DOCSLIB.ORG

Trademark Litigation

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Trademark Litigation Intellectual Property FOLIO Trademark Litigation Pre-Litigation Considerations Common Defenses to Trademark Infringement 1. Investigate facts supporting infringement and assess evidence in order 1. Abandonment – failure to use a mark for three consecutive years with to comply with pre-filing requirements for federal and/or state court intent to abandon the mark is prima facie evidence of abandonment; 2. Trademark owner may bring lawsuit in federal or state court for trade- failure to police and enforce a mark can also lead to abandonment mark infringement or unfair competition 2. Fraud – trademark owner misled or withheld information from the 3. Trademark owner may file with the International Trade Commission Trademark Office (ITC) to prevent the importation of infringing goods 3. Laches – unreasonable delay before asserting or enforcing rights against a. ITC participates as a party and conducts its own discovery defendant b. ITC decisions can be appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 4. Fair use – use of the mark that is descriptive or for identification Federal Circuit 5. Prior use – defendant used the mark before plaintiff used or registered 4. Failure of trademark owner to enforce its rights may reduce the strength its mark; for unregistered marks, this may be limited to a particular and value of the mark; trademark owner has obligation to “police” its geographic area mark 6. Generic – the mark is for a term that the relevant purchasing public 5. A party may oppose a pending trademark application on grounds of understands primarily as the common or class name for the goods or confusing similarity or may seek to cancel an existing registration in services an inter partes proceeding before the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board (“TTAB”) Remedies a. TTAB proceedings do not address infringement 1. Injunction – typically awarded to prevailing plaintiff b. TTAB proceedings are generally less expensive than federal court 2. If liability is established, lost profits of plaintiff, profits of defendant, a proceedings reasonable royalty or the cost of corrective advertising, and attorneys’ c. Discovery is available fees d. Evidence in TTAB proceedings is presented by written submissions; a. A remedy of lost profits requires proof that defendant would have and/or by deposition transcripts made the sales but for infringement – typically requires a market e. TTAB decision may be appealed to Federal Circuit or District Court survey 3. Courts may treble damages where infringement is willful; trebling must Incontestability be compensatory not punitive 1. A federal trademark registration that has been in use for five consecutive years may be eligible for “incontestable” status Unfair Competition a. Incontestability is conclusive evidence that the mark is valid and 1. State common law actions based on deceptive or wrongful business that its owner has exclusive rights to use the mark in commerce practices. b. An incontestable mark may nevertheless be cancelled on a number 2. Examples include: misappropriation, false advertising, “bait and switch” of grounds, including that the mark is: functional, abandoned, sales, use of confidential information by former employees to solicit generic, obtained by fraud, or used to misrepresent the source of customers, trade libel, and false representation of products or services. goods Dilution and Tarnishment Infringement 1. Action against use of a mark that is likely to dilute the distinctive qual- 1. Infringement occurs where the use of a similar mark on similar goods ity of a mark, tarnish the reputation of the mark and/or services is likely to cause confusion, mistake, or deception as to 2. Available only to owners of “famous” marks the affiliation, origin, sponsorship or approval of goods and/or 3. Defendant’s use of famous mark must be commercial and subsequent services to owner’s mark becoming famous a. In determining whether or not there is a likelihood of confusion, 4. Damages are available in dilution cases only where the defendant courts typically consider: willfully trades on the mark’s recognition or intends to harm the mark’s i. the similarity in the overall impression created by the reputation two marks (including the marks’ look, phonetic similarities, and underlying meanings); Defenses to Dilution or Tarnishment ii. the similarities of the goods and services involved 1. Fair use. LLP (including an examination of the marketing channels 2. News reporting. for the goods); 3. Non-commerical use. iii. the strength of the plaintiff’s mark; 4. Ownership of a valid trademark registration. iv. any evidence of actual confusion by consumers; v. the intent of the defendant in adopting its mark; vi. the physical proximity of the goods in the retail marketplace; vii. the degree of care likely to be exercised by the consumer; and, viii. the likelihood of expansion of the product lines ©2007 & Dodge Angell Palmer Edwards ATTORNEY ADVERTISING eapdlaw.com Copyright Litigation Pre-Litigation Considerations Remedies 1. Investigate facts supporting infringement and assess evidence in order 1. Injunction – typically granted where monetary damages are not suffi- to comply with pre-filing requirements for federal and/or state court cient 2. A work is entitled to copyright protection even without a federal 2. Actual damages suffered by copyright owner may be recovered – typi- registration cally in the form of lost profits a. In order to file a lawsuit for infringement, a