Intellectual Property Law Commons^™

Can Newspapers Be Saved? How Copyright Law Can Save Newspapers From The Challenges Of New Media, Keiyana Fordham

Fordham Intellectual Property, Media and Entertainment Law Journal

No abstract provided.

The Fugitive In Flight: Law, Freedom, And Liberalism In A Classic Tv Show, Stanley Fish

Cardozo Law Review

No abstract provided.

Battling Gray Markets Through Copyright Law: Omega, S.A. V. Costco Wholesale Corporation, Samuel Brooks

BYU Law Review

No abstract provided.

Korea's Patent Policy And Its Impact On Economic Development: A Model For Emerging Countries?, Jay A. Erstling, Ryan E. Strom

San Diego International Law Journal

The purpose of this paper will be to examine Korean patent policy as exemplified by its patent legislation and the activities of KIPO. Part II will take a brief look at the rationale underpinning Korea’s confidence in the power of the patent system to stimulate economic growth. Part III of the paper will look at the Korean Patent Act as an example of strong, comprehensive patent legislation that fully complies with international standards and responds well to the perceived needs of patent applicants. Part III will examine one of the highlights of Korean patent legislation, the Korean Invention Promotion Act, …

On The Decline Of The Doctrine Of Equivalents, Lee Petherbridge

Cardozo Law Review

The doctrine of equivalents is a judicial creation that allows patentees to exclude others from the use of subject matter beyond the textual scope of a patent's claims. This venerable - and extremely controversial - doctrine is tolerated (or promoted) on the theory that it is fundamentally necessary to protect the incentive structure of the patent system.

The perceived importance of the doctrine of equivalents makes all the more remarkable recent scholarly arguments that this ancient doctrine is a dead letter in American patent law. One recent empirical study argues that the doctrine is dead but hypothesizes that it did …

Vol. Vii, Tab 38 - Ex. 63 - Hill Deposition (Rosetta Enforcement Specialist), Michael Hill

Rosetta Stone v. Google (Joint Appendix)

Exhibits from the un-sealed joint appendix for Rosetta Stone Ltd., v. Google Inc., No. 10-2007, on appeal to the 4th Circuit. Issue presented: Under the Lanham Act, does the use of trademarked terms in keyword advertising result in infringement when there is evidence of actual confusion?

Vol. Vii, Tab 38 - Ex. 59 - Dulitz Deposition (Google Adwords Pm), Daniel Dulitz

Rosetta Stone v. Google (Joint Appendix)

Exhibits from the un-sealed joint appendix for Rosetta Stone Ltd., v. Google Inc., No. 10-2007, on appeal to the 4th Circuit. Issue presented: Under the Lanham Act, does the use of trademarked terms in keyword advertising result in infringement when there is evidence of actual confusion?

Vol. Ix, Tab 41 - Ex. G - Dulitz Deposition (Google Adwords Project Manager), Daniel Dulitz

Rosetta Stone v. Google (Joint Appendix)

Exhibits from the un-sealed joint appendix for Rosetta Stone Ltd., v. Google Inc., No. 10-2007, on appeal to the 4th Circuit. Issue presented: Under the Lanham Act, does the use of trademarked terms in keyword advertising result in infringement when there is evidence of actual confusion?

Vol. Ix, Tab 47 - Ex. 26 - Deposition Of Daniel Dulitz (Google Adwords Product Manager - Ui), Daniel Dulitz

Rosetta Stone v. Google (Joint Appendix)

Exhibits from the un-sealed joint appendix for Rosetta Stone Ltd., v. Google Inc., No. 10-2007, on appeal to the 4th Circuit. Issue presented: Under the Lanham Act, does the use of trademarked terms in keyword advertising result in infringement when there is evidence of actual confusion?

Vol. Xxiv, Tab 61 - Ex. 6 - Deposition Of Michael Hill (Rosetta Stone Enforcement Specialist), Michael Hill

Rosetta Stone v. Google (Joint Appendix)

Exhibits from the un-sealed joint appendix for Rosetta Stone Ltd., v. Google Inc., No. 10-2007, on appeal to the 4th Circuit. Issue presented: Under the Lanham Act, does the use of trademarked terms in keyword advertising result in infringement when there is evidence of actual confusion?

Vol. Viii, Tab 38 - Ex. 68 - Louie Deposition (Google Senior Risk Investigator), Cory Louie

Rosetta Stone v. Google (Joint Appendix)

Exhibits from the un-sealed joint appendix for Rosetta Stone Ltd., v. Google Inc., No. 10-2007, on appeal to the 4th Circuit. Issue presented: Under the Lanham Act, does the use of trademarked terms in keyword advertising result in infringement when there is evidence of actual confusion?

