Intellectual Property Law
New Matter WINTER 2016, Volume 41, Number 4
Content
- 2017 New Matter Author Submission Guidelines
- A New Federal Action Transforms Trade Secrets Litigation
- Contents
- Copyright Commentary
- Federal Circuit Report
- Intellectual Property Section Executive Committee 2016-2017
- Intellectual Property Section Interest Group Representatives 2016-2017
- International Ip Developments
- Ip and Art: An International Perspective
- Letter from the Chair
- Letter from the Editor-in-Chief
- MCLE Self-Study Article
- Online Cle For Participatory Credit
- The Licensing Corner
- The Mogol v. Battisti Copyright Case
- The State Bar of California Intellectual Property Alumni
- Ttab Decisions and Developments
- Case Comments
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).