegedlyinfringes,and(v)pointtothesectionsofthepatentlawinvoked.¡±Hall,().Thedesignpatent-at-issue,,702(¡°¡¯702Patent¡±),claimsananimateddesignconsistingofaseriesofdisplayscreensthatonemightnavigatethroughinamobileapplication-¡ªlikelyinafinancialtransaction:OnJune9ofthisyear,JudgeAlbrightintheWesternDistrictofTexasdeniedPayPal¡¯(b)(6)motionwas¡°notthepropervehicletoassesstheDefendant¡¯sargumentsagainstthecomplaint.¡±,,,Inc.,:21-cv-1094(,2022)().Incontrast,eightdaysearlier,JudgeHoranoftheWesternDistrictofPennsylvaniagrantedPNCBank¡¯,¡°asamatteroflaw,noreasonablefactfindercouldfindinfringement.¡±,,at*6(,2022)(citingCurverLuxembourg,,:17-cv-4079-KM-JBC,2018WL340036,at*4(,2018)).,aside-by-sidecomparisonofWePayandPNC¡¯sdesignsdemonstratedtheywere¡°sufficientlydistinct¡±and¡°plainlydissimilar¡±*,accountingforpriorart,anysimilaritywiththeaccusedandasserteddesignsappeared¡°likethepriorartofaQRcode¡±¡ªaninternationalstandardadoptedbeforethefilingdateofthe¡®¡¯,oneofthenotabledifferencesinJudgeHoran¡¯sreasoningstemsfromherholdingthat¡°noreasonablefactfindercouldfindinfringement.¡±*¡¯sopinionisbrief,itseemsthatt,becausethesamepatentisbeingassertedagainstthesametypeofinfringingarticle¡ªifnoreasonablefactfindercouldfindinfringementwiththePNCmobilebankingapplication,itislikelythesamewouldbetrueofPayPal¡¯yobserverstandarddoesn¡¯tseemtohavechanged(bothdecisionsreliedonit),however,atleastintheWesternDistrictofPennsylvania,visualqualitieslikesimila¡ªasofJune27,WePayappealedtotheFederalCircuit¡ªfornow,donappeal.

OnJuly11,theDelhiHCrestrainedaBengaluru-basedcakeryfromusingthenameFacebakeorFacecake,oranyotherFacebook-relatedtrademarkforitsproductsandservicesThecourtintheSnapdealcasealsodirectedDomainNameRegistrarstocreateamechanismforbrandstoseekcancellationortransferofdomainnamesthatinfringetrademarkIndiascurrentlawsthatgoverntrademarkinfringementsincludetheTrademarkAct,1999,whichwasdevelopedtocomplywiththeTRIPSagreementoftheWTOTru-basedcakeryfromusingthenameFacebakeorFacecake,,JusticeNavinChawla,whowashearingthecase,orderedthebakerytodeliverallfinishedandunfinishedproductsbearingthetrademarksimilartoMeta,theparentcompanyofFacebook,,theCourtalsoawardedINR50,,£¨DNRs£©oughttocreateamechanismviawhichtrademarkownerscouldapproachtheDNRsandsec,whileDNRsarecompaniesthatallowuserstoregisterthem,suchasGoDaddy,Namecheap,oumthathasseeninfringementcasesfiledleft,,manybrandswithnomanufacturingaddressespopulatethestreetsandcorners,,itisdifficulttotrackthesedubiousoperatorsinmostcases.

¿ªÌùÀ²£¡¿ªÌùÀ²!ÉϸöÔÂ28ºÅ¿ª¹¤µÄ£¬ÒòΪһֱæ×Å£¬Ö±µ½½ñÌì²ÅºÃºÃµØ×øÏÂÀ´¿ªÌù£¬ºÃºÃµØ¼Ç¼һÏÂÀÏ·¿¸ÄÔìµÄÕû¸öÀú³Ì¡£

Thefundamentalfunctionofatrademarkistoidentifythesourcesofgoods/servicessothatastablecorrespondingrelationshipbetweenthetrademarkandthedesignatedgoods/,manyenterprisesandapplicantsprefershortandeasytoremembersloganforthepromotionandmarketingfort,,(3)ofTrademarkLawofthePeoplesRepublicofChina,thefollowingsignsshallnotberegisteredastrademarks:,itiscommonthatCNIPAwillbelievesuchtrademarkislikelytomisleadthepublictorecognizeitasasloganoradvertisinglanguage,(3):¡°ÃÀʱÃÀ¿Ë¾¡ÔÚÃÀ¼Ò¡±(3);¡°ÊÍ·ÅÄãµÄ»îÁ¦¡±(3);¡°ENJOYTHEDAY¡±(3);¡°HOTELSTHATDEFINETHEDESTINATION¡±(3);¡°WISHYOUWEREHERE¡±(3);¡°UNLOCKTHEFUTUREWITHTHEPOWEROFLIGHT¡±(3).TheabovetrademarkswereallforbiddenfromtrademarkapplicationsinceCNIPAbelievesthemlackingdistinctivefeaturesandarenoteasilydistinguishable,(3)ofTrademarkLawthoughtheapplicantssubmittedrelevantevi,thesignsmayberegisteredastrademarksaftertheyhave¡°Õ⣡¾ÍÊǽÖÎ衱inClass41,theCNIPAbelievesthismarkhasacquireddistinctivenessandbemortinctivefeatures,itshallbeconsideredwithrelevantevidencetodeterminew,,iftheappliedtrademarkcanbecombinedwithotherdistinctiveelements,suchaswordordesign,,¡°LOREALBECAUSEIMWORTHIT¡±;althoughitwouldbeeasiertoenhancethepublicityandreputationofthebrand,itisquitediff,thechancestillexistsiftheslogancanberecognizedasdistinctivenessanddistinguishablethatconsiderthesign,detailedgoods/servicesitems,actualuse,etc.

ASouthAfricanjudgmentdealin,,however,(Pty)(the¡°organiser¡±)inthiscaseorganisesacharitableeventthattakestheformofasleep-out¨Cbusinessleadersareaskedfordonationsandthey¡¯rerequestedtosleepoutdoorsonawinter¡¯st(the¡°charity¡±).Intheprocessoforganisingthefirstsleep-out,theorganiserestablishedanelectronicdatabase,whichcameaboutbecauseeverydonorhadtoregisterontheorganiser¡¯¡¯tforeseenwasthatcertaincompanieswouldwanttopaybyelectronicfundstransfer(¡°EFT¡±).Toaccommodatethesecompanies,,,infact,createdbyanemployeeofthecharity,andthisemployeewasalsoresponsibleforinputtingthedonors¡¯rdidn¡¯ved,theorganiserandthecharityagreedthatalldonationswouldbepaiddirectlyintothebankaccountofthecharity,whichhadthenece,thecharitymadeuseoftheelectronicdatabase,,theorganiserarrangedfurthersleep-outs,butontheseoccasions,,thecharitystart,,erSouthAfricancopyrightlawasa¡°literarywork¡±.Thissomewhatmisleadingtermisdefinedtoinclude¡±tablesandcompilationsofdatastoredorembodiedinacomputer¡±.Thejudgewentontosaythatinordertoenjoycopyrightprotection,aliteraryworkmustbe¡°original¡±.(Pty)LtdvSaundersValveCompanyLtd,thecourtsaidthatforthepurposesofcopyright,¡°allthatisrequiredisthattheworkshouldemanatefromtheauthorhimselfandnotbecopied.¡±InHauptt/aSoftcopyvBrewersMarketingIntelligence(Pty)LtdandOthers,thecourtheldthataworkisoriginalifithasnotbeencopiedfromanexistingsource,andifitsproductionrequiredasubstantialdegreeofskill,,1978,theauthoroftheliteraryworkistheownerofthecopyrightunlessthecopyrighthasbeenassignedand,ifgeneratedbyacomputer,theauthoristhepe,,thecontributionofthecharity¡¯semployeedidnotmeettheoriginalitytest,astheformthatitsemployeehadcreatedforEFTpayerswassubstantial¡°nosubstantialdegreeofskill,judgementorlabour¡±.Thejudgewentontomakeanumberoffurtherpoints:theformforEFTpaymentswas¡°ancillary¡±tothedatabase:¡°butforitsincorporationonthewebsitetherespondentwouldnothavehadthemeanstocollectthedataitclaimstohavecollectedinthemanneritcollectedit...forthatreasonitwouldbeabsurdtoseparatethemanualformfromthewebsite.¡±eveniftheemployeehadinnovatedtheideaofEFTpayments,thisdidnotelevatethecharity¡°tothestatusofapersonwhomadearrangementsnecessaryforthecreationofthewebsite¡±.Thecharityneeded¡°theconcurrenceoftheapplicant¡±,andwithoutthisit¡°wouldnothavebeenabletocollectthedataitclaimstoown¡±.thepurposeoftheEFTinnovationwassimplytomakeitpossiblefordonorstopaybyEFTandgettaxexemptioncertificates,,soitsclaimtobeingapartnerwas¡°absurd¡±.Thejudgeconcludedthatgivingthecharitythestatusofanauthorofthedatabaseonthebasisofdatamanuallyaddedtothedatabasethatisautomaticallygeneratedfromthewebsitewouldbean¡°overbroadinterpretation¡±.Theorganiserwast(injunction).Ifthere¡¯salessontobelearnedfromthiscase,it¡¯sthis:copyrightissuesneedtobeconsideredandclarifiedrightfromthestart.

¡¡×ܽáÕÒ²»Õý¹æÊ©¹¤¶ÓÊ©¹¤ÄܺóʡǮµÄʵÖÊÊÇÒµÖ÷ÒÔÎþÉü¹¤³ÌÖÊÁ¿¡¢²ÄÁÏÖÊÁ¿¡¢Éè¼ÆÐ§¹û¡¢·þÎñ¡¢»·±£¡¢ÊÛºóΪ´ú¼ÛµÄ¡£

¡°Theobviousnessinquirydoesnotrequirethatthepriorartcombinationisthe¡®preferred,orthemostdesirable¡¯configuration.¡±¨CCAFChttps:///103763568/,(CAFC)affirmedthePatentTrialandAppealBoard¡¯s(PTAB¡¯s)obviousnessdeterminationanditsdenialofpatentownerHoytFleming¡¯,,includingclaims135-139,ofthe¡¯,Flemingmovedtoamend,thecombinationofCirrusDesign¡¯sPilotOperationHandbookfortheSR22,RevisionA7,(,2003)(POH),460,810(James).TheBoardfurtherfoundthatFleming¡¯sproposedamendedclaimsdidnotmeetthestatutoryandregulatoryrequirementsforpatentabilitybecaus,FlemingarguedtheBoarderredindeterminingt¡¯474PatentThe¡¯474patentdescribesballisticparachutesystemsonaircraft,wherethe¡°ballisticparachutesusearockettoquicklydeployaparachute,slowingthefallofacrashingaircraft¡±,thisballisticparachuteismostsuccessfulunderconditions¡°whenitcanbecomefullyinflatedandfunctional[,]¡±,thespecificationdisclosesthat¡°thatitispreferredtoreachkeyoperatingparameters¡ªlikecertainspeed,altitude,andpitch¡ªbefore(or,iftimerequires,while)deployingaballisticparachute.¡±The¡¯474patentisdirectedto¡°intelligentballisticparachutesystems¡±whichis¡°capableofperformingpre-activationandpost-activationactions[,]¡±intendedtohelptheaircraftreachdesiredoperatingparametersfor:(1)increasealtitude;(2)flyatalevelattitude;(3)reducespeed;and(4)enableordisable¡°reefingcontrol.¡±Additionally,thespecificationdisclosesthat,¡°uponreceivingaparachuteactivationrequestfroman¡®activationinterface,¡¯¡®oneormoreprocessors¡¯determinewhetherapre-activationactionmustbeperformedbeforedeployingtheparachute.¡±Ifso,¡°intelligenceoverrideinterface,¡±which¡°allowsanaircraftoccupanttomanuallyby-passtheprocessor-controlledoperationstoimmediatelydeploytheparachute,forexamplebypullingapull-handleorpressingabutton.¡±Specifically,therepresentativeClaim137ofthe¡¯474patentteachesthatuponthereceiptofthewhole-aircraftballisticparachutedeploymentrequest,theautopilotiscommandedto¡°increaseaircraftpitch.¡±Claims138and139areidenticalexcepttheautopilotiscommandedto¡°reduceaircraftroll¡±andto¡°changetheattitudeoftheaircraft,¡±,thePTABdeterminedthatclaims137¨C139ofthe¡¯¡¯soperatinghandbookwhichdescribestheoperationoftheCirrusAirframeParachuteSystem(CAPS),,POHsuggeststheparachuteshouldbeactivatedfroma¡°wings-level,uprightattitude¡±,anaircraftmayautomaticallyinitiateshutdownprocedures,tuation,including,forexample,¡°shuttingoffallengines,terminatingallflightfunctions,[and]deployinganemergencyrecoveryparachute.¡±ObvioustoCombineOnappeal,,hechallengedtheBoard¡¯sobviousnessdetermination,¡°arguingthatnoneofthepriorartdisclosescommandinganaircraft¡¯sautopilottoincreasepitch,reduceroll,orchangeattitudebasedontheaircraft¡¯sreceiptofaparachutedeploymentrequest,asrequiredbyclaims137¨C139.¡±TheCAFCagreedwiththePTAB¡¯thiselement,theBoardneverthelessfoundthat¡°apersonofordinaryskillwouldhavebeenmotivatedtoprogramJames¡¯autopilotinviewofPOHsothatuponthereceiptofaparachutedeploymentrequest,James¡¯autopilotwouldseektoensuresafetybyfollowingPOH¡¯sguidanceforsafeparachutedeployment,includingchangingtheaircraft¡¯spitch,reducingaircraftroll,and/,theCAFCadded,theproposed¡°aircraftautopilotsareprogrammabletoperformcertainactions,forexampleincreasingaircraftpitchanddeployingaparachute.¡±Inaddition,Jamesdisclosesthatuponreceivingasignal,¡°anaircraftmayautomaticallyinitiateshutdownprocedures,includingdeployinganemergencyparachute¡±¡°thesestandardautopilotmaneuvers¡ªslowingaircraftspeed,maintainingasteadyattitude,andchangingaircraftpitch¡ªshouldpreferablybecompletedbeforedeployinganemergencyparachute.¡±Lastly,theCAFCexplainedthat¡°itisappropriatetoconsidertheknowledge,creativity,andcommonsenseofaskilledartisaninanobviousnessdetermination.¡±WhiletheSupremeCourthascautionedagainstthemisuseoftheseconsiderations,ithascontinue,theCAFCfoundthattheBoard¡¯sconclusionisthe¡°resultofafaithfulapplicationofourlawonobviousness.¡±TeachingAwaySecond,Flemingarguedthatthepriorartteachesawayfromtheclaimedinventioninthe¡¯,Flemingarguedthat¡°thepriorartcautionedthatautopilotsshouldnotbeusedincertainemergencysituationswhereaballisticparachutemaybeneeded[,]¡±such,andtheCAFCagreed,¡°areasonablefact-findercouldnonethelessconcludethatthepriorartdoesnotsuggesttotheskilledartisanthatanautopilotshouldneverbeusedinanyemergencysituationforanyaircraft.¡±Forexample,Jamesdisclosesthatthecontinuoupriateintheeventofpilotincapacitation,dedfrommakingtheproposedcombinationbecause¡°usingJames¡¯sautopilotwouldbeunsafeinmanyemergencysituations.¡±However,theCAFCsidedwiththeBoard¡¯sreasoningthat¡°theobviousnessinquirydoesnotrequirethatthepriorartcombinationisthe¡®preferred,orthemostdesirable¡¯configuration.¡±Becausethepriorartcautionedpilotsnottouseanautopilotinsomeemergencysituationsdoesnotmeanthattheskilledaard¡¯sdenialofhismotiontoamendafterconcludingt¡ªagainusingatleastaportionofthedistributedprocessingsystemandbasedonanoccupantpullingthepullhandle¡ª,theproposedamendedclaimsrequirethatthea¡¯scitationstothewrittendescription,theBoardfound,andtheCAFCagreed,thatthecitedportionsdidnotdisclosethelimitationsoftheproposedamendedclaimsandtheseclaimslac,theCAFCheldthattheBoarddidnotabuseitsdiscretionindenyingFleming¡¯smotiontoamend.

ËäÈ»ºÍ´ó³ÇÊеĻÖÐÐÄ±ÈÆðÀ´ÏԵüòªÁ˵ã¶ù£¬µ«ÊÇÒÀ¾ÉµÃµ½ÁË´åÀïÎÄÒÕ°®ºÃÕßµÄϲ»¶¡£

OnFebruary4,(CAFC)affirmedtwodecisionsofthePatentTrialandAppealBoard(PTAB)onrelatedinterpartesreviews(IPRs)broughtbyQuanergyagainstVelodyne,explainingthattheBoard¡¯sdecisiontoupholdthevalidityofthedisputedcl,969,558,coveringalidar-based3-Dpointcloudmeasuri,thePTABheldthatseveralclaimsofthe¡¯,(¡°Mizuno¡±)describingadevicethatemitslighttowardano,theCAFCaddressedBerkovic,anarticlepublishedin2012whichreviewsvarioustechniquesformeasuringdistancetoobjects,including¡°triangulationandtime-of-flightsensing.¡±Notably,Berkovicpointsoutthat¡°problemsarisewhenusinglasertime-of-flightsensorstoobtainaccuratemeasurementsatshorterdistances.¡±TheUnderlyingDisputeQuanergypetitionedthePTABtoreviewtheclaimsofthe¡¯atthetimeandwhattechnologiesaskilledartisanmightuseinasystemlikeMizuno,,theBoardconsideredtheevidenceprovidedbyVelodynewhichpointedto¡°unresolvedlong-feltneed,industrypraise,andcommercialsuccess.¡±Onappeal,,QuanergyarguedonappealthatthePTABerredinitsconstructionoftheterm¡°lidar.¡±RelyingonVeritas,Quanergyassertedthattheindicationsinthespecificationthat¡°lidar¡±mayinvolvepulsedtime-of-flighttechniquesdonotprecludeabr¡¯,here,thespecificat,thepatentdescribes¡°measuringdistanceusingapulsedtime-of-flighttechnique,identifiestheshortcomingsofexistingpointcloudsystemsthatcollectdistancepointsbypulsinglightanddetectingitsreflection,anddisclosesalidarsystemthatcollectstime-of-flightmeasurements.¡±Inlightoftheintrinsicevidence,theCAFCfoundQuanergy¡¯sbroaderconstructioninconsistentwiththespecification,¡¯sconstructionoftheterm¡°lidar¡±,QuanergychallengedthePTAB¡¯,QuanergydisputedtheBoard¡¯sfindingsthatMizunoneit¡¯sandQuanergy¡¯sexpertssupportedtheBoard¡¯,Quanergy¡¯sexpertconcededthatMizuno¡¯g¡°onlyoneparticularembodimentofMizuno¡¯sdevice.¡±ButtheBoardrejectedthisargumentas¡°anattempttodrawanarbitrarydistinctioninthetestimonyofitsexpertbetweenoneofMizuno¡¯sfiguresandMizuno¡¯sdisclosureaswhole.¡±Similarly,theCAFCwasunpersuadedandnotedthatthetestimonyofQuanergy¡¯sexpertonredirectwas¡°incomplete,unspecific,andultimatelyconclusory.¡±TheBoardalsofoundthataskilledartisanwouldnothaveusedpulsedtime-of-flightlidarinMizuno¡¯sshort-rangemeasuringdevicebecauseBerkovicsuggeststhat¡°theaccuracyofpulsedtime-of-flightlidarmeasurementsdegradesinshorterranges.¡±Naturally,theBoardwasleftunpersuadedbyQuanergy¡¯sexpert¡¯sfailuretoexplain¡°howorwhyaskilledartisanwouldhavehadanexpectationofsuccess¡±inovercomingtheproblemsinimplementingapulsedtime-of-flightsensorintoashort-rangemeasurementsystemsuchasMizuno¡¯,theBoardstatedQuanergy¡¯sevidenceofferedtoshowanexpectationofsuccesswas¡°speculationfromitsexpertabouttheendlesspossibilitiesofMizuno¡¯steachings.¡±NexusOnappeal,QuanergyalsochallengedtheBoard¡¯spresumptionofanexusbetweentheclaimedinventionandVelodyne¡¯sevidenceofanunresolvedlong-feltneed,industrypraise,¡°ampleevidence¡±thatitscommercialproducts¡°embodythefullscopeoftheclaimedinventionandthattheclaimedinventionisnotmerelyasubcomponentofthoseproducts.¡±Forexample,theBoardnotedVelodyne¡¯sexperthadprovidedadetailedanalysismappingclaim1ofthe¡¯558patenttoeachofVelodyne¡¯scommercialproducts,rsensorthatcouldcapturedistancepointsrapi,Quanergyidentifieda360-degreehorizontalfieldofview,awideverticalfieldofview,andadense3-DpointcloudasunclaimedfeaturessuchthatVelodyne¡¯¡°clearlysupportedbythechallengedclaims.¡±Onappeal,QuanergyassertedtheBoardtconsideru,theCAFCfound¡°theBoard¡¯sexplanationofhoweachallegedunclaimedfeatureresultsdirectlyfromclaimlimitations¡ªsuchthatVelodyne¡¯sproductsareessentiallytheclaimedinvention¡ªbothadequateandreasonable.¡±Ultimately,theCAFCaffirmedthePTAB¡¯sfindingonnon-obviousnessbasedonthesecondaryindiciaofnon-obviousnessshowingbytheexternalevidenceprovidedbyVelodyne.

