Intellectual Property Law
New Matter WINTER 2016, Volume 41, Number 4
Content
- Contents
- 2017 New Matter Author Submission Guidelines
- Intellectual Property Section Executive Committee 2016-2017
- Copyright Commentary
- The Mogol v. Battisti Copyright Case
- Letter from the Chair
- The State Bar of California Intellectual Property Alumni
- Federal Circuit Report
- Ttab Decisions and Developments
- Online Cle For Participatory Credit
- A New Federal Action Transforms Trade Secrets Litigation
- International Ip Developments
- Letter from the Editor-in-Chief
- Ip and Art: An International Perspective
- MCLE Self-Study Article
- Case Comments
- The Licensing Corner
- Intellectual Property Section Interest Group Representatives 2016-2017
Case Comments
LOWELL ANDERSON Stetina Brunda Garred & Brucker
ARBITRATION
"THE NINTH CIRCUIT AND COURTS INTERPRETING California law have held that the phrase ‘relating to’ should be given broad meaning, in contrast to other prefatory phrases, such as ‘arising under.’" An agreement providing that "any dispute, claim or controversy arising out of or relating to the breach, termination, enforcement, interpretation or validity of this Agreement shall be determined by arbitration" but stating "no arbitration shall resolve, disputes relating to issues of scope, infringement, validity and/or enforceability of an Intellectual Property Rights" did not require arbitration of patent infringement claims when the agreement was asserted as an affirmative defense and license. Verinata Health, Inc. v. Ariosa Diagnostics, Inc., 119 U.S.P.Q.2d 1441 (Fed. Cir. 2016).