federal registration is 3. Infringers’ profits may be recovered in addition to actual damages – required rationale is to discourage infringement b. Post-infringement registration is permissible but limits the type and a. No double recovery –lost profits cannot be recovered for sales made amount of damages available by infringer in addition to the infringer’s profits on the same sales 4. Indirect profits may be recovered –increased concession sales as a re- Infringement sult of infringing theatrical performance 1. Copyright infringement is the unauthorized reproduction, adaptation, 5. Statutory damages – as an alternative, generally when actual damages distribution, performance or display of a copyrighted work are difficult to prove and certain statutory prerequisites are met, the 2. Infringement requires proof of copying and improper appropriation court decides damages between statutory minimum and maximum a. Copying is typically proved by indirect evidence of access to the without proof of actual damages copyrighted work together with probative similarity of the work 6. Attorneys fees may be awarded at the court’s discretion based on the b. Copying may also be proved by direct evidence (e.g. eyewitness closeness, complexity and novelty of the issues and the conduct of the testimony) parties c. Copying does not require intent - subconscious copying is infringement Criminal Copyright Infringement d. Improper appropriation is typically proved by substantial similarity 1. Some acts of copyright infringement carry criminal penalties, includ- of the protected material ing imprisonment. Criminal acts include: 3. Copyright protects the expression of ideas, but not the idea itself a. Willful infringement for commercial advantage or private financial a. Merger – if an idea is capable of only one, or a very limited number gain of expressions, it is not copyrightable b. Reproduction or distribution of phonorecords having a value of more than $1,000 Indirect Infringement c. Distribution of work prepared for commercial distribution on 1. A party may be liable for inducement or contributory infringement a computer network accessible to the public where it has knowledge of the infringing activity and induces, causes, or materially contributes to the infringing activity of another 2. A party may be liable for vicarious infringement where it profits from direct infringement while declining to exercise a right to stop or limit it Defenses 1. The work does not contain copyrightable material 2. First sale – owner cannot control distribution after sale 3. De minimis – courts may excuse slight infringements 4. Fair use a. Statutory fair uses: use of a copyrighted work for criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, or research b. Parody – reasonable taking of copyrighted material for use as a parody may not infringe i. Parody used only for advertising is not a fair use c. Software - reverse engineering i. using a lawfully obtained copy of a computer program may be a fair use d. Considerations on whether use is fair include: i. Whether use is commercial or educational LLP ii. Nature of the copyrighted work iii. Amount of the copyrighted work used iv. Effect on the potential market or value of the copyrighted work ATTORNEY ADVERTISING: The hiring of an attorney is an important decision that should not be based solely on advertisements. Before you decide, ask us to send you free If you would like further information, contact an attorney with written information about our qualifications and experience. Prior results do not Edwards Angell Palmer & Dodge’s Intellectual Property Group at guarantee a similar outcome. 617.239.0100 or visit our website at eapdlaw.com. ©2007 & Dodge Angell Palmer Edwards.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • How Copyright Law Affects Reissues of Historic Recordings: a New Study
    TIM BROOKS How Copyright Law Affects Reissues of Historic Recordings: A New Study The following article looks at how U.S. copyright law affects the availability of older recordings. Among the issues covered are how many “historic” recordings are still under legal restrictions, how many are available to the public today via reissues, and what pro- portion of reissues are from rights holders vs. non rights holders. The article also suggests how to determine whether a specific older recording is controlled by a rights holder or is “abandoned,” and thus free to disseminate. The article is based on a paper presented at the 2005 ARSC Conference, with much of the information drawn from a study by the author commissioned by the Council on Library and Information Resources for the National Recording Preservation Board and the Library of Congress. The full study is available at www.clir.org. __________________________________________________________________________________ n recent years entertainment companies have secured sweeping expansion of copy- right laws and new limits on the public domain, making the subject of copyright Iincreasingly controversial. The world, they say, is changing and the law has to “keep up”. However, those who seek to care for and disseminate our recorded heritage feel jus- tifiably threatened by laws that seem to restrict their activities at every turn. While many in the academic and collecting communities lament these developments – witness the heavy attendance and passionate response at a session on “Music Downloading and File Swapping” at the 2004 ARSC Conference – there is surprisingly little solid data on the effects of current law on recordings.1 Such data is necessary to influence policymakers.