ÃâÔðÉùÃ÷£º±¾¹ã¸æÏà¹ØÎÄ×Ö¡¢Í¼Æ¬ÒÔ¼°½¨ÖþÉè¼ÆÐ§¹ûͼÊǶÔÏîÄ¿Ëù×öµÄʾÒâ±íÏÖ£¬½ö¹©²Î¿¼£¬×îÖÕ±ê×¼Ïê¼ûÕþ¸®Ïà¹Ø²¿ÃÅÅú×¼Îļþ¡¢Í¼Ôò¡£

InresponsetoacomplaintfiledbytheleadingSpanishfootballleagueLaLiga,thecountrysNationalPolicehascarriedoutalarge-scaleope,leadingtothedismantlin,top-tierSpanishfootballleagueLaL,LaLiga¡¯spremiumcontentiswidely¡¯thopetovisitthemall,¡¯phoneseffectivelybecamespyingdevicesthatcouldlistentotheirsurroundingsand,whenLaLigamatcheswereidentified,,LaLigawashitwitha250,000eurofinebySpain¡¯sdataprotectionagencyAEPDbutthecompanyvowedtocontinuefighting¡°thisveryseriousscourgethatispiracy¡±.LaLigakeptitswordandanoperationjustannouncedbylocalpolicerevealsthatcommLigainJanuary2022,Spain¡¯sNationalPolicelaunchedaninvestigationintoapsSpainincludingSeville,Malaga,Cordoba,Zaragoza,Valladolid,Murcia,PalmadeMallorca,Gij¨®n,Madrid,Vigo,LasPalmas,tandermatcheswerebeingplayed,and166barswereidentifiedasbeinginvolvedinthefraudulentdisplayofcopyrightedcontent.¡°Asaresultof[theoperation],theentireinfrastructurethatallowedtheillegalviewingofpaidmultimediacontentwasdismantled,withtheidentificationofthoseresponsibleandthecessationoftheillegalservicetheyprovided,¡±alargenumberofpiracy-configureddevicesincludingAmazonFiresticks,genericAndroidboxes,ntellectualpropertyinfringementcrimes.

Withanincreaseinpopulationsothebasicneedoffood,theuseofchemica,13June2021:Withanincreaseinpopulationsothebasicneedoffood,theuseofchemicasandimplementationofdifferentkindsofsustainableagriculturalpracticesamongfarmersIndia¡¯d500LakhMetricTonnes(LMT),(FAO),theconsumptionoffertilizerssuchasnitrogenous,potash,andphosphatefertilizerstoucheda,theGreenrevolutionwasam,thereisnospecifictrendinfertilizersconsumption(UreaPhosphaticandPotassic(PK),India¡¯sfertilizerconsumptionwascloseto500LakhMetricTonnes,roblemsExcessiveuseofchemicalfertilizerswillresultinsoilacidification,heavymetalspollution,soilcompaction,,theplantsandsoilwillbedegradediffertilizersarenotusedjudiciously.

Withanincreaseinpopulationsothebasicneedoffood,theuseofchemica,13June2021:Withanincreaseinpopulationsothebasicneedoffood,theuseofchemicasandimplementationofdifferentkindsofsustainableagriculturalpracticesamongfarmersIndia¡¯d500LakhMetricTonnes(LMT),(FAO),theconsumptionoffertilizerssuchasnitrogenous,potash,andphosphatefertilizerstoucheda,theGreenrevolutionwasam,thereisnospecifictrendinfertilizersconsumption(UreaPhosphaticandPotassic(PK),India¡¯sfertilizerconsumptionwascloseto500LakhMetricTonnes,roblemsExcessiveuseofchemicalfertilizerswillresultinsoilacidification,heavymetalspollution,soilcompaction,,theplantsandsoilwillbedegradediffertilizersarenotusedjudiciously.

Ï£¶û¶Ù¾Æµê¹«Ô¢ºìÐÇÃÀ¿­ÁúÉÌÆÌ🔆ÈÙÒ«¾ÞÏ×🔆[°l]🎡²»ÏÞ¹º²»ÏÞ´û🎡[°l]¡ª¡ª¡ª¡ª¡ª¡ª¡ª¡ª¡ª¡ª¿ÉͶ×Ê¿É×ÔסÉÌÎñ¡¢°ì¹«¡¢¾ÓסÂú×ãÄãµÄÉú»îÏëÏ󡪡ª¡ª¡ª¡ª¡ª¡ª¡ª¡ª¡ª🚆🚆¸ßÌú¿Ú¸ßËÙÅÔ🚆🚆🌞🌞´¼ÊìÉÌÒµÖÐÐÄ🌞🌞ÅäÌ×Ò»Ó¦¾ãÈ«¡ª¡ª¡ª¡ª¡ª¡ª¡ª¡ª¡ª¡ªÏîÄ¿µØÖ·£ºÁ¬ÔƸÛÊйàÄÏÏØÈËÃñÎ÷·1ºÅ£¬ÊÀ¼ÍÔµ¾Æµêб¶ÔÃæ(ÏîÄ¿Öܱ߹滮£ºÒ½Ôº£¬Ñ§Ð£)🏠Ãæ»ý:¹«Ô¢Ö÷Á¦Ãæ»ý60ƽ·½,ÉÌÆÌÖ÷Á¦Ãæ»ý48-90ƽ·½🏠´óÌåÁ¿:¹«Ô¢900Ì×£¬ÉÌÆÌ600Ì×🏠×ܼۣº¹«Ô¢×ܼÛ35ÍòÆð£¬ÉÌÆÌ×ܼÛ50Íòµ½200Íò🏦²ã¸ß£º¹«Ô¢3Ã×4£¬ÉÌÆÌÃ×/5Ã×(c¶°ºìÐÇÃÀ¿­Áú)🏠µÃ·¿ÂÊ£º¹«Ô¢75%£¬ÉÌÆÌ60%🏠Ê׸¶£º50%Æð🏦Ê®ÄêÍйܡ¢Îȶ¨ÊÕ񾂡ÎåÄê·Ö±ð7%8%8%9%9%µÚ6-10ÄêÿÄêÊÕÒæ8/2·Ö³É£¬¿Í»§8¿ª·¢ÉÌ2¡£

ÉÏÁË´óѧ֮ºóʱ³£Ô¼³öÈ¥¿´µçÓ°³Ô·¹×ÔÈ»¶øÈ»µÄ¾ÍÔÚÒ»ÆðÁË£¬¸ÐÇéÌúÇÒÎȶ¨¡£

Thoseplansarelikelytobedraftedbytheinternet¡¯sglobaldomainnameorganisation,theInternetCorporationforAssignedNamesandNumbers(ICANN),aftertheEuropeanDataProtectionBoard(EDPB)effectivelysaiditneedstogobacktothedrawingboardtomakeitsrulesaroundthecollectionanduseofWHOISdatacompliantwiththeGeneralDataProtectionRegulation(GDPR).TheWHOISsystemInformationthatservestoidentifythepeoplebehinddomainnameregistrationsispublishedontheWHOISsystem,internet,butisalsousedbylredawebsiteofferingcounterfeitgoodswhichinfringetheirtrademarkrights,orsi,theanydomainnameregistrarstotakeaconservativeapproachtotheemptedtoenforcethetermsofitscontractualagreementwithadomainn,domainnameregistrarEPAGDomainservicessuccessfullyfoughtoffabidfromICANNtoforceittocollectthepersonaldataoftechnicalandadmctionofthecontactinformationwasnecessary,,theEDPBrespondedtoICANNscallformoreguauthor(8-page/737KBPDF):ICANNneedstodefineitsspecifiedpurposesandlawfulbasisforprocessingpersonaldataandshouldnotconflatethiswiththelegitimateinterestsandpurposesofthirdpartieswhomaysubsequentlyseekaccesstothedata;thatthereisnobasisforICANNtoinsistupontheprovisionofadditionalinformationonadministrativeandtechnicalcontactsfromregistrants;thatthefactthatregistrantsmaybelegalpersonsdoesnottakeWHOISoutsidethescopeofGDPRwhereICANNisprocessingpersonaldatarelatingtoindividualswithinthoseorganisations,andthereforethepersonaldataofsuchindividualsshouldnotbemadepublicallyavailablebydefault;thatICANNisrequiredtologaccesstopersonaldata,butdoesnotnecessarilyneedtoactivelycommunicate(push)thisloginformationtoregistrantsorthirdparties;thatICANNhasfailedtojustifywhyitisnecessarytoretainpersonaldatafortwoyearsposttheexpiryofthedomainnameregistration,and;thatcodesofconductorcertificatesofaccreditationarevoluntaryaneconta,theArticle29WorkingParty,hasbeenofferingguidancetoICANNonhowt,includingincreasedtransparencyobligations,havenowbroughtthisissuetoaheadandtheEDPBletterisclearinitsmessagethatICANNnessedinthecontextofWHOISmaybemadeavailabletothirdpartieswhohavealegitimateinterestinaccessingthedata,providedthoseinterestsarenotoverriddenbytheinterestsorfundamentalrightsandfreedomsofthedatasubject,andprovidedsafeguardsareputinplacet,thiswillnotnecessarilymeanthatICANNmustactivelynotifythedatasubjectsconcernedthattheirinformationhasbeenaccessed,andbywhom,alaWHOISsearchtofindoutwhoisbehindaninfringingsite,withoutnotifyingthtimatestakeholderstogainaccesstopersonaldataconcerningregistrantsbutalsocontainsappropriatesafeguards,testakeholdersmaystillgainaccesstoWHOISdata,andthatregis,itislikelythatanynewmodelwillinvolvemoretime,effortandexpenseforrightholdersseekingaccesstosuchinformation,whichuptonowhasbeenfreelyandreadilyavailabletothem.

3¡¢ÕºÁÏÖ­Öжà·ÅÒ»µã´×£¬ÓнâÄå¡¢¿ªÎ¸µÄЧ¹û£»Ã״ס¢³Â´×¾ù¿É¡£

(USPTO)ruledlastweekthatart,including¡°himself¡±and¡°herself.¡±Thegroupthatfiledthepatentsarguedthatbecausethelawreferencesinventorsas¡°individuals,¡±,saying,¡°Undercurrentlaw,onlynaturalpersonsmaybenamedasaninventorinapatentapplication.¡±TheUK¡¯sIntellectualPropertyOffice(IPO)andtheEuropeanPatentOffice(EPO),amemberofthegroup,¡°CreativityMachine,¡±,anothermemberoftheArtificialIntelligenceTeam,believesthatchangingthele,Abbotsaid,¡°Ifyoumakeapointofrecognizinghowvaluableamachinehasbeeninthecreativeprocess,thatmachinewillinevitablybecomemorevaluable.¡±Asofnow,artificialintelligenceisconsideredahelpfulmechanismintheinventiveprocess,ratherthanasoleinventor.

TheinternetisthemainbattlefieldforcopyrightprotectioninChinabecauseofthelargenumberofusers,richapplicationofworksandrapidgrowthofthedigitaleconomy,,saidZhaoXiuling,deputydirec,11wereintheUnitedStatesandninewereinChina,nCopyrightandCreativeIndustriesintheDigitalEconomy:,thenumberofnetizensinthecountrywas829million,andthenumberofmobileinternetusersstoodat817million,,,,ectualproperty,copyrightin,6,266websitesinvolvedininfringementandpiracywereclosed,nearly4millionpiratedproductswereconfiscatedand6,647infringementandpiracycaseswereinvestigatedundertheimplementationofSwordnetSpecialActions.

ChinaonTuesdaykickedoffafive-monthcampaignagainstunlicense,e-commercewebsites,onlineadvertisements,musicandvideostreamingwebsites,cloudstorageservicesandonlinenewsproviders,accordingtoastatementreleasedbytheNationalCopyrightAdministration(NCA).Iturgedlocalpoliceandcopyright,internetandtelecomdepartmentstostrengthensupervisionandseverelycrackdownonintellectualproper,a,StateInternetInformationOffice,theMinistryofIndustryandInformationTechnologyandtheMinistryofPublicSecurity.

ÒòΪÎÒÃÇÒ²ºÜˬ¿ì£¬±¨¼Û³öÀ´´ó¸Å¿´ÁËһϣ¬´òÁ˸öÕÛ£¬Ã»ÎÊÌâ¸ôÌì¾Í°ÑºÏͬǩÁË£¬ÎÒ¶¼¾õµÃÎÒÃÇÕâЧÂÊÕæµÄÊǸܸܵġ£

½ûÖ¹ÔÚÈËÐеÀÉÏÍ£·Å»ú¶¯³µ£»µ«ÊÇ£¬ÒÀÕÕ±¾·¨µÚÈýÊ®ÈýÌõ¹æ¶¨Ê©»®µÄÍ£³µ²´Î»³ýÍâ¡£

ChinesevideoplatformKuaishouhasfileda5millionyuan($705,000)lawsuitagainstDouyin,accusingitsrivalof¡°piggybacking¡±onthecompany¡¯,whichhasbeenacceptedbyBeijing¡¯sHaidianDistrictcourt,KuaishouclaimsDouyinusedKuaishou¡¯snametolinktoitsownproductpageon360MobileAssistant,¡ªknowninternationallyasTikTok¡ªofinfringingKuaishou¡¯strademarktodisplayitsownproduct,pro,KuaishouisChina¡¯,Kuaishouclaimedithadsurpassed300milliondailyactiveusersonitsChineseapp,,Douyin¡¯sparentcompany,tolddomesticmediaonWednesdaythatithadfileditsownlawsuitagainstKuaishouinMarchoversimilarissue,andislookingintoitsrival¡¯rchenginesandothersimilarplatforms,onalinformation,raisingconcernsaboutcontentqualityandimpairedfunctionality.¡°IthinkwhatDouyinhasdonecouldconstituteinfringementofKuaishoustrademarkrights,¡±,anintellectualpropertylawyeratBeijingMingtaiLawFirm,toldSixthTone.¡°IfDouyinlinksKuaishouasitskeypaidsearchterminitsadrankings,itbasicallyweakensKuaishou¡¯sconnectiontoitsusers,justasKuaishouarguesinitslawsuit.¡±Usually,third-partyserviceprovidersdon¡¯thavealegalobligationtoreviewkeywords,andit¡¯salsoimpracticaltoanalyzeeverywordinthesearchenginealgorithm,comestodisplayingsearchresults.¡°Iftherightsownerdiscoversinfringementorunfaircompetition,theycannotifytheserviceproviderandaskthemtotakenecessarymeasures,suchasdeleting,blocking,disconnectinglinks,andmore,¡±,Kuaishou,and360MobileAssistantdidnotrespondtoSixthTone¡¯,,short-v,aBeijing-basedconsultancy,averagescreentimeonshort-videoappsduringthisyear¡¯sextendedLunarNewYearholidayincreasedby27minutescomparedwiththesameperiodlastyear,withDo¡¯sovercrowdedvideo,DouyinsuedTencentfordefamationoveranarticlepublishedonthecompany¡¯,TencentandByteDance,suedeachotheroverunfaircompetition.

QingYuNian,apopularChinesecostumedramaadaptedfromtheChinesewebnovelofthesamename,hasbeenaccusedbyChinesenetizensofplagiarizingcontentfromthefantasynovelseriesTheTwelveKingdoms(1992)ofdialoguefromQingYuNianthat,tonotbediscouragedevenwhenencounteringdisaster,tocorrectinjusticewithoutfear,donotyieldandflatterthemonstersintheJapanesenovelisbeingcomparedtoQingYuNianstobeunyieldingwhenabusedbyothers,tonottobefrustratedwhendisastersoccur,ifanythingisunfair,befearlessincorrectingit,,themeaningandstructureofbothareverysimilar,,itdefinitelyborrowedsomeideasfromTheTwelveKingdoms,buttocallitplagiarism,Idoubtit,,eventheirlogicandstructurearethesameandyousayitsnotplagiarismpostedanothernetizenwhoconfrontedQi,butifthetakenbithasbeenwashedthoroughly,andhasnodramaticsimilarities,andthebithappenstobelessimportantandhaslessfunctionwhenevaluatingitintheentirework,then,itisnoteasytodefineitasplagiarism,said,alawyerspecializingincopyrightlaw,,theconceptofanovel,filmandTVscript;,,thelawprotectsexpression,,sometimescanbeconfusinganddependsontheparticularcase,,QingYuNianisawell-ratedalternativehistorynovelthatte,theworkwasadaptedintoa46-episodeTVdramastarringfamousactorssuchasZhangRuoyun,ChenDaomingandXiaoZhan,acontr,theIPhasbee,iftheplagiarismscandalgainsground,willtherebeasecondseasonPleasedontcancelit,IliketheTVdramaalot,Tanni,afanoftheshowinBeijing,,theofficialproductionteamfortheshowannouncedthatasecondseasonisindevelopmentandwilllikelyairin2022.

