Patent Myths Corrected – Part One
By Audrey Millemann
Patent law is a complicated area of law governed by a confusing set of statutes and regulations that are interpreted by the United States Patent and Trademark Office (PTO) and the federal courts. Patents themselves are sometimes almost unintelligible and, if intelligible, may require many hours of reading to understand. It is no wonder that there are a lot of misconceptions or myths about patents.
This is the first of two columns in which I will discuss a few of the most common aspects of patent law that are misunderstood.
Ninth Circuit Holds that “Reverse Confusion” Need Not Be Pled with Specificity
by: James Kachmar
A plaintiff seeking to prevail on a trademark infringement claim needs to establish that there is some likelihood of confusion between its mark and that of the defendant. Generally, a plaintiff establishes that there is “forward” confusion by showing that customers believed they were doing business with plaintiff but because of a confusion in their respective marks, were actually doing business with the defendant. Sometimes, however,
Attorney’s Fees as Damages for Breach of Contract? A Jury Must Decide
By Lukas Clary
Often times, contracts contain attorney’s fee provisions. These terms allow the prevailing party in any action to enforce the contract to recover its attorney’s fees. Under California Code of Civil Procedure section 1717, the prevailing party on these contract actions can simply file a motion and have the court award the fees as costs of suit. But what happens when a party sues for breach of the contract and the only element of damages the party claims are the attorney’s fees it incurred as a result of the defendant’s breach?