Trademark Law Treaty by Michael D. Stewart, Esq. Law Offices of Michael D. Stewart, 200 SE 1st St, Suite 701, Miami, Florida 33131. 305-590-8909. www.TheMiamiLaw.

Governance of the Domain Name System by Michael D. Stewart, Esq. Law Offices of Michael D. Stewart. www.TheMiamiLaw.com. 866-438-6574

Orthopedic Systems Inc. (OSI) was manufacturing a selling a surgical device created by Dr. Schlein with an agreement to pay royalties to the Dr. The product was always advertised with the Dr.'s name. 14 years later, OSI attempted to stop paying royalties because the surgical device was not patented and because it is "economically unfeasible." A lawsuit and trial ensued. Held: Under Calif. Civ. Code 3344(a), Dr. can recover $750 or his actual damages for use of his identity in commerce.

Golden Gate University School of Law and the Intellectual Property Law Center Presents: The 10th Annual Conference On Recent Developments In Intellectual Property Law & Policy. September 30, 2011 in San Francisco, CA.

UMG Recordings made unsolicited shipment of music CDs to certain music critics and radio programmers. The CD's were marked "promotional" and "not for sale." Augusto obtained several copies of these CDs and sold them on eBay. UMG sued Augusto for copyright infringement. Ninth Circuit held: promotional distribution of CDs constituted a "first sale" under § 109(a) of the Copyright Act, and Augusto's sales were not copyright infringement.

Last week, the jury returned a $1.3 Billion verdict in favor of Oracle Corp. in its copyright infringement lawsuit against SAP, a German software company. Here is a copy of the Fourth Amended Complaint on that lawsuit.

9th Annual Conference on Recent Developments in Intellectual Property Law & Policy. This full day event is being held on November 5, 2010 from 9am to 5:15pm at Golden Gate Law School in San Francisco, CA. 6 Hours MCLE.

This article analyzes whether the patent false marking statute Act permits multiple penalties for the same act of patent false marking, and concludes that under the plain language of the statute, the doctrine of claim preclusion, and possibly the doctrine of double jeopardy, multiple penalties should not be permitted. The article further analyze whether, when faced with a second-filed false marking suit, a district court should stay, transfer or dismiss the second-filed action, and reports on the recent district court opinions addressing this issue.

This is the recent decision of Ninth Circuit Court of Appeal filed July 22, 2010, in which the Court reversed lower court's judgment in favor of Mattel, Inc.

Having finally issued its much-anticipated patent ruling in Bilski v. Kappos, the Supreme Court ended its term with a whimper, not a bang – at least as far as patent lawyers are concerned. But even though the opinion left several hot-button issues unresolved, it nonetheless provided a key lesson for lawyers and experts in patent cases: Whatever you do, avoid abstraction.