Robert C Scheinfeld

March 24, 2015 | New York Law Journal

In his Patent and Trademark Law column, Robert C. Scheinfeld analyzes a recent decision in which the Federal Circuit pondered whether a patent claim's preamble should act as a component of, and effectively limit the scope of, the claimed invention.

By Robert C. Scheinfeld

7 minute read

January 28, 2015 | New York Law Journal

In his Patent and Trademark Law column, Robert C. Scheinfeld reviews two recent holdings that claim construction may not always be a pure question of law entitled to de novo review, but instead may involve underlying factual findings subject to "clear error" review; and that the issue of whether the use of an older mark in a different manner may be 'tacked on' to the use of a newer one for purposes of determining priority is a factual one for juries.

By Robert C. Scheinfeld

11 minute read

January 27, 2015 | New York Law Journal

In his Patent and Trademark Law column, Robert C. Scheinfeld reviews two recent holdings that claim construction may not always be a pure question of law entitled to de novo review, but instead may involve underlying factual findings subject to "clear error" review; and that the issue of whether the use of an older mark in a different manner may be 'tacked on' to the use of a newer one for purposes of determining priority is a factual one for juries.

By Robert C. Scheinfeld

11 minute read

November 26, 2014 | New York Law Journal

In his Patent and Trademark Law column, Robert C. Scheinfeld writes: The U.S. Supreme Court had a busy 2013-14 term, especially when it came to patent cases, granting a record-breaking six writs of certiorari, and this year's term promises to be even busier.

By Robert C. Scheinfeld

11 minute read

September 24, 2014 | New York Law Journal

In his Patent and Trademark Law column, Robert C. Scheinfeld writes that in response to the propagation of misleading claims on products' eco-friendliness, the FTC and the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board have taken stronger stances against greenwashing, and recent U.S. Supreme Court jurisprudence has given non-competitors standing to bring a Lanham Act claim.

By Robert C. Scheinfeld

8 minute read

July 23, 2014 | New York Law Journal

In his Patent and Trademark Law column, Robert C. Scheinfeld writes: Arguably, the Federal Circuit, the sole court of appeals for patent cases, has become less predictable and more divisive, and the Supreme Court's six unanimous patent decisions this term signal that the court's role has evolved to "prime resolver and clarifier" in the patent space, resolving ambiguities and providing clearer legal standards for lower courts, patent applicants, and litigants.

By Robert C. Scheinfeld

11 minute read

May 29, 2014 | New York Law Journal

In their Patent and Trademark Law column, Robert C. Scheinfeld and Parker H. Bagley write that a few seemingly simple words—"The court in exceptional cases may award reasonable attorney fees to the prevailing party"—have been the subject of more than one-half century of debate. What exactly makes a patent case exceptional, and how do you identify one?

By Robert C. Scheinfeld and Parker H. Bagley

11 minute read

March 26, 2014 | New York Law Journal

In his Patent and Trademark Law column, Robert C. Scheinfeld of Baker Botts writes: Because the consuming public's interest in not being exposed to confusingly similar trademarks is held to be paramount to the interests of the private litigants, an interesting body of laches case law has arisen regarding the circumstances in which a plaintiff's delay in taking action is so inexcusable that it can be barred from all relief.

By Robert C. Scheinfeld

8 minute read

January 29, 2014 | New York Law Journal

In their Patent and Trademark Law column, Robert C. Scheinfeld of Baker Botts and Parker H. Bagley of Boies, Schiller & Flexner discuss 'Commil v. Cisco,' which may represent a culmination of a broad transformation in the law of induced infringement, albeit one without particular clarity or resolution.

By Robert C. Scheinfeld and Parker H. Bagley

11 minute read

November 27, 2013 | New York Law Journal

In their Patent and Trademark Law column, Robert C. Scheinfeld of Baker Botts and Parker H. Bagley of Boies, Schiller & Flexner write: On Oct. 1, 2013, the U.S. Supreme Court granted certiorari in two different patent infringement cases involving the issue of fee shifting in "exceptional cases" under 35 U.S.C. §285. Both of the cases involve fee awards sought against non-practicing entities, or so-called "patent trolls." Depending on how the court rules, it may become easier for defendants to recover their attorney fees when forced to defend "objectively baseless" infringement suits brought by patent trolls and others.

By Robert C. Scheinfeld and Parker H. Bagley

7 minute read