Intellectual Property Update(s): Soft Porn, Multidefendant Patent Cases, Pay-for-Delay, IP and the Economy, No ICANN’T, & More…

What’s news in Intellectual Property? A lot, actually. For your reference, here’s a quick snapshot of some of it:

IP-Intensive Industries Contribute $7Trillion to the U.S. Economy:

“A report prepared by the Economics and Statistics Administration and U.S. Patent and Trademark Office shows that IP-intensive industries support tens of millions of jobs and contribute several trillion dollars to the U.S, economy.  The 76-page report, entitled “Intellectual Property and the U.S. Economy: Industries in Focus,” which was released in March, identifies industries that are growing IP in the U.S. economy and protecting their innovations through patents or other forms of IP, and estimates the contributions of these industries to the U.S. economy…”

[Read on: ESA & USPTO Report Indicates Importance of IP Protection to U.S. Economy – McDonnell Boehnen Hulbert & Berghoff LLP]

Soft Porn Copyright Case Against Google Finally Dismissed:

“The saga began in 2001, when Perfect10 sought to stop Google from including thumbnail versions of Perfect10 photographs in Google’s image search results. After Perfect10’s motion for a preliminary injunction was granted, the Ninth Circuit reversed and, in a landmark opinion, held that the thumbnails, although otherwise meeting the elements of direct infringement, were nonetheless highly transformative fair use.”

[Read on: Rest In Peace, Perfect10 v. Google: Epic Soft-Porn Copyright Struggle Finally Dismissed – Foley Hoag Trademark, Copyright, & Unfair Competition]

ICANN’s New Generic Top-Level-Domains System Is Still Broken

“May 1, 2012 was slated as “Reveal Day”, when the applicants and their proposed TLDs were to be published. So far, some 2,091 applications along with USD$350 million in application fees have been submitted to ICANN. The May 1st deadline has passed without the publication of the application information, because ICANN has suffered a “software glitch” which must be resolved before the application period can be reopened and finalized…”

[Read on: Let a Thousand .Flowers Bloom? Update on New gTLDs – Field Law]

Also see on this topic:

The Federal Court of Appeals Clarifies the ‘Join’ in Joinder:

“On May 4, 2012, a Federal Circuit panel decided the circumstances when a plaintiff may join multiple defendants with unrelated products in a patent infringement suit. The court concluded that independent defendants satisfy the same transaction-or-occurrence test required for joinder when there is a logical relationship between the separate causes of action…

To be part of the ‘same transaction’ requires shared, overlapping facts that give rise to each cause of action, and not just distinct, albeit coincidentally identical, facts. The sameness of the accused products is not enough to establish that claims of infringement arise from the ‘same transaction.’ Unless there is an actual link between the facts nderlying each claim of infringement, independently developed products using differently sourced parts are not part of the same transaction, even if they are otherwise coincidentally identical.”

[Read on: Federal Circuit Clarifies Standard for Joinder of Multiple Defendants in Patent Infringement Cases – Fenwick & West]

Also see on this topic:

Appeals Court Reaffirms: “Pay-For-Delay” Not an Antitrust Matter:

“A ‘pay-for-delay’ settlement agreement, also referred to as a reverse payment agreement, is a type of patent litigation settlement in which a patent holder pays an allegedly infringing generic drug company to delay entering the market until a specified date. This protects the patent monopoly against a judgment that the patent is invalid or would not be infringed by the generic competitor. In the past decade, pay-for-delay agreements have been repeatedly attacked by the Federal Trade Commission. In the FTC’s view, pay-for-delay agreements are unfair restraints on trade that violate federal antitrust laws because such agreements artificially preserve a patent holder’s monopoly profits…”

[Read on: Eleventh Circuit Reaffirms That “Pay-For-Delay” Settlement Agreements Are Largely Immune From Antitrust Attack – Akerman Senterfitt]

Additional IP Interesting:

Looking for more? You’ll find it here>>