Intellectual Property Law
New Matter FALL 2014, Volume 39, Number 3
Content
- 2014 New Matter Author Submission Guidelines
- Cheerleading Uniforms and Copyright Separability
- Contents
- Copyright Interest Group
- Design Patents—Taking a Closer Look at These Valuable Assets
- Entertainment and Sports Law Interest Group
- In a Split Decision the Ttab Finds Redskins Disparaging Blackhorse v. Pro-Football, Inc. Cancellation No. 92046185 (T.T.a.B. June 18, 2014)
- Intellectual Property Section Executive Committee 2013-2014
- Intellectual Property Section Interest Group Representatives 2013-2014
- International Ip Developments
- Letter from the Chair
- Letter from the Editor-in-Chief
- Licensing Interest Group
- Litigation Interest Group
- MCLE Self-Study Article
- Monsanto and Myriad: Is the Supreme Court Rendering Consistent Decisions When it Comes to Human Versus Non-Human Gene Patentability?
- Ninth Circuit Report
- Patent Interest Group
- Preparing to Defend a Section 337 Action: What District Court Litigators Need to Know
- Raising Healthy Patents
- The Law of the Land
- The Licensing Corner
- Trademark Interest Group
- Uncle Sam Wants You! a Call to Pro Bono Service for Patent Practitioners
- Case Comments
Case Comments
Lowell Anderson
Stetina Brunda Garred & Brucker
ANTITRUST
Injunctive relief under the Clayton Act § 16 has no limitations period, but is subject to the equitable defense of laches and thus the four-year limitations period of § 4B is used as a guideline. But a cause of action arises each time a violation occurs causing injury and here each time a defendant sells a price-fixed product a new act arises causing consumer injury. A dismissal for laches was reversed. Oliver v. DS-3C LLC, 110 U.S.P.Q.2d 1954 (9th Cir. 2014).