intellectual property law

Last month the District Court for the Central District of California granted the defendant’s motion for summary judgment in the case San Diego Gulls Hockey Club, LLC v ECHL, Inc.. The league’s win resolves the league’s potential indemnity obligation to the hockey team, the Gulls.  This case presents a cautionary story for transactional attorneys.
Continue Reading Gulls Hockey Team Gets Wings Clipped In IP Dispute With Hockey League

In this week’s episode of The Briefing by the IP Law BlogScott Hervey and Josh Escovedo discuss the Ninth Circuit Ruling on the trademark aspects of Dr. Seuss “mashups.” They also provide a recap of last week’s episode, which covers the copyright aspects of the case.

Watch episode two on the Weintraub

In this episode of The Briefing by the IP Law BlogScott Hervey and Josh Escovedo discuss the Ninth Circuit Ruling on the copyright aspects of Dr. Seuss “mashups.” In the second episode of this two-part series, they discuss the trademark aspects of this case.

Watch episode one on the Weintraub Tobin YouTube channel,

A few years ago, when the concessionaire for Yosemite National Park (the “Park”), Delaware North, was informed that the Park planned to consider other concessionaires, such as Aramark, Delaware North responded in shocking fashion. Delaware North responded that if it was going to be replaced as the concessionaire, it intended to take the Park’s intellectual property (the “IP”), such as the Ahwahnee Hotel and Curry Village, with it unless it was paid $51 million for the IP. Although the Park disputed Delaware’s claim to the IP, it changed the names of certain venues such as the Ahwahnee Hotel, Curry Village, Badger Pass Skin Run, and the Wawona Hotel. The sites were renamed the Majestic Yosemite Hotel, Half Dome Village, Yosemite Ski and Snowboard Area, and Big Trees Lodge.
Continue Reading Goodbye Majestic Yosemite Hotel, Welcome Back Ahwahnee Hotel

To be patentable, an invention must satisfy two key requirements, as determined by the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (PTO).  First, the invention must be novel.  This means that the same invention cannot have been disclosed in a single prior art reference.  The prior art is all of the publicly available information that existed before the date the patent application was filed.  Second, the invention must not have been obvious to a (hypothetical) person skilled in the art (the field of the invention) based on the prior art.
Continue Reading When is an Invention Obvious?