    [Show full text]
  • Abandoning Copyright
    Case Western Reserve University School of Law Scholarly Commons Faculty Publications 2020 Abandoning Copyright Dave Fagundes Aaron K. Perzanowski Case Western University School of Law, [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarlycommons.law.case.edu/faculty_publications Part of the Intellectual Property Law Commons Repository Citation Fagundes, Dave and Perzanowski, Aaron K., "Abandoning Copyright" (2020). Faculty Publications. 2060. https://scholarlycommons.law.case.edu/faculty_publications/2060 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by Case Western Reserve University School of Law Scholarly Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in Faculty Publications by an authorized administrator of Case Western Reserve University School of Law Scholarly Commons. ABANDONING COPYRIGHT Dave Fagundes* & Aaron Perzanowski** For nearly two hundred years, U.S. copyright law has assumed that owners may voluntarily abandon their rights in a work. But scholars have largely ignored copyright abandonment, and the case law is fragmented and inconsistent. As a result, abandonment remains poorly theorized, owners can avail themselves of no reliable mechanism to abandon their works, and the practice remains rare. This Article seeks to bring copyright abandonment out of the shadows, showing that it is a doctrine rich in conceptual, normative, and practical significance. Unlike abandonment of real and chattel property, which imposes significant public costs in exchange for discrete private benefits, copyright abandonment is potentially costly for rights holders but broadly beneficial for society. Nonetheless, rights holders—ranging from lauded filmmakers and photographers to leading museums and everyday creators—make the counterintuitive choice to abandon valuable works. This Article analyzes two previously untapped resources to better understand copyright abandonment.
    [Show full text]
  • New Strategies for Owners of Discontinued Brands David S
    Northwestern Journal of Technology and Intellectual Property Volume 3 Article 4 Issue 1 Fall Fall 2004 New Strategies for Owners of Discontinued Brands David S. Ruder Recommended Citation David S. Ruder, New Strategies for Owners of Discontinued Brands, 3 Nw. J. Tech. & Intell. Prop. 61 (2004). https://scholarlycommons.law.northwestern.edu/njtip/vol3/iss1/4 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by Northwestern Pritzker School of Law Scholarly Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in Northwestern Journal of Technology and Intellectual Property by an authorized editor of Northwestern Pritzker School of Law Scholarly Commons. NORTHWESTERN JOURNAL OF TECHNOLOGY AND INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY New Strategies for Owners of Discontinued Brands David S. Ruder Fall 2004 VOL. 3, NO. 1 © 2004 by Northwestern University School of Law Northwestern Journal of Technology and Intellectual Property Copyright 2004 by Northwestern University School of Law Volume 3, Number 1 (Fall 2004) Northwestern Journal of Technology and Intellectual Property New Strategies for Owners of Discontinued Brands By David S. Ruder* I. INTRODUCTION .......................................................................................61 A. Why Brands Are Discontinued ...........................................................62 B. Why Discontinued Brands Matter.......................................................63 1. Potential Loss of Control to Competitor ...................................63 2. Potential Lost Value ..................................................................64
    [Show full text]
  • A New Definition of "Publication" Under the Copyright Act of 1909
    Vanderbilt Law Review Volume 58 Issue 3 Article 5 4-2005 Copyright "Deja Vu": A New Definition of "Publication" Under the Copyright Act of 1909 W. Russell Taber Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarship.law.vanderbilt.edu/vlr Part of the Intellectual Property Law Commons Recommended Citation W. Russell Taber, Copyright "Deja Vu": A New Definition of "Publication" Under the Copyright Act of 1909, 58 Vanderbilt Law Review 857 (2019) Available at: https://scholarship.law.vanderbilt.edu/vlr/vol58/iss3/5 This Note is brought to you for free and open access by Scholarship@Vanderbilt Law. It has been accepted for inclusion in Vanderbilt Law Review by an authorized editor of Scholarship@Vanderbilt Law. For more information, please contact [email protected]. NOTES Copyright Dejic Vu: A New Definition of "Publication" Under the Copyright Act of 1909 1. INTRODU CTION .................................................................... 858 II. BACKGROUND: THE COPYRIGHT ACT OF 1909 & PU BLICATION ................................................................... 860 A. The 1909 Act: Still Relevant After All T hese Years .............................................................. 860 B. Dual Policies of the 1909 Act ................................... 861 C. Implementing the Dual Policies .............................. 862 1. Limited Monopoly & the Public D om ain .......................................................... 862 2. F air U se ........................................................ 863 D. Significance of
    [Show full text]