2019Äê5ÔµÄÒ»Ì죬ÔÚÒ»ÆðÃü°¸ÖУ¬ÓÉÓÚ°¸·¢Ê±¼ä¾ÝËÀÕßËÀÍöʱ¼ä½Ï³¤£¬Ê¬Ìå·¢ÏÖʱÒѸ߶ȸ¯°Ü£¬¸ø¼ìÑ鹤×÷´øÀ´¼«´óÄѶȣ¬ÕÅÃôºÍͬÊÂÀûÓÃÏÖ´ú¿Æ¼¼ÊֶΣ¬·´¸´¿±ÑéÏÖ³¡ºÍ¼ìÑéʬÌ壬×îÖÕÕÒµ½±»º¦È˵ÄËÀÍöÔ­Òò£¬³É¹¦ÕìÆÆ´ËÃü°¸£¬½«Ð×ÊÖÉþÖ®ÒÔ·¨¡£

Incase(2021£©×î¸ß·¨ÖªÃñÖÕ1298ºÅrecentlyhighlightedbytheIntellectualPropertyTribunaloftheSupremePeople¡¯sCourtofChina(SPC),theSPCruledthatasettlementagreementtoapatentinfringementlawsuitconstitutedahorizontalmonopolyagreementasthescopetheagreementwasnot,WuhanTaipuTransformerSwitchCo.,Ltd.(TaipuCompany)suedShanghaiHuamingPowerEquipmentManufacturingCo.,Ltd.(HuamingCompany)forinfringingitsinventionpatententitled¡°Off-circuittap-changerwithshieldingdevice.¡±InJanuary2016,thetwopartiesre:HuamingCompanycanonlyproducecertainkindsofnon-excitationtap-changers,andotherkindsofnon-excitationtap-changerscouldonlyberesoldtodownstreamcustomersthroughTaipuCompany,andthesale,HuamingCompanyactsasamarketagentforTaipurelatedentities,andshallnotproduceoractasanagentfortheproductsofthesamecategoryofotherenterprisesonitsown,an,,HuamingCompanyfiledalawsuitinthiscasewiththeIntermediatePeople¡¯sCourtofWuhanCity,HubeiProvince,claimingthatthesettlementagreenotamonopolyagreement,¡¯sCourt,,theSupremePeople¡¯sCourtheldthattodeterminewhethertheagreementinvolvedinthecaseisinvalidduetoviolationofthemandatoryprovisionsoftheAnti-MonopolyLaw,itmustfirstdeterminewhethertheagreementinvolvedinthecaseconstitutesahorizontalmonopolyagreementexpresslyprohibitedbytheAnti-MonopolyLaw,andthende,astowhethertheagreementinvolvedinthecaseconstitutesahorizontalmonopolyagreementexpresslyprohibitedbyArticle13,paragraph1oftheAnti-MonopolyLaw,theSupremePeople¡¯sCourtheldthatHuamingC,bothpartieshavecertainmarketinfluence,andthereisacompetit,withArticles1,5and10asthecore,agreedtostoptheproductionofspecificvarietiesofcommodities,restrictthesalesofspecificvarietiesofcommodities,coordinateandfixprices,andsupplem,restrictingtheproductionandsalesvolumeofcommodities,andfixingcommoditypriceshasbeenstrengthened,anditmeetstheformalrequirementsstfArticle13oftheAnti-MonopolyLawarecommontypesoftypicalhorizontalmonopolyagreementswiththeeffectofeliminatingandrestrictingcompetition,onceagreedupon,willgenerallyeliminateandrestrictcompetitionanditca,Taipushouldbeartheburdenofproofthattheagreementinvolvedi,theevidenceinthecasealsoshowsthataftertheagreementinvolvedinthecasewassigned,theunitpriceoftheoff-circuittap-changerinthepriceguidesentbyTaiputoHuamingwasmuchhigherthanHuaming¡¯sownexternalsalespriceandthelegalrepresentativesofbothpartiesWeChatchatrecordsalsowillleadtoanincreaseinthepriceofrelatedproducts,,regardingtherelationshipbetweentheagreementinvolvedandthepatentinfringementdispute,theSupremePeople¡¯sCourtheldthatinthiscase,thetechnicaleffectofthepatentinvolvedwasmainlytoreducethecostofswitchmanufacturing,toenhancethestabilityandreliabili,Huaming¡¯srestrictedproductionandsalesofcertaintypesofoff-circuittap-changersarenot,HuamingCompanyandTaipuComparket,andusesthistodetermi,salesvolume,salestype,salesarea,,wh,buttousetheexerciseofthepatentrightasacover,infact,itpursuesdividingthesalesmarketandrestrictingtheproductionandsalesofgoodswiththeeffectoffixingprices,whichisanabuseofpatentrights,constitutesanactofexcludingandrestrictingcompetition,,thefactthatTaipuownsandexercisesthepatentrightinth,regardingthelegaleffectoftheagreement,theSupremePeople¡¯sCourtheldthatArticles1,5and10oftheagreementinvolvedviolatedtheprovisionsofArticle13oftheAnti-Mono,Taipudidnotclaimthattheagre,Articles1,nthecase,andtheotherclausesrelatetoth,theagreementcannotsurviveseverabilityafterstrippingoutthethreeclauses,,2022isavailablehere(Chineseonly).

6Ê©¹¤¹¤ÈËÎÞÖ¤Éϸڣ¬·çÏÕ¼«¸ß¡£

Incase(2021£©×î¸ß·¨ÖªÃñÖÕ1298ºÅrecentlyhighlightedbytheIntellectualPropertyTribunaloftheSupremePeople¡¯sCourtofChina(SPC),theSPCruledthatasettlementagreementtoapatentinfringementlawsuitconstitutedahorizontalmonopolyagreementasthescopetheagreementwasnot,WuhanTaipuTransformerSwitchCo.,Ltd.(TaipuCompany)suedShanghaiHuamingPowerEquipmentManufacturingCo.,Ltd.(HuamingCompany)forinfringingitsinventionpatententitled¡°Off-circuittap-changerwithshieldingdevice.¡±InJanuary2016,thetwopartiesre:HuamingCompanycanonlyproducecertainkindsofnon-excitationtap-changers,andotherkindsofnon-excitationtap-changerscouldonlyberesoldtodownstreamcustomersthroughTaipuCompany,andthesale,HuamingCompanyactsasamarketagentforTaipurelatedentities,andshallnotproduceoractasanagentfortheproductsofthesamecategoryofotherenterprisesonitsown,an,,HuamingCompanyfiledalawsuitinthiscasewiththeIntermediatePeople¡¯sCourtofWuhanCity,HubeiProvince,claimingthatthesettlementagreenotamonopolyagreement,¡¯sCourt,,theSupremePeople¡¯sCourtheldthattodeterminewhethertheagreementinvolvedinthecaseisinvalidduetoviolationofthemandatoryprovisionsoftheAnti-MonopolyLaw,itmustfirstdeterminewhethertheagreementinvolvedinthecaseconstitutesahorizontalmonopolyagreementexpresslyprohibitedbytheAnti-MonopolyLaw,andthende,astowhethertheagreementinvolvedinthecaseconstitutesahorizontalmonopolyagreementexpresslyprohibitedbyArticle13,paragraph1oftheAnti-MonopolyLaw,theSupremePeople¡¯sCourtheldthatHuamingC,bothpartieshavecertainmarketinfluence,andthereisacompetit,withArticles1,5and10asthecore,agreedtostoptheproductionofspecificvarietiesofcommodities,restrictthesalesofspecificvarietiesofcommodities,coordinateandfixprices,andsupplem,restrictingtheproductionandsalesvolumeofcommodities,andfixingcommoditypriceshasbeenstrengthened,anditmeetstheformalrequirementsstfArticle13oftheAnti-MonopolyLawarecommontypesoftypicalhorizontalmonopolyagreementswiththeeffectofeliminatingandrestrictingcompetition,onceagreedupon,willgenerallyeliminateandrestrictcompetitionanditca,Taipushouldbeartheburdenofproofthattheagreementinvolvedi,theevidenceinthecasealsoshowsthataftertheagreementinvolvedinthecasewassigned,theunitpriceoftheoff-circuittap-changerinthepriceguidesentbyTaiputoHuamingwasmuchhigherthanHuaming¡¯sownexternalsalespriceandthelegalrepresentativesofbothpartiesWeChatchatrecordsalsowillleadtoanincreaseinthepriceofrelatedproducts,,regardingtherelationshipbetweentheagreementinvolvedandthepatentinfringementdispute,theSupremePeople¡¯sCourtheldthatinthiscase,thetechnicaleffectofthepatentinvolvedwasmainlytoreducethecostofswitchmanufacturing,toenhancethestabilityandreliabili,Huaming¡¯srestrictedproductionandsalesofcertaintypesofoff-circuittap-changersarenot,HuamingCompanyandTaipuComparket,andusesthistodetermi,salesvolume,salestype,salesarea,,wh,buttousetheexerciseofthepatentrightasacover,infact,itpursuesdividingthesalesmarketandrestrictingtheproductionandsalesofgoodswiththeeffectoffixingprices,whichisanabuseofpatentrights,constitutesanactofexcludingandrestrictingcompetition,,thefactthatTaipuownsandexercisesthepatentrightinth,regardingthelegaleffectoftheagreement,theSupremePeople¡¯sCourtheldthatArticles1,5and10oftheagreementinvolvedviolatedtheprovisionsofArticle13oftheAnti-Mono,Taipudidnotclaimthattheagre,Articles1,nthecase,andtheotherclausesrelatetoth,theagreementcannotsurviveseverabilityafterstrippingoutthethreeclauses,,2022isavailablehere(Chineseonly).

Theself-proclaimedinventorofBitcoin,CraigWright,haswonadefaultjudgmentinLondon¡¯sHighCourtinhisc,thewebsiteanditsownerCobramustremovetheBitcoinwhitepaperfromthewebportalandpay$¡®Satoshi¡¯¡¯,however,onFebruary24viatheIntellecigh,thereissomuchevidencecontradictingCraigWright¡¯sstoryit¡¯sbeensaidhesimply¡°thrivesonattention.¡±¡°He¡¯shadfouryearstocomeforwardwithproofthatheisSatoshi,andI,forone,amnotsatisfied,¡±¡¯soperatorCobra,theCryptoOpenPatentAlliance(COPA)¡¯sclaimstothefamouswhitepaper.¡°Today,r,¡±,arepresentativeofCraigWright,:¡°ThisisexactlywhatwehavewantedtohappenforsometimeandIamverypleasedthisbodyhasagreedtostandupincourtasIcannowhavemycredentialsjudgedlegally.¡±OnJune28andalsoupdatedthefollowingday,¡¯¡¯srequestwhichincludes:AninjunctionprohibitingtheDefendantfrominfringingDrWright¡¯scopyrightintheUnitedKingdo¡±¡°AnorderrequiringtheDefendanttopublishacopyoftheCourt¡¯¡±¡°maintaintheiranonymity.¡±OnTwitter,¡¯spseudonymousoperatorspokeabouttherulingandsaidthatitwastheperfectexampleofwhyuncensorableandpermissionlessnetworkslikeBitcoinareneeded.¡°Allyourfiat-basedassetsareultimatelysecuredbythesamelegalsystemthattodaymadeitillegalformetohosttheBitcoinwhitepaperbecauseanotoriousliarsworebeforeajudgethathe¡¯sSatoshi,¡±Cobratweeted.¡°Asystemwhere¡®justice¡¯dependsonwho¡¯sgotthebiggerwallet.¡±Theanonymousbitcoineradded:¡°Idon¡¯tthinkyoucouldgetabetteradvertisementof*why*donwhoevercanspendhundredsofthousandsofdollarsincourt.¡±

¡°ÒÔǰÎÒÃÇÕâ¸öµØ·½ÊǸö¾É´å²¿£¬ÒòΪÁ½´åºÏ²¢£¬×÷Ϊ¼¯Ìå×ʲú¾Í¿ÕÁ˳öÀ´¡£

TheCantonFair,oneoftheworldslargesttradeshowsthatkickedoffonThursdayinGuangzhou,SouthChinasGuangdongProvince,islocatedinthePazhouarea,agrowingindustrialclusterofinformationtechnology,artificialintelligence,industrialInternetandotherinnovativetechnologies,whereover30,000companieshavesettled,includingAlibaba,Tencent,Xiaomi,,laboratoriesarealsomovingintotheregiontoenhanceresearchanddevelopment(RD).PazhouLab,orAIDEGuangdongProvinceLab(GZ),nomyfortheGuangdong-HongKong-MacaoGreaterBayArea,andvowstobeahubofscienceandtechnologyinnovation,YuanZiwei,apublicityagentofthePazhouLab,,whichcansolvethecoreproblemsofintelligentsystems,,vicedirectoroftheBeijingEconomicOperationAssociation,toldtheGlobalTimesthattheconstructionoflaboratoriesandindustrialparkswillhelpGuangdong,andShenzheninparticular,addressitsshortcomingsineducationandresearch,thussupportingGua,HanJiuqiang,aprofessorofXianJiaotongUniversity,wasoneoftheexperts,,aspeoplesconsumptionlevelishigher,resultinginmorepursuitanddemandforniche,personalizedproducts,,,wehavetohavemachinesandrobotsthatcandodifferentthingsatthesametime,andthatrequiresalotmorefro,,allsmartdevicestodayarenotreallysmart,becausethesemachinesandrobotsareonlycapableoflearning,,forexample,isverygoodatplayingchess,,,ontheotherhand,telligent,,butitstillneedstimetorealizeinindustrialproduction,,ofwhichindependentlydevelopedandproducedintelligentsteelprocessingequipmenthavebeenwidelyusedincivilengineeringfieldssuchashighways,,America,theMiddleEast,SoutheastAsia,SouthAfricaandotherinternationalmarkets,,,whichisthecoreofthesmartmachineryandequipment,,utilitymodelpatentsandsoftwarecopyrightinthefieldofintelligentconstruction,tmentaregreatburdensforenterprises,,theoriginalinnovationofhigh-techinthesmartfield,suchasthethirdgenerationofthesemiconductor,AIandmechanicalautomation,isquitedifficult,,resourcesinmanyfieldsofindustry,,supporttheoreticalresearch,andfinally,completetheprocessfromtheorytoindustrialpractice,ZhangXiaorong,directoroftheBeijing-basedCutting-EdgeTechnologyResearchInstitute,,andmakethecountryconcentrateonresearch,,whatChinaneedstostrengthenisitstheoreticalresearch.

NFT(non-fungibletoken)i,musicians,collectorsandinvestors,withthesalesofNFTsresultinginabillion-dollarsizedmarket;yetthelawsandregulationsaroundthisspecificassetclassarefailingtokeepupwiththefastpaceofdevelopmentandfallshortinaddressingmanykeylegalissuesandcontroversiessurroundingNFTsintraditionallegalareas,,similartomarketselsewhere,,asidefromtheregulationsandrestrictionsfromafinancialperspective,untilnow,neithertheChineseauthoritiesnortheChinesecourtshadeverformallyrespondedtoanyotherkeylegalissuespertainingtoNFTs,InternetCourtonacopyrightinfringementcaserelatingtoanNFT,,thecourtshareditsviewsonseveralcopyrightissuesinrelationtoNFTs,:pertyoftheunderlyingartwork(unlessthesalesagreementprovidesotherwise).ThesaleofanunauthorizedNFTdoesnotinfringeuponthecopyrightowner¡¯srightofdistributionintheunderlyingworkwhichislimitedbythefirst-saledoctrine,butinstead,infringesupontherightofcommunicationbyinformationnetworks(whichisahighlycontroversialissueinrelationtocopyrightinfringementofanNFT).ThelegitimatecreatorofanNFTshouldnotbethepersonwhosimplypossessesacopyoftheunderlyingwork,butthepersonwhoownsthecopyrightin,orobtainsaduelicensefor,,thevettingobligationsofanNFTplatformshouldberelativelyhigher,because:TheNFTbusiness,,theunderlyingtechnologyofNFTswasbuilttocreateatrustworthyecosystemforallpartiestoatransaction,henceitiscriticallyimportantforanNFTplatformtoensuretherearenoobviousflawsinthecopyrightownershipoftheunderlyingworkofanNFT(whichistheverybasisandstartofallsubsequenttransactionsoftheNFT);otherwise,theentireNFTtransactionchainwouldbecomeveryunstableandallrelatedparties¡¯(profits)directlyfromsalesofNFTsonitsplatform,mechanismandusereasonableeffortstoverifythecopyrightownershipofeachunderlyingwork,(suchasmanuscripts,originalwork,publicpublications,copyrightregistrationcertificate,certificateissuedbycertificationagency,etc.)toprovecopyrightownership,andtoprovideguaranteesifnecessary,,thecourtacceptsthefactthatNFTscannotbedeletedduetotheirspecialtechnicalfeatures,butstipulatesthatplatformscansendinfringingNFTstoaneateraddress(wheretheNFTisburnedandremovedfromcirculation),dthelegalnatureofanNFT,aswellastheobligationsofanNFTplatform,,asthecourtisonlyadistrict-levelcourt,itremainsunclearastowhetheritsrulingwillbewidelyfollow,astheauthoritieshavenotyetenactedanyformalNFTlawsorregulations,thecourt¡¯sinsightsinthejudgmentaremeaningful,andNFTplayersinChinashouldwithoutdoubtcarefullyconsidertheimplicationsoftheruling.

OnApril6,(FCAUSLLC)anewchancetoarguethatitdidnotviolateaBluetoothstandardsorganizationstrademarkrightsbyusingtheBluetoothnamewithoutpermissionandsentthecasebacktoaSeatt,BluetoothSIGarguedFCAviolateditstrademarkrightsbymarketingtheentertainmentplatformsinFiat,Jeep,Chrysler,andothercarsasbeingBluetoothcapablewithoutgoingthroughitsverificationprocess,howeverFCAsaiditboughtthesystemsfromcompaniesthathadverifiedthemwithBluetoothSIG,andaccordingtothetrademark¡°firstsale¡±doctrine,itshouldn¡¯tbelegallyliableforinfringement.

TheMannheimRegion,NokiasuedOPPOinfourdifferentcountri,,thisisthefirstrulingregardingthedisputedpatentsrelatedto4G(LTE)and5GStandardEssentialPatents(SEPs).NokiasuedOPPOovernineSEPsandfiveimplementationpatentsinthreeGermanregionalcourtsincludingMunichandD¡§,beingaleaderin5GSEPs,hasinvestedatotalof€umerproducts,itsprev,luxurycarmanufacturer,Daimler,hassettleditshigh-profilepatentlitigationwithNokia,follow,NokiawasgrantedaceaseanddesistorderbytheMannheimRegionalCourt,,whileBirdBirdstandforthecompanyduringitsLenovolawsuit.

