Law Commons^™

Egyptian Goddess, Inc. V. Swisa, Inc.: A Dramatic Change In The Law Of Design Patents?, Evan Szarenski

The University of New Hampshire Law Review

[Excerpt] “On September 22, 2008, the Federal Circuit, sitting en banc, handed down the most important decision in design patent law in nearly twenty-five years. Egyptian Goddess, Inc. v. Swisa, Inc. (Egyptian Goddess III) abolished the point-of-novelty test first set out in Sears, Roebuck & Co. v. Talge and adopted by the Federal Circuit in Litton Systems, Inc. v. Whirlpool Corp. The point-of novelty test required patent holders to prove that an accused design appropriated the element which sets the patented design apart from the prior art—in addition to the ordinary-observer standard’s requirement of having substantially the same appearance—in order …

Enforcing Intellectual Property Rights: A Methodology For Understanding The Enforcement Problem In China, Justin Mccabe

The University of New Hampshire Law Review

[Excerpt] “Intellectual property rights are neither protected nor enforced in strict uniformity throughout the world. However, it can be said that in most developed countries, intellectual property is preciously guarded, as evidenced by a plethora of intellectual property statutes, penalties for infringement, and consistent attempts to convince less developed nations to adopt strong—or stronger—intellectual property protections. Despite continued vigilance by developed countries in bringing about increased international harmony among intellectual property regimes, some developing countries sustain questionable enforcement policies. What the driving force is behind intellectual property enforcement policies—or more appropriately, the lack thereof—is a matter of disagreement. In order …

Minority Shareholders And Direct Suits In Closely Held Corporations Where Derivative Suits Are Impractical: Durham V. Durham, Jason M. Tanguay

The University of New Hampshire Law Review

[Excerpt] “Suppose A, B, and C are the sole shareholders and directors of a corporation. A and B have used corporate funds for their own personal use and such use has depleted the corporation’s assets. C now wishes to commence a legal proceeding to recover the damages. Should C be forced to recover through a derivative suit brought on behalf of the corporation just because the depletion of the corporate assets affected all of the shareholders and not just C? Not necessarily.

In Durham v. Durham, the Supreme Court of New Hampshire permitted a minority shareholder, in a closely held …