Wake Forest Intellectual Property Law Journal

By Lauren Metcalf

Imagine your favorite author is releasing a new book, but you can’t read it at the same time as the rest of world, instead you have to wait weeks or maybe even longer for it to come out in a format that you can read. This is a reality for approximately 160 million people around the world who are blind or suffer from other visual impairments. The overwhelming majority of published works are never made available in braille, large print or audio versions. Those works that are made available in accessible formats are usually released later than regular print versions and are sold at an increased cost. To address this problem, the World Blind Union has started the International Right to Read campaign. The purpose of the campaign is to ensure that “everyone [is] able to read the same book at the same time at the same price.” (more…)

This series discusses the recent appeal to the Supreme Court of In re Bilski, 545 F.3d 943 (Fed. Cir. 2008), cert. granted, 129 S.Ct. 2735 (2009). Bilski raises the issue of what constitutes a patentable process under 35 U.S.C. § 101.

Part 2: A Brief Overview of Petitioner’s Arguments

This post provides an overview of the main arguments from the petitioner’s brief to the Supreme Court. According to Bilski, the petitioner and patent applicant, the Federal Circuit erred by adopting the mandatory machine-or-transformation test and rejecting Bilski’s patent application. Bilski highlighted five main arguments for reversal of the Federal Circuit. (more…)

By:  Lauren Metcalf

With the economy still on the rebound, more and more consumers are cutting luxury items out of their budgets and instead looking for ways to save on items that previously might have been a splurge. Discount retailer Target has attempted to attract thrifty yet style conscious buyers by offering designer-inspired clothing and home furnishings at the low prices its customers expect. But has the retail giant gone too far in copying designs of the luxury brands its customers covet?

In late September, luxury handbag and accessory designer Coach sued Target alleging that the retailer is selling handbags that copy two of its designs, the Ergo fold-over handbag and its Signature Patchwork line. Coach Services, Inc. v. Target Corp., No. 09 CV 8329 (S.D.N.Y. filed September 28, 2009). The lawsuit includes claims of trademark infringement and unfair competition. In its complaint, Coach claims the bags sold at Target are “exact and/or confusingly similar reproductions” of Coach designs.

The practice of copying original fashion designs and then selling the reproductions under a different label is known as design piracy. The practice is all too common, but unfortunately for the original designers, current U.S. intellectual property law offers only limited protection for fashion designs. (more…)

This is the first of four posts discussing the issues in the controversial Bilski case. This first post will give a brief overview of In re Bilski, 545 F.3d 943 (Fed. Cir. 2008), currently under review by the Supreme Court. Bilski raises the issue of what constitutes a patentable process under 35 U.S.C. § 101. The second and third posts will give a brief overview of the central arguments on each side of the appeal. The fourth and final post will discuss the highlights from oral argument, and will conclude with a discussion of what is ultimately at stake in the Supreme Court’s decision.

Part 1: Background and The Federal Circuit’s Decision

According to § 101, the first step in determining whether a claimed invention is patent-eligible involves an assessment of whether the invention is a “new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter.”

Last year, the Federal Circuit was called upon to decide whether a particular applicant’s claimed business method qualified as a patentable “process” under § 101 in Bilski. Prior to Bilski, courts had applied various tests to determine what constitutes patentable subject matter under § 101. For example, a claimed invention could be patentable under § 101 if it transformed an article or physical object to a different state or thing, or if it otherwise produced a “useful, concrete and tangible result.” See State St. Bank & Tr. v. Signature Financial Group, 149 F.3d 1368 (Fed. Cir. 1998). However, the Federal Circuit rejected this test, along with several others, in Bilski, and instead adopted the “machine-or-transformation” test as the exclusive test for all process claims. (more…)

A new IP-focused blog will soon be available on the Wake Forest Intellectual Property Law Journal website.

The IPLJ Blog will offer a new forum for IPLJ Editors and Staff to discuss current events and issues in various areas of IP law.  The blog will provide short postings analyzing current cases, trends and issues in IP law.