ÆäÖУ¬¡¶¼ôÖ½Î÷Óμǡ·ºÍ¡¶ÁÖÖ£Ô¶ðÌØÊ×ФÏñ¡·±»**½­ËÕÉçÍÅ×Ü»áÓÀ¾Ã»áÖ·Êղأ¬Ëý»¹¶à´Î¾Ù°ì¸öÈ˼ôÖ½×÷Æ·Õ¹£¬¶à·ù×÷Æ·±»¼ÓÄôó¡¢Ó¢¹ú¡¢ÂíÀ´Î÷ÑÇ¡¢º«¹ú¡¢ÈÕ±¾µÈ¹úÓÑÈË»òÒÕÊõ¹ÝÊղء£

PlayboyEnterprisesInternationalIncexpresseditsappreciationforthefairnessandefficiencyofChinasjudicialauthoritiesinthehandlingofintellectualpropertycasesaftertheUScompanysvictoryinacampaignagainsttheillegaluseinChinaofoneofitstrademarks,sCourtruledthatthedefendantShanghaiBaotuInvestmentandManagementLtdsrepeatedinfringementofPlayboy,saidWilliamRosoff,managingpartneroftheBeijingofficeofAkinGumpStraussHauerFeldLLP,theUSlawfirmrepresentingPlayboy,tostealPlayboylegalsystemwillprotecttherightsofIPholders,,thecapitalofAnhuiprovince,,themanagingpartnerofBeijingLawjayPartnersandoneofPlayboyslocalcounselsinthelawsuit,saidtheHefeiintermediatecourthasahistoryofhandlinglitigationcases,citingthecaseofLousCourtrankedthecaseamongChinasauthorizationtousethePlayboyICONbrand,presentingalicenseagreementandtwosshareholder,LinXiance,andwithHongKongICONDesignerBrandsLtdandanotherlocalcompanyin2012,ayafixedsumand,inreturn,SINOwasallowedtoholdhalfofHongKongICON,asSINOonlypaidaportionoftheupfrontpaymentagreedon,andfailedtopaytherest,udicialVerificationCenterandtherelevantrulesonevidence,thecourtrefusedtoacceptthelegitimacyofeithertheso-calledtrademarklicenseagreementandthetwopurportedauthorizationlettersthatShanghaiBaotupresentedtothecourtinsupportofitsclaimtohaveobtainedpermissiontousePlayboy,anditisaveryimportantmarketforthecompany,$,includingadministrativeandcriminalenforcement,toprotecttherightsandinterestsofPlayboyslegitimatelicenseesanddistributorsinChina.

£¨¶þ£©ÎÒÃÇ»á²ÉȡһÇкÏÀí¿ÉÐеĴëÊ©£¬È·±£Î´ÊÕ¼¯Î޹صĸöÈËÐÅÏ¢¡£

OnJuly11,theDelhiHCrestrainedaBengaluru-basedcakeryfromusingthenameFacebakeorFacecake,oranyotherFacebook-relatedtrademarkforitsproductsandservicesThecourtintheSnapdealcasealsodirectedDomainNameRegistrarstocreateamechanismforbrandstoseekcancellationortransferofdomainnamesthatinfringetrademarkIndiascurrentlawsthatgoverntrademarkinfringementsincludetheTrademarkAct,1999,whichwasdevelopedtocomplywiththeTRIPSagreementoftheWTOTru-basedcakeryfromusingthenameFacebakeorFacecake,,JusticeNavinChawla,whowashearingthecase,orderedthebakerytodeliverallfinishedandunfinishedproductsbearingthetrademarksimilartoMeta,theparentcompanyofFacebook,,theCourtalsoawardedINR50,,£¨DNRs£©oughttocreateamechanismviawhichtrademarkownerscouldapproachtheDNRsandsec,whileDNRsarecompaniesthatallowuserstoregisterthem,suchasGoDaddy,Namecheap,oumthathasseeninfringementcasesfiledleft,,manybrandswithnomanufacturingaddressespopulatethestreetsandcorners,,itisdifficulttotrackthesedubiousoperatorsinmostcases.

UtahscookiecompetitioncontinuedonJuly13whenDirtyDoughandCraveCo,foundedinLoganbySawyerHemsleyandJasonMcGowan,filedalawsuitagainstDirtyDough,acookiebusinessthatstartedinTempe,Arizona,,aCrumblinsiderleftCrumbltofoundDirtyDough,whichsellsandpromotescookiesusingpackaging,decor,andpresentationthatisconfusinglysim,whosbrotherwasaCrumblemployee,toldTheHerald,youguysknowthatDirtyDoughwasalreadystartedin2018,,Ithinkwerethemostdifferent,..,,bigsupporter,Maxwellsaid,expla,allofasuddenoutofnowhere¡­wegethitwithalawsuit,,,,wellseeiftheywanttotalk¡­whatsthesolutionhereMaxwellsaid,,wereachedouttothem¡ªtoldthemweacceptedcounsel,,,anothercookiecompanythathascometoUtah,,afterCrumbldeniedanapplicationbyCravesfoundertobecomeaCrumblfranchisee,Cravebegansellingandpromotingitscopycatgourmetcookies,Crumblscomplaintreadsbeforealletailsofthevaluablegoodwill,reputation,ontobecomeaCrumblefranchiseeorthatCraveisinviolationofanyofCrumblsallegedtrademarks,tradedress,orotherintellectualpropertyrights,rattemptbyathreatenedcompetitortousealawsuittostiflefairandfreecompetitionanddenyconsumersachoiceofproducts,Englishsaidinastatementto,,orelsewhywouldnttheytalkwithusorsendacease-and-desistletter,,,Maxwellsaid,,hesaid,,Crumblsaidtheyareprotectingtheirsuccess:Asafranchisorof30,000+CrumblCrewmembers,1,000+FranchisePartners,andhundredsofCrumblHQemployees,wewillalwaystakeseriouslyourroleinbuildingandprotectingthecompanyanditstrademarksthatweveallworkedsohardtocreatetogether.

,aChinesesmartwatchmaker¨CPutianDoumaofirmhastriedofusingtheHuaweilogoanditsnamewithsomesmartwatchestoselltheminitsstoreduetowhichthelegallawsuitshaveorderedthecompanytocompensate2millionyuan(),,,bracelets,andmoresold,,suchtypeofbehav,thedefendantbeginsarguingthatsuchterm,:Theevalua,thedefendantsdefensethatthewordHuaweiusesinadescriptivemannercannotestablish,,thedefendantsuseofofficialwebsitemoneyandofficialupgrademoneyintheproductintrodu,thecourthascommandedthedefendanttocompensateforthelossofHuaweiassoonaspossible.

June14,2022announcedthat,theUnitedStatesDistrictCourtfortheCentralDistrictofCalifornia(theCourt)issuedanordergr¡¯smaterialbreachesofthepartiesJointDevelopmentandLicenseAgreement,whereonFebruary15,2022,,NetlistsDirectorofIPStrategy,said,WearepleasedthattheCourtrecognizedSamsungsfailuretoadmitrequestsforadmissions,,2022,withatrialbeginningnextyearonMay1,fcustomandspecialtymemoryproductsbringindustry-leadingperformats,inservermemory,hybridmemoryandstorageclassmemory,tocompaniesthatimplementNetlist¡¯,entsndoftenaddressfutureeventsorNetlist¡¯nsregardingfutureeventsandaresubjecttoknownandunknownrisks,uncertaintiesandotherfactorsthatcouldcauseactualresultstodiffermateri,uncertaintiesandotherfactorsinclude,amongothers:risksrelatedtoNetlistsplansforitsintellectualproperty,includingitsstrategiesformonetizing,licensing,expanding,anddefendingitspatentportfolio;risksassociatedwithpatentinfringementlitigationinitiatedbyNetlist,orbyothersagainstNetlist,aswellasthecostsandunpredictabilityofanysuchlitigation;risksassociatedwithNetlistsproductsales,includingthemarketanddemandforproductssoldbyNetlistanditsabilitytosuccessfullydevelopandlaunchnewproductsthatareattractivetothemarket;thesuccessofproduct,jointdevelopmentandlicensingpartnerships;thecompetitivelandscapeofNetlistsindustry;andgeneraleconomic,politicalandmarketconditions,includingquarantines,factoryslowdownsorshutdowns,s,expectationsandbeliefsregardingfutureeventsandaresubjecttoknownandunknownrisks,uncertaintiesandotherfactorsthatcouldcauseactualresultstodiffermateri¡¯sannualreportonForm10-KforitsmostrecentlycompletedfiscalyearfiledonMarch1,2022,,,uncertaintiesandotherfactors,theseforward-¡¯sassumptions,expectationsandbeliefsonlyasofthedatetheyaremade,andexceptasrequiredbylaw,Netlistundertakesnoobligationtoreviseorupdateanyforward-lookingstatementsforanyreason.

TheMannheimRegion,NokiasuedOPPOinfourdifferentcountri,,thisisthefirstrulingregardingthedisputedpatentsrelatedto4G(LTE)and5GStandardEssentialPatents(SEPs).NokiasuedOPPOovernineSEPsandfiveimplementationpatentsinthreeGermanregionalcourtsincludingMunichandD¡§,beingaleaderin5GSEPs,hasinvestedatotalof€umerproducts,itsprev,luxurycarmanufacturer,Daimler,hassettleditshigh-profilepatentlitigationwithNokia,follow,NokiawasgrantedaceaseanddesistorderbytheMannheimRegionalCourt,,whileBirdBirdstandforthecompanyduringitsLenovolawsuit.

DebevoisePlimptonLLPhassecuredavictoryforDiamondHandsConsulting(DHC)intheSouthernDistrictofNewYorkonJuly20whenJudgeRonnieAbramsgrantedDHCsmotionsforpreliminaryinjuncocialmediaplatformsandwebsites,wherecryptocurrencyenthusiastscangathertodiscusstokens,platforms,,anditsforumsbecamefamouswiththeriseofmemecoinslikeDogecoininearly2021,garne¨CayearafterDHCsfirstuseofitstrademark¨Cthreeco-conspiratorsfromNewYork,Wisconsin,andNorthCarolinabeganacompetingseriesofforumsusingtheexactsamename,andtwodefendantsultimatelylaunchedaninfringingSatoshiStreetBetscryptocurrencyunderthemoniker$,JudgeRonnieAbramsissuedpreliminaryinjunctionsagainstallthreedefendantsonJuly20,findingthatDHChadestablishedalikelihoodofsuccessonthemeritsastoitsclaimsandspecificallyholdingthatDHCsrightsintheSatoshiStreetBetsbrandforprovidingcryptocurrencyinformationserviceseseincommerceoftheSatoshiStreetBetstrademarkpriortoanyofthedefendants(eventhoug),$SSB,JudgeAbramsalsoorderedthedefendantstoturnoveralloftheirinfringingsocialmediaaccountsforthedurationofthelitigation,anddeclinedtorequireanybond.

Clearingtheaironlabyrinthinesubject-mattereligibilitystandardsforcomputer-implementedinventions(CIIs),a,,thecourt,whilesettinganewtest,rejected,forthesecondtime,aproblem-solutionapproachtoclaimconstructionfollowedbytheCanadianIntellectualPropertyOffice(CIPO)entsfindingtwoCanadianPatentApplicantsnumbered2,695,130and2,695,146aspatentineligibleundersections2and27(8)(IPIC),anIPpolicyadvocacyorganization,intervenedintheappealproceedings,affiinesinventiontoincludeanynewandusefulart,process,machine,(8),however,,2000SCC66,theSupremeCourtofCanadaclarifiedthatbeforeassessingsubject-mattereligibility,essentialeleme,whereinonlythoseelementsinclaimsthatwerenecessarytosolveth,,CIPOintroducedaPracticeNote,titledExaminationPracticeRespectingComputer-ImplementedInventions,whichindicatedthatifacomputercomponentisfoundtobeanessentialelement,,iftheessentialelementslackanyphysicality,(AttorneyGeneral),2020FC837,CIPOintroducedanewPracticeNoteinNovember2020,titledPatentableSubject-MatterunderthePatentAct,whichnotedthatinordertobepatent-eligible,thecomputercomponentsmustcooperatewithotherelementsoftheclaimedinvention,andthatactualinventioncations,bothtitledColorSelectionSystem,filedbyBenjaminMooreCo.,icalequationthatmodeledhumanpsychologicalperceptionstocolor,associatingacoloremotionscoretovariouscolorsinadatabase,andselecti,bothpatentapplicationswererejectedbyExaminersforencompassingnon-statutorysubject-matter,,theExaminer,uponpurposivelyconstruingtheclaims,,asnotedbytheExaminer,includedcalculatinghumanpsychophysicalperceptionvaluestocolorelementsbasedonmathematicalmodels,andothe,eviewedbyathree-memberPatentAppealBoard,,theApplicantreliedonFreeWorldTrustinemphasizingthatcomputercomponentscau,theApplicantclaimed,theApplicantconcededthatnoattemptwasmadetosolveac,however,concludedthatidentifyingamathematicalcorrelationbetweencolorsandhumanemotiveresponsestoaidcolorselectionwasnotatechnicalproblemforsubject-matterconsiderations,andcompsionerofPatents1981,FCA204,thatuseofcomputersforconduct,theBoardagreedwiththeExaminerandnotedthattheessentialelements,,theAppellantchallengedtheCommissionersclaimcons,Appellantargued,wouldhavebeenidentifyingclaimelementsthathaveamater,theCommissionerhadincorrectlyconcludedthattheremainingcationssuchasidentifyingadjacencyofcolorpairs,storingthecolorlibrary,,,,thePracticeN,theCommissionersapproachofconsideringonlythenovelelementsintheclaimsasessenti,theofficeoftheAttorneyGeneralofCanada(AGC)incorrectbutsoughttoremittheapplicationsbacktotheCommissi,theRespondentarguedthatjudicialinterventionwouldbeprematureastheCommissionerdidnothavetheopportunitytoconsidertheAppeyhavingtheexpert,theRespondentcontendedthata,implementingascientificprincipleormathematicaltheoremonagen,IPIC,generallyalignedwiththeAppellantspositionandca,CIPOstendencyo,gdetrimentaltoCIIs,ntedworldwide,,notingmaterialeffecnon-essentialandallegi,theIntervenorrequestedthecourttore-cessiontotheproblem-so,includingWhirlpoolCorpvCamcoInc,2000SCC67,FreeWorldTrust,andCanada(AttorneyGeneral),2011FCA328thecourtheldthatnoneofthedecisionssuggestaproblem-solutionapproach,andins,wheretheproblem-solutionapproachwasdiscredited,andaddedthatpracticalapplicationofs,theproblem-solutionapproach,consideringonlynovelaspectsofclaimsinsubject-matteranalysis,andholdingcomputercomponentsasnon-essentialfornotsolvingacomputerproblem,ectmatter,thecourtacceptedtheframeworksuggestedbytheIntervenor,isasfollows:Purposivelyconstruetheclaim;Askwhethertheconstruedclaimasawholeconsistsofonlyamerescientificprincipleorabstracttheorem,orwhetheritcomprisesapracticalapplicationthatemploysascientificprincipleorabstracttheorem;andIftheconstruedclaimcomprisesapracticalapplication,assesstheconstruedclaimfortheremainingpatentabilitycriteria:statutorycategoriesandjudicialexclusions,aswellasnovelty,obviousness,ifyingessentialclaimelements,thecourthasdirectedthatclaimsshouldbeassessed,CIPOsrequirementthatapplicationsinvolvingCIIsmu,CIPOspracticeoflimitingthesubject-matterassessmentonlytonovelele,abrightlinetowardscon

¡°ÒÔǰÎÒÃÇÕâ¸öµØ·½ÊǸö¾É´å²¿£¬ÒòΪÁ½´åºÏ²¢£¬×÷Ϊ¼¯Ìå×ʲú¾Í¿ÕÁ˳öÀ´¡£

Asubstantialshareoftheproceedswillgototheinventors,JoséMoura,aprofessorinCarnegieMellonsDepartmentofElectricalandComputerEngineering,andAleksandarKavcic,aformerdoctoralstudentofMourawhoisnowapro(CMU)suedMarvellTechnologyGroup,,Inc.(collectivelyMarvell),anditawardedroughly$,usingarateof50centsforeachment,awardeda23-percentenhancementofthepastdamagesawardbasedonMarvellswillfulness(foundbythejuryandthedistrictcourt),andenteredajudgmentofroughly$:tandard,whichdoesnotrequirethatMarvellha(pastandcontinuing),201,839,titledMethodandApparatusforCorrelation-SensitiveAdaptiveSequenceDetection,,438,180,titledSoftandHardSequenceDetectioninISIMemoryChannels,é,andbothpatentsclaimmethods,devices,andsystemsforimprovedaccuracyinthedetectionofrecordeddatawhencertaintiaofhard-diskdrivesincomputers.

¡°Themostsuccessfulpartieschoosetheirbattleswisely,¡±saysTheHonorableGerardRogers,ChiefAdministrativeTrademarkJudgeattheTrademarkTrialandAppealBoard(TTAB),abodywithintheUnitedStatesPatentandTrademarkOffice(USPTO).HavingservedinvariousrolesontheTTABformorethan25years,JudgeRogersispanshavebeendeniedbytheUSPTO,,partieshavebeenknowntopushtheirluck.¡°TrialsaresometimespursuedbecausethepartieshaveissuesoutsidetheTTABthatthey¡¯regrapplingwithand,itappearstous,theythinkitwillgivethemanotherleveragepointtodealwiththeirdifferences.¡±JudgeRogerssayshehasseencaseswherepartieshavenotproperlyfollowedtheTTAB¡¯sManualofProcedure,,regulatory,anddecisionalauthoritythatisrelevanttotheTTAB.¡°Therehavebeenappealsandtrialcasesthathavebeenlostbutcouldhavebeenwon,duetoafailuretofollowtherules,¡±saysJudgeRogers.¡°Manypractitionersfailtofollowtheguidanceonwhatevidencecanbeprobative.¡±JudgeRogersaddsthatit¡°neverhurts¡±toremindstakeholderstobecognizantoftherulesthattheTTABisrequiredtoapply¡ªaswellastheissuesitmustignore¡ª,theTTABoftencannottakeintoaccountparticularsrelatingtouseofatrademarkinthemarketplace,¡°Wehavetoignorethatinformation,yetpeoplebringittousallthetime,¡±,just30percentareexparteappeals,,appealsaccountfor75percentofcasesultimatelydecidedonthemerits,sowhatmightexplainthelargeswingJudgeRogerssaysthatpetitionsforcancellationandoppositionaresimilartocourtdisputesinthatasettlementisavailableand,ifthatoptionisused,¡°fewertrialcasesrequiredispositiononthemeritsasthepartieshaveworkeditout.¡±Inasmallpercentageofcases,apartymight¡°misbehave¡±andbesanctioned,whichcouldalsoleadtothecasebeingterminated,ppositionscanbemuchmoreexpensivethanappealsfromexaminerrefusals,soalotofcasesareneverpursuedbeyondtheinitialstages,,whichcaninvolveplentyofbackandforthbetweentheparties,includingondiscoveryandmotionpractice,,incontrast,¡°whentheattorneyfilesthenoticeofappealthereisnotmuchelsetodootherthanfilethebriefs,¡±,ofteninwrittenratherthanoralform,¡°sothere¡¯snotmuchaddedexpensetohaveanattorneypursueanappeal.¡±MoreAppealsJudgeRogersnotesthattrademarkapplicationfilingswiththeUSPTOhaverisenyear-on-yearforeightyears,so¡°thismeansmoreappealsandoppositionsandtheneedtoincreasethestafftohandlethatwork.¡±ernsabouttheBoard¡¯,seResolution(ACR)procedure,,theTTABseekstoexpediteproceedingsby,amongotherthings,activelyencouragingpartiestoconsiderplacinglimitsondiscoveryandtestimony,andadoptingmoreefficientaltern,forexample,hesaysthat,whileattorneyshaveindividualresponsibilityforcasesontheirdockets,theTTAB¡¯smanagingattorneywillreassigncaseswithpendingmotionsonamoneeditsperformancetargets,saysJudgeRogers,despitealargevariationinthecomplexityofcases,2weeksofthecasebeingreadytodecide,saysJudgeRogers(readyfordecisionmeansafterallbriefingisdoneandthecaseissubmittedbyaBoardparalegaltotheChiefJudgeforassignment,orafteroralargument,ifoneisrequested).¡°Wehaverepeatedlybeatenthisgoal,¡±veragependency(fromcommencementtocompletion)ofexparteappealsforthelastfiveyearsinarow,withthatpendencymeasurefallingintrialcasesforfiveofthepastsixyears.¡°JudgeRogersexplainsthatstakeholdershavelongexpressedapreferencefortheTTABtoremain¡°amorerelaxedalternativetolitigationinfederaldistrictcourts,¡±whereextension,,,,Inc.,ntdistrictcourtlitigationbetweenthesamepartiesthatlitigatedanearliercasebeforetheTTAB,aslongasthe¡°ordinaryelements¡±,JudgeRogerssaysitsimpactontheTTABhasbeen¡°almostnone.¡±However,hedoesnotethatitwasaverypositiverulingfortrademarkownersasit¡°¡±HenotesthatmanyTTABcasesaresettledandthatevenwhentheyarenot,,headds,theissuesthattheTTABanddistrictcourtsadjudicateareoftendifferent(,thesubsequentdistrictcourtcaseverylikelywouldconsideradditionalissuesrelatingtouseinthemarketplace).¡°Therewasalotoftalkthat,becauseofthepossibilityofissuepreclusion,partiesshouldtakemorediscoveryandintroducemoreevidenceattheTTAB.¡°ButIsay:issuepreclusionisunlikelytoariseinallbuttherarestofcases,¡¯tintroducemorediscoverythanusual,anddon¡¯tincreaseyourcostsandfilealotofirrelevantevidencethatwouldhaveabearinginadistrictcourtbutwhichisnotrelevanttoouranalysis.¡±¡¯advice;,JudgeRogers,whohasbeeninhiscurrentpositionsinceNovember2010,saysthereisa¡°realvarietyandthingscancomeuponanygivenday.¡±Histimeincludesmeetingwiththeapproximately70membersoftheTTABstaff,whichincludesjudges,attorneys,thatthejudgesarecontinually,andhestressestheimportanceofworkinginharmony.¡°WeworkcloselywiththeSolicitor¡¯sOffice;theywillbeinthepositionofdefendingvariousBoarddecisionsbeforetheFederalCircuit,sowewanttoputtheminthebestpositionpossible,¡±¡¯sOffice,JudgeRogersexplains,canrelaytotheTTABtheque¡¯smostseniorjudgemaybehisprimaryrole,JudgeRog¡¯sstaffareitsbiggeststrength,saysthejudge.¡°Ifindthetimetoremindouremployeesofwhatgreatworktheydo,¡±ursandstress¡ªhisbicycle.¡°FormanyyearsIhaveriddentenmileseachwaytotheofficeandback;itprovidesabufferbetweenworkandhomelife.¡±

