Michael R. Graif and Jason Gottlieb of Curtis, Mallet-Prevost, Colt & Mosle write: Driven by technical advances in electronic music production, an increasing amount of popular music lacks several traditional markers that courts use to determine whether one song is “substantially similar” to another: melody, harmony, rhythm, and lyrics. Instead, the creativity inherent in electronic music centers on the “texture” of the sound being produced. But can a sound texture be protected by copyright?
David Manspeizer, an intellectual property litigation partner at Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr, writes: At-risk launches have become a popular tactic by generic pharmaceutical companies over the last 10 years. As a result, counsel for branded and generic companies are increasingly litigating highly complex damages issues. However, the law on patent damages as applied to the interactions between generic and branded products in the pharmaceutical marketplace remains largely undeveloped.
Scott D. Locke, a partner at Dorf & Nelson, writes: Last spring, in a much publicized and much criticized case, the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit set out to resolve how to apply the standard of patentable subject matter to claims that were directed to certain methods for conducting business, and computer-readable media and systems that implement these methods. However, rather than providing clarity, the court introduced more uncertainty into what was already a murky area of patent law, rendering five separate opinions, none of which were signed by a majority of judges.
Paul I. Perlman, Cynthia Giganti Ludwig and Melissa N. Subjeck of Hodgson Russ write: It has become common practice for plaintiffs to “manufacture” a sale of an infringing product in their home states before filing a lawsuit against the infringer. But assuming there are no other known contacts or transactions in New York, is the single, manufactured sale sufficient to achieve personal jurisdiction over the infringing non-New York defendant?