  • Abandoning Copyrights to Try to Cut Off Termination Rights
    Missouri Law Review Volume 58 Issue 1 Winter 1993 Article 7 Winter 1993 Abandoning Copyrights to Try to Cut Off Termination Rights Robert A. Kreiss Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarship.law.missouri.edu/mlr Part of the Law Commons Recommended Citation Robert A. Kreiss, Abandoning Copyrights to Try to Cut Off Termination Rights, 58 MO. L. REV. (1993) Available at: https://scholarship.law.missouri.edu/mlr/vol58/iss1/7 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Law Journals at University of Missouri School of Law Scholarship Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in Missouri Law Review by an authorized editor of University of Missouri School of Law Scholarship Repository. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Kreiss: Kreiss: Abandoning Copyrights Abandoning Copyrights to Try to Cut Off Termination Rights Robert A. Kreiss** I. Introduction ...................................... 86 II. Abandonment of Copyright ........................... 92 A. What Can Be Abandoned? ............ 95 B. Who Can Abandon Copyright Rights? . 96 C. The Rationale for Abandonment ..................... 97 III. Termination Rights ............................... 101 A. Section 203 .................................. 101 B. Section 304(c) ................................. 105 C. Operation and Effect of Termination ................. 108 D. The Non-Waivable/Non-Transferable Characteristic of Termination Rights and Reversionary Rights ........... 109 IV. Conflict Between Abandonment and Termination Rights ...... 111 V . Analysis ....................................... 115 A. The Semi-Literalist and Literalist Positions ............ 116 B. The Widows'/Widowers'/Orphans' Position ............ 118 C. The Minimalist Balancing Position .................. 120 D. The Preferred Balancing Position ................... 121 VI. Beyond the 1976 Copyright Act ....................... 123 VII. Conclusion .................................... 126 * Copyright 1992 Robert A. Kreiss; All Rights Reserved.
    [Show full text]
  • The Right to Abandon
    10_STRAHILEVITZ_FINAL.DOCX (DO NOT DELETE) 2/1/2010 6:34 PM ARTICLE THE RIGHT TO ABANDON † LIOR JACOB STRAHILEVITZ The common law prohibits the abandonment of real property. Perhaps it is surprising, therefore, that the following are true: (1) the common law generally permits the abandonment of chattel property, (2) the common law promotes the transfer of real property via adverse possession, and (3) the civil law is widely believed to permit the abandonment of real property. Because the literature on abandonment is disappointingly sparse, these three peculiarities have escaped sustained scholarly analysis and criticism. This Article aims to provide a com- prehensive analysis of the law of abandonment. After engaging in such an analysis, this Article finds that the common law’s flat prohibition on the aban- donment of corporeal interests in real property is misguided. Legal rules prohi- biting abandonment ought to be replaced with a more permissive regime in which both the value of the underlying resource and the steps that the abandon- ing owner takes to ensure that would-be claimants are alerted to the resource’s availability are what matters. Furthermore, the law of abandonment ought to be harmonized for real property and chattels. Finally, this Article criticizes the † Professor of Law and Walter Mander Teaching Scholar, University of Chicago Law School. The author thanks Sandra Lloyd and James Tierney for providing helpful family history concerning the Pocono Springs case; Eduardo Peñalver for his generous collegiality and insight
    [Show full text]
  • The Song Is Over but the Melody Lingers On: Persistence of Goodwill and the Intent Factor in Trademark Abandonment
    Fordham Law Review Volume 56 Issue 5 Article 6 1988 The Song is Over But the Melody Lingers On: Persistence of Goodwill and the Intent Factor in Trademark Abandonment Stanley A. Bowker, Jr. Follow this and additional works at: https://ir.lawnet.fordham.edu/flr Part of the Law Commons Recommended Citation Stanley A. Bowker, Jr., The Song is Over But the Melody Lingers On: Persistence of Goodwill and the Intent Factor in Trademark Abandonment, 56 Fordham L. Rev. 1003 (1988). Available at: https://ir.lawnet.fordham.edu/flr/vol56/iss5/6 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by FLASH: The Fordham Law Archive of Scholarship and History. It has been accepted for inclusion in Fordham Law Review by an authorized editor of FLASH: The Fordham Law Archive of Scholarship and History. For more information, please contact [email protected]. THE SONG IS OVER BUT THE MELODY LINGERS ON: PERSISTENCE OF GOODWILL AND THE INTENT FACTOR IN TRADEMARK ABANDONMENT INTRODUCTION The Lanham Act' defines trademark abandonment as nonuse of a trademark combined with "intent not to resume" use of that mark.2 Nonuse is determined fairly easily. For a trademark to be used under the Lanham Act, it must be placed on the goods, the packaging for the goods, or the displays associated with the goods,3 and the goods thereaf- 1. 15 U.S.C. §§ 1051-1127 (1982 & Supp. IV 1986). The Lanham Act is the gov- erning law on trademarks in the United States. See 15 U.S.C. §§ 1051-1127 (1982 & Supp.