TheCantonFair,oneoftheworldslargesttradeshowsthatkickedoffonThursdayinGuangzhou,SouthChinasGuangdongProvince,islocatedinthePazhouarea,agrowingindustrialclusterofinformationtechnology,artificialintelligence,industrialInternetandotherinnovativetechnologies,whereover30,000companieshavesettled,includingAlibaba,Tencent,Xiaomi,,laboratoriesarealsomovingintotheregiontoenhanceresearchanddevelopment(RD).PazhouLab,orAIDEGuangdongProvinceLab(GZ),nomyfortheGuangdong-HongKong-MacaoGreaterBayArea,andvowstobeahubofscienceandtechnologyinnovation,YuanZiwei,apublicityagentofthePazhouLab,,whichcansolvethecoreproblemsofintelligentsystems,,vicedirectoroftheBeijingEconomicOperationAssociation,toldtheGlobalTimesthattheconstructionoflaboratoriesandindustrialparkswillhelpGuangdong,andShenzheninparticular,addressitsshortcomingsineducationandresearch,thussupportingGua,HanJiuqiang,aprofessorofXianJiaotongUniversity,wasoneoftheexperts,,aspeoplesconsumptionlevelishigher,resultinginmorepursuitanddemandforniche,personalizedproducts,,,wehavetohavemachinesandrobotsthatcandodifferentthingsatthesametime,andthatrequiresalotmorefro,,allsmartdevicestodayarenotreallysmart,becausethesemachinesandrobotsareonlycapableoflearning,,forexample,isverygoodatplayingchess,,,ontheotherhand,telligent,,butitstillneedstimetorealizeinindustrialproduction,,ofwhichindependentlydevelopedandproducedintelligentsteelprocessingequipmenthavebeenwidelyusedincivilengineeringfieldssuchashighways,,America,theMiddleEast,SoutheastAsia,SouthAfricaandotherinternationalmarkets,,,whichisthecoreofthesmartmachineryandequipment,,utilitymodelpatentsandsoftwarecopyrightinthefieldofintelligentconstruction,tmentaregreatburdensforenterprises,,theoriginalinnovationofhigh-techinthesmartfield,suchasthethirdgenerationofthesemiconductor,AIandmechanicalautomation,isquitedifficult,,resourcesinmanyfieldsofindustry,,supporttheoreticalresearch,andfinally,completetheprocessfromtheorytoindustrialpractice,ZhangXiaorong,directoroftheBeijing-basedCutting-EdgeTechnologyResearchInstitute,,andmakethecountryconcentrateonresearch,,whatChinaneedstostrengthenisitstheoreticalresearch.

Incase(2021£©×î¸ß·¨ÖªÃñÖÕ1298ºÅrecentlyhighlightedbytheIntellectualPropertyTribunaloftheSupremePeople¡¯sCourtofChina(SPC),theSPCruledthatasettlementagreementtoapatentinfringementlawsuitconstitutedahorizontalmonopolyagreementasthescopetheagreementwasnot,WuhanTaipuTransformerSwitchCo.,Ltd.(TaipuCompany)suedShanghaiHuamingPowerEquipmentManufacturingCo.,Ltd.(HuamingCompany)forinfringingitsinventionpatententitled¡°Off-circuittap-changerwithshieldingdevice.¡±InJanuary2016,thetwopartiesre:HuamingCompanycanonlyproducecertainkindsofnon-excitationtap-changers,andotherkindsofnon-excitationtap-changerscouldonlyberesoldtodownstreamcustomersthroughTaipuCompany,andthesale,HuamingCompanyactsasamarketagentforTaipurelatedentities,andshallnotproduceoractasanagentfortheproductsofthesamecategoryofotherenterprisesonitsown,an,,HuamingCompanyfiledalawsuitinthiscasewiththeIntermediatePeople¡¯sCourtofWuhanCity,HubeiProvince,claimingthatthesettlementagreenotamonopolyagreement,¡¯sCourt,,theSupremePeople¡¯sCourtheldthattodeterminewhethertheagreementinvolvedinthecaseisinvalidduetoviolationofthemandatoryprovisionsoftheAnti-MonopolyLaw,itmustfirstdeterminewhethertheagreementinvolvedinthecaseconstitutesahorizontalmonopolyagreementexpresslyprohibitedbytheAnti-MonopolyLaw,andthende,astowhethertheagreementinvolvedinthecaseconstitutesahorizontalmonopolyagreementexpresslyprohibitedbyArticle13,paragraph1oftheAnti-MonopolyLaw,theSupremePeople¡¯sCourtheldthatHuamingC,bothpartieshavecertainmarketinfluence,andthereisacompetit,withArticles1,5and10asthecore,agreedtostoptheproductionofspecificvarietiesofcommodities,restrictthesalesofspecificvarietiesofcommodities,coordinateandfixprices,andsupplem,restrictingtheproductionandsalesvolumeofcommodities,andfixingcommoditypriceshasbeenstrengthened,anditmeetstheformalrequirementsstfArticle13oftheAnti-MonopolyLawarecommontypesoftypicalhorizontalmonopolyagreementswiththeeffectofeliminatingandrestrictingcompetition,onceagreedupon,willgenerallyeliminateandrestrictcompetitionanditca,Taipushouldbeartheburdenofproofthattheagreementinvolvedi,theevidenceinthecasealsoshowsthataftertheagreementinvolvedinthecasewassigned,theunitpriceoftheoff-circuittap-changerinthepriceguidesentbyTaiputoHuamingwasmuchhigherthanHuaming¡¯sownexternalsalespriceandthelegalrepresentativesofbothpartiesWeChatchatrecordsalsowillleadtoanincreaseinthepriceofrelatedproducts,,regardingtherelationshipbetweentheagreementinvolvedandthepatentinfringementdispute,theSupremePeople¡¯sCourtheldthatinthiscase,thetechnicaleffectofthepatentinvolvedwasmainlytoreducethecostofswitchmanufacturing,toenhancethestabilityandreliabili,Huaming¡¯srestrictedproductionandsalesofcertaintypesofoff-circuittap-changersarenot,HuamingCompanyandTaipuComparket,andusesthistodetermi,salesvolume,salestype,salesarea,,wh,buttousetheexerciseofthepatentrightasacover,infact,itpursuesdividingthesalesmarketandrestrictingtheproductionandsalesofgoodswiththeeffectoffixingprices,whichisanabuseofpatentrights,constitutesanactofexcludingandrestrictingcompetition,,thefactthatTaipuownsandexercisesthepatentrightinth,regardingthelegaleffectoftheagreement,theSupremePeople¡¯sCourtheldthatArticles1,5and10oftheagreementinvolvedviolatedtheprovisionsofArticle13oftheAnti-Mono,Taipudidnotclaimthattheagre,Articles1,nthecase,andtheotherclausesrelatetoth,theagreementcannotsurviveseverabilityafterstrippingoutthethreeclauses,,2022isavailablehere(Chineseonly).

Ñ×ÈȵÄÏļ¾£¬ÎÒÃÇÓ­À´ÁË×îºÃµÄÏà¾Û¡£

ÿÔÂ1ºÅ·¢·Å¹¤×Ê¡£

ÎÒÍñÑÔл¾ø£¬ÄÚÐÄÈ´Ê®·Ö¸Ð¶¯¡£

UtahscookiecompetitioncontinuedonJuly13whenDirtyDoughandCraveCo,foundedinLoganbySawyerHemsleyandJasonMcGowan,filedalawsuitagainstDirtyDough,acookiebusinessthatstartedinTempe,Arizona,,aCrumblinsiderleftCrumbltofoundDirtyDough,whichsellsandpromotescookiesusingpackaging,decor,andpresentationthatisconfusinglysim,whosbrotherwasaCrumblemployee,toldTheHerald,youguysknowthatDirtyDoughwasalreadystartedin2018,,Ithinkwerethemostdifferent,..,,bigsupporter,Maxwellsaid,expla,allofasuddenoutofnowhere¡­wegethitwithalawsuit,,,,wellseeiftheywanttotalk¡­whatsthesolutionhereMaxwellsaid,,wereachedouttothem¡ªtoldthemweacceptedcounsel,,,anothercookiecompanythathascometoUtah,,afterCrumbldeniedanapplicationbyCravesfoundertobecomeaCrumblfranchisee,Cravebegansellingandpromotingitscopycatgourmetcookies,Crumblscomplaintreadsbeforealletailsofthevaluablegoodwill,reputation,ontobecomeaCrumblefranchiseeorthatCraveisinviolationofanyofCrumblsallegedtrademarks,tradedress,orotherintellectualpropertyrights,rattemptbyathreatenedcompetitortousealawsuittostiflefairandfreecompetitionanddenyconsumersachoiceofproducts,Englishsaidinastatementto,,orelsewhywouldnttheytalkwithusorsendacease-and-desistletter,,,Maxwellsaid,,hesaid,,Crumblsaidtheyareprotectingtheirsuccess:Asafranchisorof30,000+CrumblCrewmembers,1,000+FranchisePartners,andhundredsofCrumblHQemployees,wewillalwaystakeseriouslyourroleinbuildingandprotectingthecompanyanditstrademarksthatweveallworkedsohardtocreatetogether.

Asubstantialshareoftheproceedswillgototheinventors,JoséMoura,aprofessorinCarnegieMellonsDepartmentofElectricalandComputerEngineering,andAleksandarKavcic,aformerdoctoralstudentofMourawhoisnowapro(CMU)suedMarvellTechnologyGroup,,Inc.(collectivelyMarvell),anditawardedroughly$,usingarateof50centsforeachment,awardeda23-percentenhancementofthepastdamagesawardbasedonMarvellswillfulness(foundbythejuryandthedistrictcourt),andenteredajudgmentofroughly$:tandard,whichdoesnotrequirethatMarvellha(pastandcontinuing),201,839,titledMethodandApparatusforCorrelation-SensitiveAdaptiveSequenceDetection,,438,180,titledSoftandHardSequenceDetectioninISIMemoryChannels,é,andbothpatentsclaimmethods,devices,andsystemsforimprovedaccuracyinthedetectionofrecordeddatawhencertaintiaofhard-diskdrivesincomputers.

Theself-proclaimedinventorofBitcoin,CraigWright,haswonadefaultjudgmentinLondon¡¯sHighCourtinhisc,thewebsiteanditsownerCobramustremovetheBitcoinwhitepaperfromthewebportalandpay$¡®Satoshi¡¯¡¯,however,onFebruary24viatheIntellecigh,thereissomuchevidencecontradictingCraigWright¡¯sstoryit¡¯sbeensaidhesimply¡°thrivesonattention.¡±¡°He¡¯shadfouryearstocomeforwardwithproofthatheisSatoshi,andI,forone,amnotsatisfied,¡±¡¯soperatorCobra,theCryptoOpenPatentAlliance(COPA)¡¯sclaimstothefamouswhitepaper.¡°Today,r,¡±,arepresentativeofCraigWright,:¡°ThisisexactlywhatwehavewantedtohappenforsometimeandIamverypleasedthisbodyhasagreedtostandupincourtasIcannowhavemycredentialsjudgedlegally.¡±OnJune28andalsoupdatedthefollowingday,¡¯¡¯srequestwhichincludes:AninjunctionprohibitingtheDefendantfrominfringingDrWright¡¯scopyrightintheUnitedKingdo¡±¡°AnorderrequiringtheDefendanttopublishacopyoftheCourt¡¯¡±¡°maintaintheiranonymity.¡±OnTwitter,¡¯spseudonymousoperatorspokeabouttherulingandsaidthatitwastheperfectexampleofwhyuncensorableandpermissionlessnetworkslikeBitcoinareneeded.¡°Allyourfiat-basedassetsareultimatelysecuredbythesamelegalsystemthattodaymadeitillegalformetohosttheBitcoinwhitepaperbecauseanotoriousliarsworebeforeajudgethathe¡¯sSatoshi,¡±Cobratweeted.¡°Asystemwhere¡®justice¡¯dependsonwho¡¯sgotthebiggerwallet.¡±Theanonymousbitcoineradded:¡°Idon¡¯tthinkyoucouldgetabetteradvertisementof*why*donwhoevercanspendhundredsofthousandsofdollarsincourt.¡±

ChinesevideoplatformKuaishouhasfileda5millionyuan($705,000)lawsuitagainstDouyin,accusingitsrivalof¡°piggybacking¡±onthecompany¡¯,whichhasbeenacceptedbyBeijing¡¯sHaidianDistrictcourt,KuaishouclaimsDouyinusedKuaishou¡¯snametolinktoitsownproductpageon360MobileAssistant,¡ªknowninternationallyasTikTok¡ªofinfringingKuaishou¡¯strademarktodisplayitsownproduct,pro,KuaishouisChina¡¯,Kuaishouclaimedithadsurpassed300milliondailyactiveusersonitsChineseapp,,Douyin¡¯sparentcompany,tolddomesticmediaonWednesdaythatithadfileditsownlawsuitagainstKuaishouinMarchoversimilarissue,andislookingintoitsrival¡¯rchenginesandothersimilarplatforms,onalinformation,raisingconcernsaboutcontentqualityandimpairedfunctionality.¡°IthinkwhatDouyinhasdonecouldconstituteinfringementofKuaishoustrademarkrights,¡±,anintellectualpropertylawyeratBeijingMingtaiLawFirm,toldSixthTone.¡°IfDouyinlinksKuaishouasitskeypaidsearchterminitsadrankings,itbasicallyweakensKuaishou¡¯sconnectiontoitsusers,justasKuaishouarguesinitslawsuit.¡±Usually,third-partyserviceprovidersdon¡¯thavealegalobligationtoreviewkeywords,andit¡¯salsoimpracticaltoanalyzeeverywordinthesearchenginealgorithm,comestodisplayingsearchresults.¡°Iftherightsownerdiscoversinfringementorunfaircompetition,theycannotifytheserviceproviderandaskthemtotakenecessarymeasures,suchasdeleting,blocking,disconnectinglinks,andmore,¡±,Kuaishou,and360MobileAssistantdidnotrespondtoSixthTone¡¯,,short-v,aBeijing-basedconsultancy,averagescreentimeonshort-videoappsduringthisyear¡¯sextendedLunarNewYearholidayincreasedby27minutescomparedwiththesameperiodlastyear,withDo¡¯sovercrowdedvideo,DouyinsuedTencentfordefamationoveranarticlepublishedonthecompany¡¯,TencentandByteDance,suedeachotheroverunfaircompetition.

AmptLLC,theworldsleadingproviderofpoweroptimizersforlarge-scalephotovoltaic(PV)systems,(ITC)againstSolarEdgeTechnologies,Inc.(NASDAQ:SEDG),requestingthattheITCbantheimp,rplantstolowerthecostofenergyproductionandimproveperformanceinnewsystems;upgradeexistingsystems;enablelow-costsolarenergystoragesystems;asels,inIsrael,China,,itwouldnotbepossibleforSolarEdgetocontinuesellingthoseinfringingproductsintheUnitedStates,howevertherearenumerousothernon-infringingcomeroptimizersandrelatedproductsatitsfacilityinFortCollins,Colorado,whichispri0issuedpatents,adingproductsionandplaysafundamentalroleinloweringthecostsoflarge-scalesolarenergyproduction,saidLeventGun,llyusingour,wearestandingupforouremployees,customersandpartners,aswellastheprinciplesoffaircompetitionandr,ThiscomplaintseekstoblockSolarrEdgeisviolatingourintellectualpropertyandthat,,673,630and11,289,,Amptass,,605,498,7,719,140,10,608,437,10,886,746,11,070,062and11,070,063.

DebevoisePlimptonLLPhassecuredavictoryforDiamondHandsConsulting(DHC)intheSouthernDistrictofNewYorkonJuly20whenJudgeRonnieAbramsgrantedDHCsmotionsforpreliminaryinjuncocialmediaplatformsandwebsites,wherecryptocurrencyenthusiastscangathertodiscusstokens,platforms,,anditsforumsbecamefamouswiththeriseofmemecoinslikeDogecoininearly2021,garne¨CayearafterDHCsfirstuseofitstrademark¨Cthreeco-conspiratorsfromNewYork,Wisconsin,andNorthCarolinabeganacompetingseriesofforumsusingtheexactsamename,andtwodefendantsultimatelylaunchedaninfringingSatoshiStreetBetscryptocurrencyunderthemoniker$,JudgeRonnieAbramsissuedpreliminaryinjunctionsagainstallthreedefendantsonJuly20,findingthatDHChadestablishedalikelihoodofsuccessonthemeritsastoitsclaimsandspecificallyholdingthatDHCsrightsintheSatoshiStreetBetsbrandforprovidingcryptocurrencyinformationserviceseseincommerceoftheSatoshiStreetBetstrademarkpriortoanyofthedefendants(eventhoug),$SSB,JudgeAbramsalsoorderedthedefendantstoturnoveralloftheirinfringingsocialmediaaccountsforthedurationofthelitigation,anddeclinedtorequireanybond.

