Intellectual Property

In this episode of The Briefing by the IP Law Blog, Scott Hervey and Josh Escovedo provide an update on the copyright dispute between a photographer and the Andy Warhol Foundation over several Warhol paintings that utilize the photographer’s images as source material.
Watch this episode on the Weintraub YouTube channel, here.
Listen to the podcast version of this episode

Most patent claims describe an invention using positive claim limitations that expressly recite the required elements or features of an invention. Sometimes, however, it is necessary, or desirable, to use a negative claim limitation to expressly specify an invention requires the absence of an element or feature. But when is it allowable to claim the negative?
In Novartis Pharmaceuticals v.

In this episode of The Briefing by the IP Law Blog, Scott Hervey and Josh Escovedo provide an update on the copyright infringement dispute between a paparazzo and Emily Ratajkowski, and discuss the settlement’s implications for Fair Use.
Watch this episode on the Weintraub YouTube channel, here.
Listen to the podcast version of this episode on your favorite platform or

Trademark law was developed to help protect a seller’s “brand” in connection with the marketing and labeling of products for sale to avoid “consumer confusion.” One rarely litigated aspect of trademark law is that the use of the trademark must be for a lawful purpose. The Ninth Circuit recently tackled this issue in AK Futures LLC v. Boyd Street Distro,

A design patent protects a new, original, ornamental design for an article of manufacture. 35 USC section 171. “Ornamental” means that the design is purely decorative; the patentability is based on its visual aspects. Those aspects are the shape or configuration of an article (like the shape of a bottle or a vase), the surface ornamentation on the article (like

In Munchkin, Inc. v. Tomy International, Inc., 1-18-cv-06337 (NDIL May. 24, 2022) the Court considered the permissible extent of attorney participation in the preparation of an expert report. The Court did so in response to plaintiff’s motion to exclude the testimony of defendant’s technical expert for failing to prepare his own report. Specifically, plaintiff Munchkin sought to exclude the opinion