Vol. Viii, Tab 38 - Ex. 72 - Ramsey Deposition (Rosetta Corporate Counsel), John Ramsey

Rosetta Stone v. Google (Joint Appendix)

Exhibits from the un-sealed joint appendix for Rosetta Stone Ltd., v. Google Inc., No. 10-2007, on appeal to the 4th Circuit. Issue presented: Under the Lanham Act, does the use of trademarked terms in keyword advertising result in infringement when there is evidence of actual confusion?

Vol. Ix, Tab 47 - Ex. 33 - Deposition Of Cory Louie (Google Senior Risk Investigator), Cory Louie

Rosetta Stone v. Google (Joint Appendix)

Exhibits from the un-sealed joint appendix for Rosetta Stone Ltd., v. Google Inc., No. 10-2007, on appeal to the 4th Circuit. Issue presented: Under the Lanham Act, does the use of trademarked terms in keyword advertising result in infringement when there is evidence of actual confusion?

Vol. Ix, Tab 46 - Ex. 65 - Deposition Of Cory Louie (Google Senior Risk Investigator), Cory Louie

Rosetta Stone v. Google (Joint Appendix)

Exhibits from the un-sealed joint appendix for Rosetta Stone Ltd., v. Google Inc., No. 10-2007, on appeal to the 4th Circuit. Issue presented: Under the Lanham Act, does the use of trademarked terms in keyword advertising result in infringement when there is evidence of actual confusion?

Vol. Ix, Tab 46 - Ex. 68 - Deposition Of John Ramsey (Rosetta Stone Corporate Counsel), John Ramsey

Rosetta Stone v. Google (Joint Appendix)

Exhibits from the un-sealed joint appendix for Rosetta Stone Ltd., v. Google Inc., No. 10-2007, on appeal to the 4th Circuit. Issue presented: Under the Lanham Act, does the use of trademarked terms in keyword advertising result in infringement when there is evidence of actual confusion?

Vol. Vii, Tab 38 - Ex. 54 - Chiang Deposition (Google Adwords Pm), Edward Chiang

Rosetta Stone v. Google (Joint Appendix)

Exhibits from the un-sealed joint appendix for Rosetta Stone Ltd., v. Google Inc., No. 10-2007, on appeal to the 4th Circuit. Issue presented: Under the Lanham Act, does the use of trademarked terms in keyword advertising result in infringement when there is evidence of actual confusion?

Vol. Ix, Tab 41 - Ex. D - Chiang Deposition (Google Adwords Product Manager), Edward Chiang

Rosetta Stone v. Google (Joint Appendix)

Exhibits from the un-sealed joint appendix for Rosetta Stone Ltd., v. Google Inc., No. 10-2007, on appeal to the 4th Circuit. Issue presented: Under the Lanham Act, does the use of trademarked terms in keyword advertising result in infringement when there is evidence of actual confusion?

Vol. Vii, Tab 38 - Ex. 55 - Chen Deposition (Google Trademark Counsel), Terri Chen

Rosetta Stone v. Google (Joint Appendix)

Exhibits from the un-sealed joint appendix for Rosetta Stone Ltd., v. Google Inc., No. 10-2007, on appeal to the 4th Circuit. Issue presented: Under the Lanham Act, does the use of trademarked terms in keyword advertising result in infringement when there is evidence of actual confusion?

Vol. Viii, Tab 38 - Ex. 69 - Ninov Deposition (Rosetta Vice-President Strategic Research And Analysis), Nino Ninov

Rosetta Stone v. Google (Joint Appendix)

Exhibits from the un-sealed joint appendix for Rosetta Stone Ltd., v. Google Inc., No. 10-2007, on appeal to the 4th Circuit. Issue presented: Under the Lanham Act, does the use of trademarked terms in keyword advertising result in infringement when there is evidence of actual confusion?

Vol. Ix, Tab 41 - Ex. C - Chen Deposition (Google Trademark Counsel), Terri Chen

Rosetta Stone v. Google (Joint Appendix)

Exhibits from the un-sealed joint appendix for Rosetta Stone Ltd., v. Google Inc., No. 10-2007, on appeal to the 4th Circuit. Issue presented: Under the Lanham Act, does the use of trademarked terms in keyword advertising result in infringement when there is evidence of actual confusion?