ASouthAfricanjudgmentdealin,,however,(Pty)(the¡°organiser¡±)inthiscaseorganisesacharitableeventthattakestheformofasleep-out¨Cbusinessleadersareaskedfordonationsandthey¡¯rerequestedtosleepoutdoorsonawinter¡¯st(the¡°charity¡±).Intheprocessoforganisingthefirstsleep-out,theorganiserestablishedanelectronicdatabase,whichcameaboutbecauseeverydonorhadtoregisterontheorganiser¡¯¡¯tforeseenwasthatcertaincompanieswouldwanttopaybyelectronicfundstransfer(¡°EFT¡±).Toaccommodatethesecompanies,,,infact,createdbyanemployeeofthecharity,andthisemployeewasalsoresponsibleforinputtingthedonors¡¯rdidn¡¯ved,theorganiserandthecharityagreedthatalldonationswouldbepaiddirectlyintothebankaccountofthecharity,whichhadthenece,thecharitymadeuseoftheelectronicdatabase,,theorganiserarrangedfurthersleep-outs,butontheseoccasions,,thecharitystart,,erSouthAfricancopyrightlawasa¡°literarywork¡±.Thissomewhatmisleadingtermisdefinedtoinclude¡±tablesandcompilationsofdatastoredorembodiedinacomputer¡±.Thejudgewentontosaythatinordertoenjoycopyrightprotection,aliteraryworkmustbe¡°original¡±.(Pty)LtdvSaundersValveCompanyLtd,thecourtsaidthatforthepurposesofcopyright,¡°allthatisrequiredisthattheworkshouldemanatefromtheauthorhimselfandnotbecopied.¡±InHauptt/aSoftcopyvBrewersMarketingIntelligence(Pty)LtdandOthers,thecourtheldthataworkisoriginalifithasnotbeencopiedfromanexistingsource,andifitsproductionrequiredasubstantialdegreeofskill,,1978,theauthoroftheliteraryworkistheownerofthecopyrightunlessthecopyrighthasbeenassignedand,ifgeneratedbyacomputer,theauthoristhepe,,thecontributionofthecharity¡¯semployeedidnotmeettheoriginalitytest,astheformthatitsemployeehadcreatedforEFTpayerswassubstantial¡°nosubstantialdegreeofskill,judgementorlabour¡±.Thejudgewentontomakeanumberoffurtherpoints:theformforEFTpaymentswas¡°ancillary¡±tothedatabase:¡°butforitsincorporationonthewebsitetherespondentwouldnothavehadthemeanstocollectthedataitclaimstohavecollectedinthemanneritcollectedit...forthatreasonitwouldbeabsurdtoseparatethemanualformfromthewebsite.¡±eveniftheemployeehadinnovatedtheideaofEFTpayments,thisdidnotelevatethecharity¡°tothestatusofapersonwhomadearrangementsnecessaryforthecreationofthewebsite¡±.Thecharityneeded¡°theconcurrenceoftheapplicant¡±,andwithoutthisit¡°wouldnothavebeenabletocollectthedataitclaimstoown¡±.thepurposeoftheEFTinnovationwassimplytomakeitpossiblefordonorstopaybyEFTandgettaxexemptioncertificates,,soitsclaimtobeingapartnerwas¡°absurd¡±.Thejudgeconcludedthatgivingthecharitythestatusofanauthorofthedatabaseonthebasisofdatamanuallyaddedtothedatabasethatisautomaticallygeneratedfromthewebsitewouldbean¡°overbroadinterpretation¡±.Theorganiserwast(injunction).Ifthere¡¯salessontobelearnedfromthiscase,it¡¯sthis:copyrightissuesneedtobeconsideredandclarifiedrightfromthestart.

µ½µÚÎåÄê°´Ô­×ܼÛ120%ÓÅÏȻعº¡£

¡°Intworecentdesignpatentcases,twocourtswereatthesamestageoflitigationdealingwiththesamedesignpatent,yetcametooppositeconclusions.¡±Formostpeople,whatcomestomindwhentheyheartheword¡°patent¡±mightbeaninventionlikethelightbulb¡ªThomasEdison¡¯sversionratherthanSawyerandMan¡¯s,probably¡ªorthetelephone¡ªanotherhotly-contestedoprotect¡°anynew,original,andornamentaldesignforanarticleofmanufacture.¡±Thisisthedomainofthedesignpatent,¡ì171,¡°ABriefHistoryofDesignPatents.¡±Designpatentinfringementoccurswhenadefendantappliesa¡°patenteddesign,oranycolorableimitationthereof,toanyarticleofmanufactureforthepurposeofsale,¡±¡ì289,ormakes,uses,offerstosell,sellso¡ì,designpatentscoveredphysicaldesignsthathadsometangibleeffectontheshape,ortextureofthe¡°articleofmanufacture.¡±See,,,Inc.,,1361();EthiconEndo-Surgery,,Inc.,,1327().Overtime,designpatentprotectionextendedtocoverscreenlayoutsandgraphicaluserinterfaces(¡°GUIs¡±).,,1375(),¡ªPhone,andonedesignpatentfocusedontheornamentaldesignofiPhone¡¯¡¯ssuccessonremand,andmuchofthejaw-dropping$,designpatentscanbepowsrelyontheordinaryobservertest,whichasksifatypicalconsumeroftheaccusedproduct,or¡°ordinaryobserver,¡±wouldfindsubstantialsimilaritiesbetweenthepatenteddesignandtheaccuseddesignsuchthatheorshewouldbedecei,Inc.,,1321().Inpractice,,,LLC,,1052().Then,thecourtmakesacomparisonoftheclaimedandaccuseddesignsinlightofthepriorarttoidentifydifference,,WePayGlobalPayment,LLClaunchedsuitsagainst14defendants,includingPayPalandPNCBank,(b)(6)motion,or¡°motiontodismiss,¡±¡°ordinaryobserver¡±testatthisstage,aplaintiff¡¯scomplaintonlyneedstostateaplausible,notnecessarilyprobable,,,548(2007).Forpatentinfringementcases,inadditiontomeetingtheTwomblyrequirements,thepleadingsneedto¡°(i)allegeownershipofthepatent,(ii)nameeachdefendant,(iii)citethepatentthatisallegedlyinfringed,(iv)statethemeansbywhichthedefendantallegedlyinfringes,and(v)pointtothesectionsofthepatentlawinvoked.¡±Hall,().Thedesignpatent-at-issue,,702(¡°¡¯702Patent¡±),claimsananimateddesignconsistingofaseriesofdisplayscreensthatonemightnavigatethroughinamobileapplication-¡ªlikelyinafinancialtransaction:OnJune9ofthisyear,JudgeAlbrightintheWesternDistrictofTexasdeniedPayPal¡¯(b)(6)motionwas¡°notthepropervehicletoassesstheDefendant¡¯sargumentsagainstthecomplaint.¡±,,,Inc.,:21-cv-1094(,2022)().Incontrast,eightdaysearlier,JudgeHoranoftheWesternDistrictofPennsylvaniagrantedPNCBank¡¯,¡°asamatteroflaw,noreasonablefactfindercouldfindinfringement.¡±,,at*6(,2022)(citingCurverLuxembourg,,:17-cv-4079-KM-JBC,2018WL340036,at*4(,2018)).,aside-by-sidecomparisonofWePayandPNC¡¯sdesignsdemonstratedtheywere¡°sufficientlydistinct¡±and¡°plainlydissimilar¡±*,accountingforpriorart,anysimilaritywiththeaccusedandasserteddesignsappeared¡°likethepriorartofaQRcode¡±¡ªaninternationalstandardadoptedbeforethefilingdateofthe¡®¡¯,oneofthenotabledifferencesinJudgeHoran¡¯sreasoningstemsfromherholdingthat¡°noreasonablefactfindercouldfindinfringement.¡±*¡¯sopinionisbrief,itseemsthatt,becausethesamepatentisbeingassertedagainstthesametypeofinfringingarticle¡ªifnoreasonablefactfindercouldfindinfringementwiththePNCmobilebankingapplication,itislikelythesamewouldbetrueofPayPal¡¯yobserverstandarddoesn¡¯tseemtohavechanged(bothdecisionsreliedonit),however,atleastintheWesternDistrictofPennsylvania,visualqualitieslikesimila¡ªasofJune27,WePayappealedtotheFederalCircuit¡ªfornow,donappeal.

Lastweek,theItalianSocietyofAuthorsandEditors(SIAE)saiditpartnered,forexample,asimilarprojectincollaborationwiththeLaSapienzaUniversityofRomeandthestartupBlockchainCore,,SIAEisworkingwithAlgorandtoleveragethelatter¡¯bysomeone,andtheplatformwillkeeptrackoftheroyaltiestheywouldreceive.¡°Theworldisevolving,butthefoundingmissionoftheItalianSocietyofAuthorsandPublishers,theprotectionofcreativity,doesnotchange,¡±saidSIAEGeneralManagerGaetanoBlandini.¡°OurcollaborationwithAlgorandispartofaprocessalreadystartedandisalignedwithresearchandinnovationonanationalandglobalscale.¡±CommentingonthepartnershipwithSIAE,SilvioMicali,thefounderofAlgorand,said,¡°Collaborationbetweentechnologyprovidersandforward-thinkingorganizationssuchasSIAEopensupvastopportunitiesforprogressiontowardsneweconomicmodelsthatpromoteinclusivity,transparency,andfrictionlesstransactions.¡±Blockchainisbeingseenastheperfectmat,ab,,potentially,eachpieceofcopyrightedworkcanbeassigneduniqueidentifiers,androyaltypaymentscouldbedirectlysenttotheowner¡¯,,,Ba,HTCandafewotherfirmshaveinvestedinTaiwan-basedpropertyrightsstartupBitmarkInc,,SouthKorea¡¯sCJOliveNetworks,theITdivisionofCJGroup,launchedablockchaindigitalcopyrightssystemwhichfocusesonmusicalworks.

Theself-proclaimedinventorofBitcoin,CraigWright,haswonadefaultjudgmentinLondon¡¯sHighCourtinhisc,thewebsiteanditsownerCobramustremovetheBitcoinwhitepaperfromthewebportalandpay$¡®Satoshi¡¯¡¯,however,onFebruary24viatheIntellecigh,thereissomuchevidencecontradictingCraigWright¡¯sstoryit¡¯sbeensaidhesimply¡°thrivesonattention.¡±¡°He¡¯shadfouryearstocomeforwardwithproofthatheisSatoshi,andI,forone,amnotsatisfied,¡±¡¯soperatorCobra,theCryptoOpenPatentAlliance(COPA)¡¯sclaimstothefamouswhitepaper.¡°Today,r,¡±,arepresentativeofCraigWright,:¡°ThisisexactlywhatwehavewantedtohappenforsometimeandIamverypleasedthisbodyhasagreedtostandupincourtasIcannowhavemycredentialsjudgedlegally.¡±OnJune28andalsoupdatedthefollowingday,¡¯¡¯srequestwhichincludes:AninjunctionprohibitingtheDefendantfrominfringingDrWright¡¯scopyrightintheUnitedKingdo¡±¡°AnorderrequiringtheDefendanttopublishacopyoftheCourt¡¯¡±¡°maintaintheiranonymity.¡±OnTwitter,¡¯spseudonymousoperatorspokeabouttherulingandsaidthatitwastheperfectexampleofwhyuncensorableandpermissionlessnetworkslikeBitcoinareneeded.¡°Allyourfiat-basedassetsareultimatelysecuredbythesamelegalsystemthattodaymadeitillegalformetohosttheBitcoinwhitepaperbecauseanotoriousliarsworebeforeajudgethathe¡¯sSatoshi,¡±Cobratweeted.¡°Asystemwhere¡®justice¡¯dependsonwho¡¯sgotthebiggerwallet.¡±Theanonymousbitcoineradded:¡°Idon¡¯tthinkyoucouldgetabetteradvertisementof*why*donwhoevercanspendhundredsofthousandsofdollarsincourt.¡±

ChinaissuedaplanonWednesdayfor2021-2035tostrengthenbuildupandprotectionofintellectualpropertyrights(IPRs),byacceleratinglegislationonIPRsinnewfieldsandformsofbusiness,suchasbigdata,artificialintelligence(AI),forenterpr,promotinghigh-qualitydevelopmentisaninevitablerequirementformaintainingthesustainedandsoundeconomicdevelopmentofChina,accordingtoadocumentissuedbytheGeneralOfficeoftheCommunistPartyofChina(CPC)CentralCommitteeandtheGeneralOfficeoftheStateCouncil,thecabinet,,andtheroleofIPRsasastrategicresourcefornationaldevelopmentandacoreelementofinternationalcompetitivenessisbecomingmoreprominent,veandintelligence-intensive,thedevelopmentofwhich,includingbasicalgorithmsandapplicationscenarios,requiresalotofintellectualproperty(IP),andscientificresearchandproductioncapacityofenterprisesbeimproved,WangPeng,anassistantprofessorattheGaolingSchoolofArtificialIntelligenceattheRenminUniversityofChina,,theaddedvalueofpatent-intensiveindustriesisexpectedtobeequivalentto13percentofChinasGDP,($).By2035,thecomprehensivecompetitivenessofIPRsshallrankamongthetopintheworld,heningtheprotectionofbusinesssecrets,improvethelegalsystemforregulatingtheabuseofIPRs,andimprovelegisl,alegalcounselattheBeijing-basedInternetSocietyofChina,toldtheGlobalTimesonWednesdaythattheblueprintsendsasignalthatChinawillfurtherstepupacrackdownonmonopolisticandunfaircompetitionpracticesthatabuseIPprotection,,TencentmusicannouncedthatitsexclusivelicensingdealswithlabelswouldendasofAugust23,asChinasmarketregulatormovedtoprev,theNationalDevelopmentandReformCommission,Chinastopeconomicplanner,finedchipmakerQualcomm6billionyuan($975million),,Wangsaid,addingthatthequantityofIPislargeinChina,,ChinawillacceleratelegislationonIPRsinnewtechnologies,newindustries,newformsofbusinessandnewmodels,anditwifpatents,trademarks,copyrightsandothertypesofIPRs,andf,ChinawillspeedupthecultivationofanumberofexcellentnewplantvarietieswithIPRsandimprovethequalityoflicensedvarieties.

Õ¾ÔÚËûÉíÅÔµÄĸÇס£

TheshapeofaLondonblackhacktaxiisnotdistinctiveenoughtobeeligiblefortrademarkprotection,otrademarksheldbyTheLondonTaxiCorporation(LTC)lywereitstrademarksvalidbutthatFrazer-NashResearchandEcotivehadinfringeditsrightsinthosemarksaxisLTCmanufactureddidnothaveinherentdistinctivecharacter,hattheywereinherentlydistinctive,suchasthesizeandslopingofthewindscreen,theshapeofthebonnet,thepositioningofthetaxilight,,thejudgesruledthatthosefeaturerademarksthatLTCwereassertingtodete,however,thattheHighCourtwasrighttodeterminethattherewasnotenoughevidencetoshowthattaxihirershadcometoperceivetheshapeoftresentedgraphicallycanqualifyfortrademarkprotectioniftheyarecapableofdistinguishingonecompany,wheremarksarenotinherentlydistinctive,theycanneverthelessberegisteredastrademarksifitcanbeshownthatthemarkhasacquiredadistinctivecharacterinarksandbrandstomerittrademarkprotectioninvolvesevaluatingwhattheaverageconsumerofatypeofproductperceiveswhentheyseeamark,,,saidthefactthattheCoucceptedthattheaverageconsumerforthepurposesofthelegaltesttodeterminewhetherthetrademarkwasvalidincludedpeoplewhohiredtaxis,uchpeoplewereaverageconsumersofataxi;whileitistruethatsuc,rightsholdersshouldconsiderallpotentialconsumerswhointeractwiththetrademarkedgoodswhentryingtoassesstheappropriateaverageconsumer.

Thefundamentalfunctionofatrademarkistoidentifythesourcesofgoods/servicessothatastablecorrespondingrelationshipbetweenthetrademarkandthedesignatedgoods/,manyenterprisesandapplicantsprefershortandeasytoremembersloganforthepromotionandmarketingfort,,(3)ofTrademarkLawofthePeoplesRepublicofChina,thefollowingsignsshallnotberegisteredastrademarks:,itiscommonthatCNIPAwillbelievesuchtrademarkislikelytomisleadthepublictorecognizeitasasloganoradvertisinglanguage,(3):¡°ÃÀʱÃÀ¿Ë¾¡ÔÚÃÀ¼Ò¡±(3);¡°ÊÍ·ÅÄãµÄ»îÁ¦¡±(3);¡°ENJOYTHEDAY¡±(3);¡°HOTELSTHATDEFINETHEDESTINATION¡±(3);¡°WISHYOUWEREHERE¡±(3);¡°UNLOCKTHEFUTUREWITHTHEPOWEROFLIGHT¡±(3).TheabovetrademarkswereallforbiddenfromtrademarkapplicationsinceCNIPAbelievesthemlackingdistinctivefeaturesandarenoteasilydistinguishable,(3)ofTrademarkLawthoughtheapplicantssubmittedrelevantevi,thesignsmayberegisteredastrademarksaftertheyhave¡°Õ⣡¾ÍÊǽÖÎ衱inClass41,theCNIPAbelievesthismarkhasacquireddistinctivenessandbemortinctivefeatures,itshallbeconsideredwithrelevantevidencetodeterminew,,iftheappliedtrademarkcanbecombinedwithotherdistinctiveelements,suchaswordordesign,,¡°LOREALBECAUSEIMWORTHIT¡±;althoughitwouldbeeasiertoenhancethepublicityandreputationofthebrand,itisquitediff,thechancestillexistsiftheslogancanberecognizedasdistinctivenessanddistinguishablethatconsiderthesign,detailedgoods/servicesitems,actualuse,etc.

TheshapeofaLondonblackhacktaxiisnotdistinctiveenoughtobeeligiblefortrademarkprotection,otrademarksheldbyTheLondonTaxiCorporation(LTC)lywereitstrademarksvalidbutthatFrazer-NashResearchandEcotivehadinfringeditsrightsinthosemarksaxisLTCmanufactureddidnothaveinherentdistinctivecharacter,hattheywereinherentlydistinctive,suchasthesizeandslopingofthewindscreen,theshapeofthebonnet,thepositioningofthetaxilight,,thejudgesruledthatthosefeaturerademarksthatLTCwereassertingtodete,however,thattheHighCourtwasrighttodeterminethattherewasnotenoughevidencetoshowthattaxihirershadcometoperceivetheshapeoftresentedgraphicallycanqualifyfortrademarkprotectioniftheyarecapableofdistinguishingonecompany,wheremarksarenotinherentlydistinctive,theycanneverthelessberegisteredastrademarksifitcanbeshownthatthemarkhasacquiredadistinctivecharacterinarksandbrandstomerittrademarkprotectioninvolvesevaluatingwhattheaverageconsumerofatypeofproductperceiveswhentheyseeamark,,,saidthefactthattheCoucceptedthattheaverageconsumerforthepurposesofthelegaltesttodeterminewhetherthetrademarkwasvalidincludedpeoplewhohiredtaxis,uchpeoplewereaverageconsumersofataxi;whileitistruethatsuc,rightsholdersshouldconsiderallpotentialconsumerswhointeractwiththetrademarkedgoodswhentryingtoassesstheappropriateaverageconsumer.

