Lewis R Clayton

July 11, 2017 | New York Law Journal

In their Intellectual Property Litigation column, Lewis R. Clayton and Eric Alan Stone write that following the Google Books case, which, according to the Second Circuit, "tests the boundaries of fair use," two cases pending at the Eleventh and Federal Circuits may further test these boundaries.

By Lewis R. Clayton and Eric Alan Stone

19 minute read

May 09, 2017 | New York Law Journal

Intellectual Property Litigation columnists Lewis R. Clayton and Eric Alan Stone writes that a series of recent lawsuits in New York, Florida, and California have brought increased focus on the existence and scope of state-law copyright protection for pre-1972 sound recordings.

By Lewis R. Clayton and Eric Alan Stone

15 minute read

March 07, 2017 | New York Law Journal

Intellectual Property Litigation columnists Lewis R. Clayton and Eric Alan Stone discuss the differing statutory framework and policy concerns of patent and copyright law, the Supreme Court's recent clarification of the doctrines of laches and exhaustion under the Copyright Act, and the court's upcoming cases involving those doctrines under the Patent Act.

By Lewis R. Clayton and Eric Alan Stone

16 minute read

January 10, 2017 | New York Law Journal

Intellectual Property Litigation columnists Lewis R. Clayton and Eric Alan Stone write: Given the infrequency with which patent owners succeed in amending or substituting for challenged claims, shifting the burden of proving (un)patentability to the petitioner, as was argued before the Federal Circuit on Dec. 9, might have a significant effect on Inter Partes Review practice. We therefore report here on the pending appeal in 'Aqua Products' and the current state of the law, and we offer suggestions for practitioners.

By Lewis R. Clayton and Eric Alan Stone

15 minute read

November 08, 2016 | New York Law Journal

Intellectual Property Litigation columnists Lewis R. Clayton and Eric Alan Stone report on the current state of the law relating to the threshold decision by the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office on whether to "institute" a proceeding as required under the 2011 America Invents Act which created procedures to challenge the validity of an issued patent before the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, including inter partes review, post-grant review, and covered business method review. By statute, Congress declared that institution decisions are nonappealable. There has nevertheless been significant litigation, including in the Supreme Court, about whether and when an institution decision may be appealed.

By Lewis R. Clayton and Eric Alan Stone

16 minute read

September 14, 2016 | New York Law Journal

Lewis R. Clayton and Eric Alan Stone discuss two recent Supreme Court cases addressing enhanced damages in patent cases, one addressing the award of attorney fees in "exceptional cases" under 35 U.S.C. §285, and another addressing up-to-treble enhanced damages under the so-called "willfulness" provision, 35 U.S.C. §284.

By By Lewis R. Clayton and Eric Alan Stone

13 minute read

September 12, 2016 | National Law Journal

SCOTUS: the Patent Act gives trial judges discretion to assess these awards in "egregious cases."

By Lewis R. Clayton

10 minute read

July 13, 2016 | New York Law Journal

In their Intellectual Property Litigation column, Lewis R. Clayton and Eric Alan Stone report on two Supreme Court decisions emphasizing the district courts' discretion in awarding enhanced damages in patent cases and attorney fees in copyright cases; a Supreme Court decision upholding the PTO's standard of review in inter partes review proceedings; and a Second Circuit decision discussing nominative trademark fair use.

By Lewis R. Clayton and Eric Alan Stone

25 minute read

May 30, 2016 | National Law Journal

Among the few changes created by the new law are seizure procedures and employee job mobility.

By Lewis R. Clayton

5 minute read

May 11, 2016 | New York Law Journal

In their Intellectual Property Litigation column, Lewis R. Clayton and Eric Alan Stone report on four recent decisions involving plaintiffs' access to federal courts, holding that: (i) the broad corporate-residence standard for venue continues to apply to patent cases; (ii) there is personal jurisdiction over an ANDA filer in every district in which it foresees selling its generic drug; (iii) owners of foreign trademarks may bring unfair competition claims against U.S. owners of the same marks; and (iv) dismissal on forum non conveniens grounds is improper where the foreign forum is not shown to provide redress for U.S. intellectual property law disputes.

By Lewis R. Clayton and Eric Alan Stone

12 minute read