    [Show full text]
  • Abandonment, Copyright and Orphaned Works: What Does It Mean to Take the Proprietary Nature of Intellectual Property Rights Seriously?
    ABANDONMENT, COPYRIGHT AND ORPHANED WORKS: WHAT DOES IT MEAN TO TAKE THE PROPRIETARY NATURE OF INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY RIGHTS SERIOUSLY? EMILY HUDSON* AND ROBERT BURRELL† [For many years there was doubt as to whether personal property could be abandoned. In more recent times, however, the existence of a doctrine of abandonment has been solidifying in relation to chattels. In this article the authors suggest that copyright works can also be abandoned. This conclusion has significant implications for cultural institutions and other users struggling to deal with so-called ‘orphaned works’. More generally, the authors suggest that recognising that abandonment of copyright is possible has repercussions for how we think about intellectual property rights and, in particular, should cause us to look more closely at other doctrines within the law of personal property that might limit intellectual property’s reach.] CONTENTS I Introduction ............................................................................................................971 II Abandonment .........................................................................................................974 A Abandonment and Choses in Possession .................................................. 974 B Abandonment and Copyright .................................................................... 982 C Objections to Abandonment of Copyright ................................................ 987 1 Johnson’s Objections .................................................................... 987
    [Show full text]
  • The Zombie Trademark: a Windfall and a Pitfall
    1280 Vol. 98 TMR THE ZOMBIE TRADEMARK: A WINDFALL AND A PITFALL By Jerome Gilson and Anne Gilson LaLonde I. INTRODUCTION “They keep coming back in a bloodthirsty lust for HUMAN FLESH! . Pits the dead against the living in a struggle for survival!”1 Beware trademark owners! Protect yourselves from the attack of the undead brands! Yes, zombie trademarks, spawned by trademark abandonment and the cachet of still-remembered brand names, walk among us.2 A zombie business scavenges in the trademark graveyard for one that still has marketing potential. It then resurrects one, for little or no cost, that the public still associates with the original product, and applies it to an entirely new one. The public’s memory of the original mark, also known as residual goodwill, has a twofold zombie advantage. It can trigger instant (if mistaken) demand for the new product, reduce advertising costs and raise profits. Yes, zombie businesses roam the countryside, trafficking in trademarks, and thriving by feeding, not on human flesh, but on residual goodwill. Beware! The question is, can a business, having abandoned its rights to a trademark, prevent a newcomer from bringing the dead mark Copyright © 2008 Jerome Gilson and Anne Gilson LaLonde. Original author, Gilson on Trademarks (LexisNexis/Matthew Bender, Inc.); shareholder, Brinks Hofer Gilson & Lione; Associate Member, International Trademark Association. Mr. Gilson is a member of the Past Presidents and Past Counsel Advisory Board. He served on the Association’s Board of Directors (1977-80), as Counsel to the Association (1991-94) and as Reporter for the Association’s Trademark Review Commission (1985-87).