Ñ×ÈȵÄÏļ¾£¬ÎÒÃÇÓ­À´ÁË×îºÃµÄÏà¾Û¡£

OnNovember27,2017,theSupremeCourtheardoralargume,¡¯sEnergyGroup,LLC(OilsStates).TheissueraisedinOilStatescallsintoquestionthePatentTrialandAppealsBoard¡¯s(PTAB)authoritytoconductInterPartesReviews(IPRs).PriortoenactmentoftheAmericaInventsAct(AIA)in2011,patentpractitionersthoughtthattheUSPTOwasissuingtoomany¡°bad¡±,CongresscreatedIPRswhichwereintendedtobealessexpensiveandquicker(comparedtodistrictcourtlitigation),over7,000IPRpetitionshave%,giventhesestatistics,IPRsarenotverypopularwith,thepatentatissue,,179,053,wasdieene¡¯¡¯scounterclaimedthatthepatentwasinvalidforlackofnoveltyoveraCanadianpatentpublishedbythesameinventormorethanoneyearbeforethe¡®¡¯salsofiledapetitionforaninterpartesreviewattheUSPTOchallengingthepatentabilityoftwoofthepatent¡¯¡¯,May1,,May4,n:¡°Whetherinterpartesreview-anadversarialprocessusedbythePatentandTrademarkOffice(PTO)toanalyzethevalidityofexistingpatents-violatestheConstitutionbyextinguishingprivatepropertyrightsthroughanon-ArticleIIIforumwithoutajury.¡±OilStatesarguedthatincreatingIPRs,CongressimproperlyintrudedontheseparationofpowersbygivingArticl¡°litigation-likeadversarialproceeding¡±betweenprivatepartiesandis,therefore,,patentsareprivatepropertyrightsthatforcenturieshavebeenadjudicatedbycourts,¡°meaningful¡±ArticleIIIsupervisionbecausetheFederalCircuitgivesdeferencetothePTABandonlyreviewsitsfindingstodeterminewhethertheyaresupportedby¡°substantialevidence.¡±Thus,OilStatesconcludedthatuntenuredAPJsappoin,OilSt,patentvaliditydisputeswerehistoricallytriedbeforejurieswhoresolvedquestionsoffact,Greene¡¯spointedoutthattheConstitutiongivesCongressthepowertoprovideforpatents¡°oftheproperscopetopromote¡®theProgressofScienceandtheusefulArts.¡¯¡±,¡ì8,,becauseCongresshastheconstitutionalauthoritytopromulgatestatutesgoverningpatentrights,apatentisapublicrightaccordingtoGreene¡¯s¡°integrallyrelatedtoparticularFederalGovernmentaction.¡±Greene¡¯sarguedthatbecausepatentsarepublicrights,,accordingtoGreene¡¯s,IPRsaresubjecttoreviewbyanArticleIIItribunalbecausepate¡¯salsoarguedthatIPRsarenottrulyjudicialinnaturebecause,interalia,theyonlyconsiderpatentabilitybasedonanarrowsubsetofissues;namely,¡ì¡ì,IPRssimplyallowtheUSPTOt¡¯salsopointedoutthattheUSPTOhashadtherighttocorrecterrorswithpatentsfordecadesbymeansofreissues,interferenceproceedings,,Greene¡¯sarguedthatIPRsaremerelyanothermeansfortheUSPTOtohaveasecondlookatapa,Greene¡¯spointedouttheCourtne,Greene¡¯sarg,25supportingRespondentGreene¡¯msthathavebeeninvalidatedinhepreviouslydecidedcasesindistrictcourt,butalsosurprisingbecauseitcouldbeconstruedasaconcessionbyOilState¡¯sdecisionisexpectedt,,ifapatentsconveysapublicright,thestatusquoisexpectedtobemaintained.

TheMannheimRegion,NokiasuedOPPOinfourdifferentcountri,,thisisthefirstrulingregardingthedisputedpatentsrelatedto4G(LTE)and5GStandardEssentialPatents(SEPs).NokiasuedOPPOovernineSEPsandfiveimplementationpatentsinthreeGermanregionalcourtsincludingMunichandD¡§,beingaleaderin5GSEPs,hasinvestedatotalof€umerproducts,itsprev,luxurycarmanufacturer,Daimler,hassettleditshigh-profilepatentlitigationwithNokia,follow,NokiawasgrantedaceaseanddesistorderbytheMannheimRegionalCourt,,whileBirdBirdstandforthecompanyduringitsLenovolawsuit.

TheCourtofAppealinTheHaguehasupheldafir,,KPN,NokiaNokiaandKPNhaveonceagainbeensuccessfulintheongoingcaseagainstAssiaoverDSLtechnologyMaryia/ADOBESTOCKInJanuary2021,,theDistrictCourtofTheHaguefoundthatKPNhadnotinfringedEP790,,unlikeinparallelproceedings,,becauseKPNappliestheprocesslaidoutinthepatent¡¯,AssiaarguedthatitsDSLproductoperateswiththepatent¡¯,thecourtthrewouttheclaimofinfringement,¡¯sinitialvictory(caseID:C/09/571729).NokiadeliverskeyDSLtechnologycomponentstoKPN,turningoutasaninter,¡¯sEP2259456,theCourtofAppealconfirmedinMarch2021aninvaliditydecision,56(caseID:C/09/563488).Here,,whichisstandardessential,,Assiaw,theCourtofAppealnullifiedallclaimsofEP456.

ÿÔÂ1ºÅ·¢·Å¹¤×Ê¡£

ÁªÏµ:13734371260

,aChinesesmartwatchmaker¨CPutianDoumaofirmhastriedofusingtheHuaweilogoanditsnamewithsomesmartwatchestoselltheminitsstoreduetowhichthelegallawsuitshaveorderedthecompanytocompensate2millionyuan(),,,bracelets,andmoresold,,suchtypeofbehav,thedefendantbeginsarguingthatsuchterm,:Theevalua,thedefendantsdefensethatthewordHuaweiusesinadescriptivemannercannotestablish,,thedefendantsuseofofficialwebsitemoneyandofficialupgrademoneyintheproductintrodu,thecourthascommandedthedefendanttocompensateforthelossofHuaweiassoonaspossible.

UtahscookiecompetitioncontinuedonJuly13whenDirtyDoughandCraveCo,foundedinLoganbySawyerHemsleyandJasonMcGowan,filedalawsuitagainstDirtyDough,acookiebusinessthatstartedinTempe,Arizona,,aCrumblinsiderleftCrumbltofoundDirtyDough,whichsellsandpromotescookiesusingpackaging,decor,andpresentationthatisconfusinglysim,whosbrotherwasaCrumblemployee,toldTheHerald,youguysknowthatDirtyDoughwasalreadystartedin2018,,Ithinkwerethemostdifferent,..,,bigsupporter,Maxwellsaid,expla,allofasuddenoutofnowhere¡­wegethitwithalawsuit,,,,wellseeiftheywanttotalk¡­whatsthesolutionhereMaxwellsaid,,wereachedouttothem¡ªtoldthemweacceptedcounsel,,,anothercookiecompanythathascometoUtah,,afterCrumbldeniedanapplicationbyCravesfoundertobecomeaCrumblfranchisee,Cravebegansellingandpromotingitscopycatgourmetcookies,Crumblscomplaintreadsbeforealletailsofthevaluablegoodwill,reputation,ontobecomeaCrumblefranchiseeorthatCraveisinviolationofanyofCrumblsallegedtrademarks,tradedress,orotherintellectualpropertyrights,rattemptbyathreatenedcompetitortousealawsuittostiflefairandfreecompetitionanddenyconsumersachoiceofproducts,Englishsaidinastatementto,,orelsewhywouldnttheytalkwithusorsendacease-and-desistletter,,,Maxwellsaid,,hesaid,,Crumblsaidtheyareprotectingtheirsuccess:Asafranchisorof30,000+CrumblCrewmembers,1,000+FranchisePartners,andhundredsofCrumblHQemployees,wewillalwaystakeseriouslyourroleinbuildingandprotectingthecompanyanditstrademarksthatweveallworkedsohardtocreatetogether.

Astheproverbsays,wheninRome,,agoodChinesenameforforeignbrandwouldbemucheasierforthelocalconsumerstoremember,,BMWiscalled±¦Âí(baoma)inChina,,±¦Âí,foreignbrandownerswouldhaveconscious,onethingtobeoftenoverlookedis,аÙÂ×(xinbailun)intimeandcontinuingusageofthisunregisteredtrademark,NewBalancewaslatersuedbyZhouLelun,theregistrantofthetrademarkаÙÂ×,,withacompensationof5millionyuan(aboutUSD738thousand).Itwasnot,itcontinuedtousetheChinesenameaftersomeoneelsehadalreadyregisteredthisChinesenameastrademark,,,attentionshallbepaidtothecompositionofthemarktobeapplied,,theforeign-languagem,,warningtheforeigntrademarkownernotonlyregistershisChinesecharactermarkinuse,,(es)(es)inwhi(es)againstpotentialtrademarksquattersinwhichthegoods/servicesarecloselyconnectedwiththecoregoods/,Class9(sunglasses),Class14(jewelry)¡¢Class18(bags)andClass25(clothes)alwayssharethesamemarketingchannel,andtrademarksquattingfrequentlyhappensamongtheseclasses.(Tobecontinued)

AnationwidecultureandcreativeindustryalliancewasestablishedTuesdayinGuangzhou,thecapitalofGuangdongprovince,,wassetupduringtheTianheSummitoftheChinaCultureandCreativeIndustryConference,willhelpbuildanationwideplatformforcompaniesandorganizationsinthecultu,aleadingwriterandstrategistonthecreativeeconomy,sharedhisviewsduerthepast40years¡ªespeciallyintheareasofdesign,fashionandmodernart,eindustry,,Howkinshasworkedwithawiderangeofpeopleandorganizationsinover30countriesandregionstoincre:HowPeopleMakeMoneyfromIdeashasuralIndustryFair,,acopyrightexpoofinternationalculturalheritagemuseums,aforumfocusingonadvertisement,aninternationalartexpoandaninternationalentertainmenttradefair,accordingtotheorganizers.

TheshapeofaLondonblackhacktaxiisnotdistinctiveenoughtobeeligiblefortrademarkprotection,otrademarksheldbyTheLondonTaxiCorporation(LTC)lywereitstrademarksvalidbutthatFrazer-NashResearchandEcotivehadinfringeditsrightsinthosemarksaxisLTCmanufactureddidnothaveinherentdistinctivecharacter,hattheywereinherentlydistinctive,suchasthesizeandslopingofthewindscreen,theshapeofthebonnet,thepositioningofthetaxilight,,thejudgesruledthatthosefeaturerademarksthatLTCwereassertingtodete,however,thattheHighCourtwasrighttodeterminethattherewasnotenoughevidencetoshowthattaxihirershadcometoperceivetheshapeoftresentedgraphicallycanqualifyfortrademarkprotectioniftheyarecapableofdistinguishingonecompany,wheremarksarenotinherentlydistinctive,theycanneverthelessberegisteredastrademarksifitcanbeshownthatthemarkhasacquiredadistinctivecharacterinarksandbrandstomerittrademarkprotectioninvolvesevaluatingwhattheaverageconsumerofatypeofproductperceiveswhentheyseeamark,,,saidthefactthattheCoucceptedthattheaverageconsumerforthepurposesofthelegaltesttodeterminewhetherthetrademarkwasvalidincludedpeoplewhohiredtaxis,uchpeoplewereaverageconsumersofataxi;whileitistruethatsuc,rightsholdersshouldconsiderallpotentialconsumerswhointeractwiththetrademarkedgoodswhentryingtoassesstheappropriateaverageconsumer.

TheSupremeCourtwillhearanongoingcopyrightcasebetweenSwedishfastfashiongiantHMandpattern-makingcompanyUnicolors,ent,aswellasthefindingsofothercircuitsandtheCopyrightOfficeinholdingthattheCopyrightActrequiresadistrictcourttoseekguidancefromtheCopyrightOfficewhentherearequestionsaboutthevalidityofacopyrightregistrationbutnoevid,accusingthefastfashionbehemothofinfringingoneofitsgeometricpatterns¨Cbywayofa¡°remarkablysimilar¡±print¨C,inwhichajuryfoundthatHMhadwillfullyinfringedUnicolors¡¯scopyright-protectedpattern,andawardedthepatterncompany$846,720indamages,attorney¡¯sfees,andcosts,¡¯sappealwasitsclaimthatUnicolorslacksavalidcopyrightregistrationforthefabricpatternatthecenterofthecasebecauseUnicolorshadimpher,makingthemanappropriate¡°singleunit¡±foronecollectivecopyrightapplicationandregistration,HMclaimedthatUnicolorsactuallysoldsomeofthepatternsseparatelytodifferentcustomers¨Catdifferenttimes,thereby,makingthecompany¡¯,2020,theNinthCircuitreversedthejuryverdictandsidedwithHMonthebasisthatthereisnointent-to-defraudrequirementforreg¡ì411(b)(2)¨CwhichrequiresdistrictcourtstoasktheRegisterofCopyrightswhetherregistrationwouldhavebeenrefusediftheCopyrightOfficehadknowntheinformationwasinaccurate¨CwhenitdidnotreferthemattertotheCopyrightOfficeafterHMallegedthattheregistrationcontainsinac,andUnicolorsfiledapetitionforawritofcertiorari,¡¯spetition,theNinthCircuitgotthecasewrong,asthejudges¡¯rulingconcerningthetimelineofthepublicationoftheworkscoveredbythesingle-unitcopyrightregistrationwas¡°flawedbecausetherewasnoevidencesupporting[their]conclusionthatthedesignswereseparatelypublishedbeforecertaindesignswerecategorizedasconfinedinUnicolors¡¯registrationcertificate.¡±Withthatinmind,Unicolorsclaimedthattherewas¡°insufficientevidencetodeduceany¡ì411(b).¡±¡°Thepanel¡¯¡ì411(b)wasalsoflawed,¡±accordingtoUnicolorsbecause¡°manycourts,legislativeandadministrativeauthorities,andtheleadingcopyrighttreatisehaveuniformlyinterpretedthePrioritizingResourcesandOrganizationforIntellectualPropertyActof2008¡­tocodifythedoctrineoffraudontheCopyrightOfficeandthus,toallowinvalidationundersection411(b)onlywhentheregistrantisshowntohaveactedinbadfaithorintendedtodefraudtheCopyrightOffice.¡±LookingaheadtotheSupremeCourt¡¯sconsiderationofthecase,ractitionersthatthesection411(b)issueis¡°ripeforreview,¡±particularlygiventhatdisputesaboutcopyrightregistrationerrors¨Cwhichcanstemfrom¡°anumberoffactors,includingunclearguidanceaboutregistrationrules,asimplemisunderstandingofwhattheapplicationrequiresand,mostrelevanttotheissueathand,purposefulorknowinginaccuracies¡±¨Care¡°commoninlitigation.¡±MeanwhileFinneganattorneysSamuelEichnerandMargaretEsquenethavenotedthatingrantingcertiorari,theSupremeCourtmaybelookingto¡°resolveanapparentcircuitsplitontheissueofwhetherthereisanintent-to-defraudrequirementbeforeareferralismadetotheCopyrightOfficeunderSection411(b).¡±Atthesametime,theCourtmayalsobeaiming¡°toclarifythestrengthofacopyrightregistration¡¯spresumptivevalidityand/ortheextenttowhichtheCopyrightActrequirescourtstodefertoCopyrightOfficedeterminationsundersection411(b)(2)astowhetherinaccuracies,ifknown,wouldhavecausedtheCopyrightOfficetorefuseregistration.¡±Ultimately,EichnerandEsquenetassertthatbecauseintenttodefraudisgenerallydifficulttoprove,¡°theSupremeCourt¡¯sdecisionshouldhaveasignificantimpactonthestrengthofcopyrightregistrations¡±¨Cwhicharenowprerequisitestofilingcopyrightinfringementactions¨C¡°andtheirsusceptibilitytovalidityattacksbasedonperceivedinaccuraciesinregistrations.¡±Assuch,thedecisionhasthepotentialtoimpactcopyrightapplicationpractices.

¡ñAlgorithms,datacomeunderdefinitionoftradesecrets¡ñClientinfonotcollatedorprocessednotrecognizedastradesecret¡ñRequirementstorequestinjunctionspecifiedThedraftjudicialinterpretation(JI)ontradesecretsreleasedbyChina¡¯sSupremePeople¡¯sCourtlightenstheburdenofproofforplaintiffsintradesecretinfringementlawsuits,¨CInterpretationonSeveralIssuesConcerningtheApplicationofLawintheTrialofCivilCasesInfringingonTradeSecretInfringements(draftforcomment)¨C¡¯samendedAnti-UnfairCompetitionLaw(AUCL),thedraftlightensrights-holder¡¯slegaldutybyshiftingtheburdenofprooftotheallegedinfringer,,,enttrial,therights-holderneedstoprovide¡°preliminaryevidence¡±,theallegedinfringer,Article8ofthedraftJIstatesthattherights-holderneedonlysubmitpreliminaryevidencetoprovethereisa¡°highprobability¡±thattheclaimedtradesec,partneratAnjieLawFirm,agreedthedraftJIlowersrights-holder¡¯sburdenofproof,yet,thereisnoquantitativemeasurementof¡°ahighprobabilitythattheclaimedtradesecrethasbeeninfringed¡±andthereforeitishardtoexecuteinpractice,(Article9)oftheamendedAUCLdefinestradesecretsasanytechnicalinformationoroperationalinformationwhichisnotknowntothepublic,hascommercialvalue,andforwh,dataandcomputerprogramsmayconstdprocessing,suchasname,address,contactinformation,tradinghabits,transactioncontent,andspecificneedsofcustomers,mayconstit,Article5(2)ofthedraftJIstatesthatifthepartiesclaimtheinformationofaspecificclientisatradesecretonlyonthebasisofthecontract,invoice,document,voucher,,,thecourtwillnotrecognizeclientinformationunlessitiscollatedorprocessedastradesecrets,,theclausedoesnotspecifywhatqualifiesas¡°collation¡±and¡°processing¡±,anditremainsunclearwhetherthecollationandprocessingneedtobe¡°complicatedandin-depth¡±,tradesecrets,,arights-holdermustclarifyspecificcontentoftheclaimedtradesecretsandprovideevidencetoprovetha¡°relativelylowburdenofproof¡±fortherights-holder,whichisconsistentwiththeamendedAUCL,,itdoesnotmakeacompulsoryrequirementandleavesittothediscretionofthecourt,heinformationrequestedbytherights-holderisnotatradesecretorthereisnoinfringementoftradesecrets,,Article22ofthedraftJIaimstostrikeabalanceandpreventtheover-protectionofarights-holder,Zousaid.

