Intellectual Property Law Commons^™

Vol. Ix, Tab 47 - Ex. 36 - Deposition Of Nino Ninov (Rosetta Stone 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 47 - Ex. 25 - Deposition Of Terri Chen (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. Xxi, Tab 58 - Ex. 3 - Deposition Of Terri Chen (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. Ix, Tab 42 - Ex. 2 - Van Leigh Deposition (Rosetta Director Online Marketing), Van Leigh

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. 63 - Deposition Of Van Leigh (Rosetta Stone Director Of Online Marketing), Van Leigh

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. 4 - Deposition Of Van Leigh (Rosetta Director Of Online Marketing), Van Leigh

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. 66 - Van Leigh Deposition (Rosetta Online Marketing Director), Van Leigh

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. 52 - Alferness Deposition (Google Ad Products Sr. Pm), Jonathan Alferness

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. Xx, Tab 57 - Ex. 1 - Transcript Of Motions Hearing, United States District Court For The Eastern District Of Virginia

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?

Controlling Patent Prosecution History, Thomas G. Field Jr.

The University of New Hampshire Law Review

[Excerpt] “One of the most salient effects of patent prosecution history arises in the context of the doctrine of equivalents. Under that doctrine, although patent claims may be found to be broader than their literal scope, territory surrendered during prosecution cannot be encompassed as equivalent. Nor can territory forfeited by initial failure to claim be captured under the doctrine of equivalents. Most attorneys who prosecute applications are apt to be aware of such problems and to take measures to avoid them.”

Vol. Ix, Tab 46 - Ex. 30 - Email From Bill Lloyd (Google Trademark Assistant), Bill Lloyd

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?

Journal Of Intellectual Property Law Managing Board, 2010-2011, Journal Of Intellectual Property Law

Materials from All Student Organizations

No abstract provided.

Fixing Patent Boundaries, Tun-Jen Chiang

Michigan Law Review

The claims of a patent are its boundaries, defining the scope of exclusion. This boundary function of claims is undermined by the fact that claims can be changed throughout the life of the patent, thereby moving the patent boundary. A boundary that can be moved at-will is one that the public cannot rely upon. This Article explores the problems of malleable patent boundaries. If a claim can be amended to permit a patentee to capture something he did not foresee when filing the patent application, the amendment confers an unexpected windfall that did not contribute to incentives to invent before …

The Teaching Function Of Patents, Sean B. Seymore

Vanderbilt Law School Faculty Publications

In theory, a patent serves the public good because the disclosure of the invention brings new ideas and technologies to the public and induces inventive activity. But while these roles inherently depend on the ability of the patent to disseminate technical knowledge, the teaching function of patents has received very little attention. Indeed, when the document publishes, it can serve as a form of technical literature. Because patents can, at times, communicate knowledge as well as, or better than, other information sources, patents could become a competitive source of technical information. Presently, however, patents are rarely viewed in this manner. …

Ftc V. Intel: Applying The "Consumer Choice" Framework To "Pure" Section 5 Allegations, Robert H. Lande

All Faculty Scholarship

This short article analyzes the "pure" Section 5 allegations in the recent FTC complaint against Intel. It first shows that Section 5 of the Federal Trade Commission Act is more encompassing than the Sherman Act and why this breath is in the public interest. It next analyzes allegations from the Intel Complaint, showing why each appears to be in the public interest yet might not be permitted by the Sherman Act. It also discusses other advantages that would arise if these charges were litigated under Section 5 rather than the Sherman Act.

The article notes assertions by Intel and others …

Antitrust, Innovation, And Uncertain Property Rights: Some Practical Considerations, Dean V. Williamson

Duke Law & Technology Review

The intersection of antitrust and intellectual property circumscribes two century-long debates. The first pertains to questions about how antitrust law and intellectual property law interact, and the second pertains to questions about how parties can exploit property rights, including intellectual property rights, to exclude competitors. This iBrief finesses these questions and turns to practical considerations about how innovation and intellectual property can impinge antitrust enforcement. This iBrief develops two propositions. First, although collaborative research and development has often been and remains unwittingly misunderstood, what is understood about it is consistent with the long- standing observation that antitrust has rarely interfered …

Hybrid Vigor: Mashups, Cyborgs, And Other Necessary Monsters, Rebecca Tushnet

Georgetown Law Faculty Publications and Other Works

Does remix matter? This brief comment addresses the critique of importance, arguing that remix culture as well as the popular/mass culture from which it springs are of vital importance to human flourishing, invoking Donna Haraway's concept of the cyborg to investigate the fluidity, dynamism, and monstrousness of remixes and remixers.

Vol. Viii, Tab 39 - Ex. 3 - Google's Trademark Complaint Policy, Google

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?

A Cause Of Action For "Passing Off/Associational Marketing", Margreth Barrett

IP Theory

The Trademark Scholars Roundtable participants discussed a wide range of approaches to understanding and limiting the ever-increasing sprawl of trademark rights. It was a productive and stimulating discussion. In this essay, I would like to combine some of my own ideas with points and suggestions made by the other participants, to sketch out a possible judicial approach to regulating the sprawl. Before discussing a potential solution, however, it is important to understand the nature of the problem, and some of its primary causes.

Section I will discuss the problem and set the stage for my proposal. Section II will then …

Vol. Viii, Tab 38 - Ex. 75 - Van Liere Deposition (Expert - Statistical Surveys), Kent Van Liere

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?