    [Show full text]
  • Abandoning Copyrights to Try to Cut Off Termination Rights
    Missouri Law Review Volume 58 Issue 1 Winter 1993 Article 7 Winter 1993 Abandoning Copyrights to Try to Cut Off Termination Rights Robert A. Kreiss Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarship.law.missouri.edu/mlr Part of the Law Commons Recommended Citation Robert A. Kreiss, Abandoning Copyrights to Try to Cut Off Termination Rights, 58 MO. L. REV. (1993) Available at: https://scholarship.law.missouri.edu/mlr/vol58/iss1/7 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Law Journals at University of Missouri School of Law Scholarship Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in Missouri Law Review by an authorized editor of University of Missouri School of Law Scholarship Repository. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Kreiss: Kreiss: Abandoning Copyrights Abandoning Copyrights to Try to Cut Off Termination Rights Robert A. Kreiss** I. Introduction ...................................... 86 II. Abandonment of Copyright ........................... 92 A. What Can Be Abandoned? ............ 95 B. Who Can Abandon Copyright Rights? . 96 C. The Rationale for Abandonment ..................... 97 III. Termination Rights ............................... 101 A. Section 203 .................................. 101 B. Section 304(c) ................................. 105 C. Operation and Effect of Termination ................. 108 D. The Non-Waivable/Non-Transferable Characteristic of Termination Rights and Reversionary Rights ........... 109 IV. Conflict Between Abandonment and Termination Rights ...... 111 V . Analysis ....................................... 115 A. The Semi-Literalist and Literalist Positions ............ 116 B. The Widows'/Widowers'/Orphans' Position ............ 118 C. The Minimalist Balancing Position .................. 120 D. The Preferred Balancing Position ................... 121 VI. Beyond the 1976 Copyright Act ....................... 123 VII. Conclusion .................................... 126 * Copyright 1992 Robert A. Kreiss; All Rights Reserved.
    [Show full text]
  • Copyright Abandonment
    CHAPTER 6 Copyright Abandonment Chapter Contents § 6.01 Introduction [1] Effect of Copyright Abandonment [2] Copyright Abandonment Versus Forfeiture § 6.02 The Nuts and Bolts of Copyright Abandonment [1] Publication Without Copyright Notice [a] Unnoticed Publication by Third Parties [b] Unnoticed Publication After March 1, 1989 [2] Failure to Act Not Copyright Abandonment [3] Limited Abandonment [4] Terminating Copyright Abandonment § 6.03 Computer Software [1] Free and Open Source Software [2] Abandonware § 6.04 Open Content, Open Access and the Creative Commons [1] Creative Commons Automated Public Domain Dedication [2] Creative Commons Licenses § 6.01 Introduction Copyright abandonment, also called dedication to the public domain, occurs when a copyright owner intentionally gives up copyright protec- tion for a work. Given the extremely long copyright terms in effect today,1 and the fact that since March 1, 1989 copyright protection begins 1 For example, a work created by an individual author on or after January 1, 1978 receives a single copyright term of the life of the author plus seventy years. 17 U.S.C. § 302(a). See § 3.02 supra. 6-1 § 6.01[1] COPYRIGHT & PUBLIC DOMAIN 6-2 automatically whether a creator wants it or not,2 copyright abandonment has become an increasingly important source of public domain materi- al. Indeed, the only works created after March 1, 1989 that are in the public domain are those in which copyright has been abandoned. This is not an insignificant body of work—for example, thousands of soft- ware programs
    [Show full text]
  • The Hidden Value of Abandoned Applications to the Patent System
    Boston College Law Review Volume 61 Issue 8 Article 3 11-24-2020 The Hidden Value of Abandoned Applications to the Patent System Christopher A. Cotropia University of Richmond School of Law, [email protected] David L. Schwartz Northwestern University Pritzker School of Law, [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: https://lawdigitalcommons.bc.edu/bclr Part of the Intellectual Property Law Commons Recommended Citation Christopher A. Cotropia & David L. Schwartz, The Hidden Value of Abandoned Applications to the Patent System, 61 B.C. L. Rev. 2809 (2020), https://lawdigitalcommons.bc.edu/bclr/vol61/iss8/3 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Law Journals at Digital Commons @ Boston College Law School. It has been accepted for inclusion in Boston College Law Review by an authorized editor of Digital Commons @ Boston College Law School. For more information, please contact [email protected]. THE HIDDEN VALUE OF ABANDONED APPLICATIONS TO THE PATENT SYSTEM CHRISTOPHER A. COTROPIA DAVID L. SCHWARTZ INTRODUCTION .......................................................................................................................... 2811 I. BACKGROUND ON PATENT EXAMINATION AND ABANDONED PATENT APPLICATIONS ......... 2815 A. Use of Patents and Published Applications in Patent Examination ................................. 2815 B. Abandoned Patent Applications as Prior Art ................................................................... 2823 C. Presumed Lack of Value or Benefit
    [Show full text]