Thoseplansarelikelytobedraftedbytheinternet¡¯sglobaldomainnameorganisation,theInternetCorporationforAssignedNamesandNumbers(ICANN),aftertheEuropeanDataProtectionBoard(EDPB)effectivelysaiditneedstogobacktothedrawingboardtomakeitsrulesaroundthecollectionanduseofWHOISdatacompliantwiththeGeneralDataProtectionRegulation(GDPR).TheWHOISsystemInformationthatservestoidentifythepeoplebehinddomainnameregistrationsispublishedontheWHOISsystem,internet,butisalsousedbylredawebsiteofferingcounterfeitgoodswhichinfringetheirtrademarkrights,orsi,theanydomainnameregistrarstotakeaconservativeapproachtotheemptedtoenforcethetermsofitscontractualagreementwithadomainn,domainnameregistrarEPAGDomainservicessuccessfullyfoughtoffabidfromICANNtoforceittocollectthepersonaldataoftechnicalandadmctionofthecontactinformationwasnecessary,,theEDPBrespondedtoICANNscallformoreguauthor(8-page/737KBPDF):ICANNneedstodefineitsspecifiedpurposesandlawfulbasisforprocessingpersonaldataandshouldnotconflatethiswiththelegitimateinterestsandpurposesofthirdpartieswhomaysubsequentlyseekaccesstothedata;thatthereisnobasisforICANNtoinsistupontheprovisionofadditionalinformationonadministrativeandtechnicalcontactsfromregistrants;thatthefactthatregistrantsmaybelegalpersonsdoesnottakeWHOISoutsidethescopeofGDPRwhereICANNisprocessingpersonaldatarelatingtoindividualswithinthoseorganisations,andthereforethepersonaldataofsuchindividualsshouldnotbemadepublicallyavailablebydefault;thatICANNisrequiredtologaccesstopersonaldata,butdoesnotnecessarilyneedtoactivelycommunicate(push)thisloginformationtoregistrantsorthirdparties;thatICANNhasfailedtojustifywhyitisnecessarytoretainpersonaldatafortwoyearsposttheexpiryofthedomainnameregistration,and;thatcodesofconductorcertificatesofaccreditationarevoluntaryaneconta,theArticle29WorkingParty,hasbeenofferingguidancetoICANNonhowt,includingincreasedtransparencyobligations,havenowbroughtthisissuetoaheadandtheEDPBletterisclearinitsmessagethatICANNnessedinthecontextofWHOISmaybemadeavailabletothirdpartieswhohavealegitimateinterestinaccessingthedata,providedthoseinterestsarenotoverriddenbytheinterestsorfundamentalrightsandfreedomsofthedatasubject,andprovidedsafeguardsareputinplacet,thiswillnotnecessarilymeanthatICANNmustactivelynotifythedatasubjectsconcernedthattheirinformationhasbeenaccessed,andbywhom,alaWHOISsearchtofindoutwhoisbehindaninfringingsite,withoutnotifyingthtimatestakeholderstogainaccesstopersonaldataconcerningregistrantsbutalsocontainsappropriatesafeguards,testakeholdersmaystillgainaccesstoWHOISdata,andthatregis,itislikelythatanynewmodelwillinvolvemoretime,effortandexpenseforrightholdersseekingaccesstosuchinformation,whichuptonowhasbeenfreelyandreadilyavailabletothem.

TheMannheimRegion,NokiasuedOPPOinfourdifferentcountri,,thisisthefirstrulingregardingthedisputedpatentsrelatedto4G(LTE)and5GStandardEssentialPatents(SEPs).NokiasuedOPPOovernineSEPsandfiveimplementationpatentsinthreeGermanregionalcourtsincludingMunichandD¡§,beingaleaderin5GSEPs,hasinvestedatotalof€umerproducts,itsprev,luxurycarmanufacturer,Daimler,hassettleditshigh-profilepatentlitigationwithNokia,follow,NokiawasgrantedaceaseanddesistorderbytheMannheimRegionalCourt,,whileBirdBirdstandforthecompanyduringitsLenovolawsuit.

Synopsys,(DMCA)actionagainstLibraryTechnologies,accesstoSynopsys¡¯ssoftwareinviolationoftheDMCAandtheparties¡¯¡°spoof[ed]¡±Synopsys¡¯slicenseserversbyalteringidentifyinginformationonvariouslicenseservercomputersto¡°leadingproviderofElectronicDesignAutomation(¡°EDA¡±)solutionsforthesemiconductorindustry.¡±Itreportedlyoffersasuiteofsoftwarequalityandsecuritysolutions,includingits¡°HSPICE¡±,LibraryTechnologiesisaprivatelyheldcompanybasedinSiliconValleythat¡°developsandmarketsdesignandanalysistoolsforintegratedcircuitdesign.¡±Itssuiteoftoolsandproductsareintegratedwithandinterfaceto¡°popularchipdesignflowsincludingSynopsystools.¡±Thecomplaintcontendsthatthepartiesenteredintoan¡°EndUserLicenseandMaintenanceAgreement¡±¡°licenseseats¡±,thethree-countcomplaintavers,LibraryTechnologiesbreachedtheagreementwhenit¡°alteredtheHostIDsofitslicenseservercomputerstoimpersonateaserverauthorizedtouseSynopsysTools,inordertocircumventSynopsys¡¯accesscontrollicensekeyprotections,therebygainingaccesstomoreconcurrentusageofSynopsysToolsthanauthorized.¡±SynopsyscontendsthatLibraryTechnologiesaccessedthesoftware¡°inexcessofitslicenseover400,000times,¡±¡¯unauthorizedandunpaidforaccess,Synopsysargues,notonlybreachedtheparties¡¯,Synopsysseeksinjunctiverelief,statutoryandactualdamages,attorneys¡¯feesandlitigationcosts,anaccounting,,HerringtonSutcliffeLLP.

ÎÒÃÇÖ»»áÔÚ´ï³É±¾Õþ²ßËùÊöÄ¿µÄËùÐèµÄÆÚÏÞÄÚ±£ÁôÄúµÄ¸öÈËÐÅÏ¢£¬³ý·ÇÐèÒªÑÓ³¤±£ÁôÆÚ»òÊܵ½·¨ÂɵÄÔÊÐí¡£

Clearingtheaironlabyrinthinesubject-mattereligibilitystandardsforcomputer-implementedinventions(CIIs),a,,thecourt,whilesettinganewtest,rejected,forthesecondtime,aproblem-solutionapproachtoclaimconstructionfollowedbytheCanadianIntellectualPropertyOffice(CIPO)entsfindingtwoCanadianPatentApplicantsnumbered2,695,130and2,695,146aspatentineligibleundersections2and27(8)(IPIC),anIPpolicyadvocacyorganization,intervenedintheappealproceedings,affiinesinventiontoincludeanynewandusefulart,process,machine,(8),however,,2000SCC66,theSupremeCourtofCanadaclarifiedthatbeforeassessingsubject-mattereligibility,essentialeleme,whereinonlythoseelementsinclaimsthatwerenecessarytosolveth,,CIPOintroducedaPracticeNote,titledExaminationPracticeRespectingComputer-ImplementedInventions,whichindicatedthatifacomputercomponentisfoundtobeanessentialelement,,iftheessentialelementslackanyphysicality,(AttorneyGeneral),2020FC837,CIPOintroducedanewPracticeNoteinNovember2020,titledPatentableSubject-MatterunderthePatentAct,whichnotedthatinordertobepatent-eligible,thecomputercomponentsmustcooperatewithotherelementsoftheclaimedinvention,andthatactualinventioncations,bothtitledColorSelectionSystem,filedbyBenjaminMooreCo.,icalequationthatmodeledhumanpsychologicalperceptionstocolor,associatingacoloremotionscoretovariouscolorsinadatabase,andselecti,bothpatentapplicationswererejectedbyExaminersforencompassingnon-statutorysubject-matter,,theExaminer,uponpurposivelyconstruingtheclaims,,asnotedbytheExaminer,includedcalculatinghumanpsychophysicalperceptionvaluestocolorelementsbasedonmathematicalmodels,andothe,eviewedbyathree-memberPatentAppealBoard,,theApplicantreliedonFreeWorldTrustinemphasizingthatcomputercomponentscau,theApplicantclaimed,theApplicantconcededthatnoattemptwasmadetosolveac,however,concludedthatidentifyingamathematicalcorrelationbetweencolorsandhumanemotiveresponsestoaidcolorselectionwasnotatechnicalproblemforsubject-matterconsiderations,andcompsionerofPatents1981,FCA204,thatuseofcomputersforconduct,theBoardagreedwiththeExaminerandnotedthattheessentialelements,,theAppellantchallengedtheCommissionersclaimcons,Appellantargued,wouldhavebeenidentifyingclaimelementsthathaveamater,theCommissionerhadincorrectlyconcludedthattheremainingcationssuchasidentifyingadjacencyofcolorpairs,storingthecolorlibrary,,,,thePracticeN,theCommissionersapproachofconsideringonlythenovelelementsintheclaimsasessenti,theofficeoftheAttorneyGeneralofCanada(AGC)incorrectbutsoughttoremittheapplicationsbacktotheCommissi,theRespondentarguedthatjudicialinterventionwouldbeprematureastheCommissionerdidnothavetheopportunitytoconsidertheAppeyhavingtheexpert,theRespondentcontendedthata,implementingascientificprincipleormathematicaltheoremonagen,IPIC,generallyalignedwiththeAppellantspositionandca,CIPOstendencyo,gdetrimentaltoCIIs,ntedworldwide,,notingmaterialeffecnon-essentialandallegi,theIntervenorrequestedthecourttore-cessiontotheproblem-so,includingWhirlpoolCorpvCamcoInc,2000SCC67,FreeWorldTrust,andCanada(AttorneyGeneral),2011FCA328thecourtheldthatnoneofthedecisionssuggestaproblem-solutionapproach,andins,wheretheproblem-solutionapproachwasdiscredited,andaddedthatpracticalapplicationofs,theproblem-solutionapproach,consideringonlynovelaspectsofclaimsinsubject-matteranalysis,andholdingcomputercomponentsasnon-essentialfornotsolvingacomputerproblem,ectmatter,thecourtacceptedtheframeworksuggestedbytheIntervenor,isasfollows:Purposivelyconstruetheclaim;Askwhethertheconstruedclaimasawholeconsistsofonlyamerescientificprincipleorabstracttheorem,orwhetheritcomprisesapracticalapplicationthatemploysascientificprincipleorabstracttheorem;andIftheconstruedclaimcomprisesapracticalapplication,assesstheconstruedclaimfortheremainingpatentabilitycriteria:statutorycategoriesandjudicialexclusions,aswellasnovelty,obviousness,ifyingessentialclaimelements,thecourthasdirectedthatclaimsshouldbeassessed,CIPOsrequirementthatapplicationsinvolvingCIIsmu,CIPOspracticeoflimitingthesubject-matterassessmentonlytonovelele,abrightlinetowardscon

¹àÄÏÏØËÕÖÝ·ʵÑéѧУһÄê¼¶£º£¨1£©ÈËÃñ·ÒÔ±±¡¢ÑκÓÒÔÎ÷¡¢Ì©Öݱ±Â·ÒÔ¶«¡¢±±»·Â·ÒÔÄÏÇøÓò£¨²»°üº¬Ð³ǻª¸®¡¢Í¬ÌìÊ׸®¡¢»ÆÆÒÒø¶¼³Ç¡¢½ðµÂ»¨Ô°¡¢Ð¸ۼÎÔ·¡¢ÐŰ²Ôijǡ¢¹àÄÏ´ºÌì¡¢¹ú³Ï»ªÍ¥¡¢ÃûÊ˼ÒÔ°¡¢Öн­¹ú¼Ê»¨Ô·¡¢ÈðÐùѧ¸®µÈ11¸öÐ¡Çø£©¡£

Foodpanda,oneofthelargestfooddeliverystartupsinAsiaoutsideofChina,isinalegalspatwithHungryPandaSGoveranallegedtrademarkinfringement,,,FoodpandafiledanoppositionagainstHungryPanda¡¯¡¯,consumersmaymistakeHungryPanda¡¯sservicesandproductsforthatofFoodpanda¡¯,whichwasacquiredbyGermany-basedDeliveryHeroin2016,hasbecomeaprizedpossessionforitsparentfirm,asitwasoneofitsmaindriversofrevenueinthethirdquarterof2021.

ºÍ±ðÈ˼ÒëçÖÆ·½·¨²»Í¬µÄÊÇ£¬ÔÚëçÖÆÇ°£¬»Æ¶þ¾ü¶¼Òª°ÑʳÓÃÑΡ¢»¨½·¡¢°×ÌÇ¡¢¹ðƤµÈ×ôÁÏ·ÅÔڲݹøÀï³´Êìºó²ÅÄܽøÈëëçÖÆ»·½Ú¡£

UtahscookiecompetitioncontinuedonJuly13whenDirtyDoughandCraveCo,foundedinLoganbySawyerHemsleyandJasonMcGowan,filedalawsuitagainstDirtyDough,acookiebusinessthatstartedinTempe,Arizona,,aCrumblinsiderleftCrumbltofoundDirtyDough,whichsellsandpromotescookiesusingpackaging,decor,andpresentationthatisconfusinglysim,whosbrotherwasaCrumblemployee,toldTheHerald,youguysknowthatDirtyDoughwasalreadystartedin2018,,Ithinkwerethemostdifferent,..,,bigsupporter,Maxwellsaid,expla,allofasuddenoutofnowhere¡­wegethitwithalawsuit,,,,wellseeiftheywanttotalk¡­whatsthesolutionhereMaxwellsaid,,wereachedouttothem¡ªtoldthemweacceptedcounsel,,,anothercookiecompanythathascometoUtah,,afterCrumbldeniedanapplicationbyCravesfoundertobecomeaCrumblfranchisee,Cravebegansellingandpromotingitscopycatgourmetcookies,Crumblscomplaintreadsbeforealletailsofthevaluablegoodwill,reputation,ontobecomeaCrumblefranchiseeorthatCraveisinviolationofanyofCrumblsallegedtrademarks,tradedress,orotherintellectualpropertyrights,rattemptbyathreatenedcompetitortousealawsuittostiflefairandfreecompetitionanddenyconsumersachoiceofproducts,Englishsaidinastatementto,,orelsewhywouldnttheytalkwithusorsendacease-and-desistletter,,,Maxwellsaid,,hesaid,,Crumblsaidtheyareprotectingtheirsuccess:Asafranchisorof30,000+CrumblCrewmembers,1,000+FranchisePartners,andhundredsofCrumblHQemployees,wewillalwaystakeseriouslyourroleinbuildingandprotectingthecompanyanditstrademarksthatweveallworkedsohardtocreatetogether.

AnationwidecultureandcreativeindustryalliancewasestablishedTuesdayinGuangzhou,thecapitalofGuangdongprovince,,wassetupduringtheTianheSummitoftheChinaCultureandCreativeIndustryConference,willhelpbuildanationwideplatformforcompaniesandorganizationsinthecultu,aleadingwriterandstrategistonthecreativeeconomy,sharedhisviewsduerthepast40years¡ªespeciallyintheareasofdesign,fashionandmodernart,eindustry,,Howkinshasworkedwithawiderangeofpeopleandorganizationsinover30countriesandregionstoincre:HowPeopleMakeMoneyfromIdeashasuralIndustryFair,,acopyrightexpoofinternationalculturalheritagemuseums,aforumfocusingonadvertisement,aninternationalartexpoandaninternationalentertainmenttradefair,accordingtotheorganizers.

Ϊ¹æ·¶¹ÜÀí£¬±ÜÃâ·¿Ô´ÐÅÏ¢²»¼°Ê±£¬ËùÓз¢ÌûÒ»Öܺó¾ùµ÷Õû״̬Ϊ(ÒÑ×â)(ÒÑÊÛ)£¬Çë֪Ϥ¡¾¶þÊÖ·¿¡¿ÊǹàÄϰÙÐÕÍø£¨¹àÄÏÂÛ̳£©·¢²¼³öÊÛ·¿ÎÝ¡¢ÉÌÆÌ¡¢×ÉѯÌÖÂÛµÄÏà¹ØÐÅÏ¢µÄר°æ¡£

£¨¶þ£©ÎÒÃÇ»á²ÉȡһÇкÏÀí¿ÉÐеĴëÊ©£¬È·±£Î´ÊÕ¼¯Î޹صĸöÈËÐÅÏ¢¡£

OnApril6,(FCAUSLLC)anewchancetoarguethatitdidnotviolateaBluetoothstandardsorganizationstrademarkrightsbyusingtheBluetoothnamewithoutpermissionandsentthecasebacktoaSeatt,BluetoothSIGarguedFCAviolateditstrademarkrightsbymarketingtheentertainmentplatformsinFiat,Jeep,Chrysler,andothercarsasbeingBluetoothcapablewithoutgoingthroughitsverificationprocess,howeverFCAsaiditboughtthesystemsfromcompaniesthathadverifiedthemwithBluetoothSIG,andaccordingtothetrademark¡°firstsale¡±doctrine,itshouldn¡¯tbelegallyliableforinfringement.


Ïà¹ØÔĶÁ

QingYuNian,apopularChinesecostumedramaadaptedfromtheChinesewebnovelofthesamename,hasbeenaccusedbyChinesenetizensofplagiarizingcontentfromthefantasynovelseriesTheTwelveKingdoms(1992)ofdialoguefromQingYuNianthat,tonotbediscouragedevenwhenencounteringdisaster,tocorrectinjusticewithoutfear,donotyieldandflatterthemonstersintheJapanesenovelisbeingcomparedtoQingYuNianstobeunyieldingwhenabusedbyothers,tonottobefrustratedwhendisastersoccur,ifanythingisunfair,befearlessincorrectingit,,themeaningandstructureofbothareverysimilar,,itdefinitelyborrowedsomeideasfromTheTwelveKingdoms,buttocallitplagiarism,Idoubtit,,eventheirlogicandstructurearethesameandyousayitsnotplagiarismpostedanothernetizenwhoconfrontedQi,butifthetakenbithasbeenwashedthoroughly,andhasnodramaticsimilarities,andthebithappenstobelessimportantandhaslessfunctionwhenevaluatingitintheentirework,then,itisnoteasytodefineitasplagiarism,said,alawyerspecializingincopyrightlaw,,theconceptofanovel,filmandTVscript;,,thelawprotectsexpression,,sometimescanbeconfusinganddependsontheparticularcase,,QingYuNianisawell-ratedalternativehistorynovelthatte,theworkwasadaptedintoa46-episodeTVdramastarringfamousactorssuchasZhangRuoyun,ChenDaomingandXiaoZhan,acontr,theIPhasbee,iftheplagiarismscandalgainsground,willtherebeasecondseasonPleasedontcancelit,IliketheTVdramaalot,Tanni,afanoftheshowinBeijing,,theofficialproductionteamfortheshowannouncedthatasecondseasonisindevelopmentandwilllikelyairin2022.

OnJuly11,theDelhiHCrestrainedaBengaluru-basedcakeryfromusingthenameFacebakeorFacecake,oranyotherFacebook-relatedtrademarkforitsproductsandservicesThecourtintheSnapdealcasealsodirectedDomainNameRegistrarstocreateamechanismforbrandstoseekcancellationortransferofdomainnamesthatinfringetrademarkIndiascurrentlawsthatgoverntrademarkinfringementsincludetheTrademarkAct,1999,whichwasdevelopedtocomplywiththeTRIPSagreementoftheWTOTru-basedcakeryfromusingthenameFacebakeorFacecake,,JusticeNavinChawla,whowashearingthecase,orderedthebakerytodeliverallfinishedandunfinishedproductsbearingthetrademarksimilartoMeta,theparentcompanyofFacebook,,theCourtalsoawardedINR50,,£¨DNRs£©oughttocreateamechanismviawhichtrademarkownerscouldapproachtheDNRsandsec,whileDNRsarecompaniesthatallowuserstoregisterthem,suchasGoDaddy,Namecheap,oumthathasseeninfringementcasesfiledleft,,manybrandswithnomanufacturingaddressespopulatethestreetsandcorners,,itisdifficulttotrackthesedubiousoperatorsinmostcases.

º²ÁÖÓÅÉÌÍø