Billboard mounted on brownstone building featuring Jude Law in a suit sitting at a desk, appearing to be a lawyer. The text reads “ready to fall in love with law? Legora: collaborative AI for exceptional lawyers”
Spotted on my bus ride to work today… ad for #AI for lawyers (featuring Jude Law)
I don’t know how many times I’ve had to say this: it’s TRADEMARK, not PATENT!!!!!
Full-funded (home or international) collaborative PhD studentship (Kew and Royal Holloway, University of London) available. Deadline 8 May.
Topic: ‘Just acquisitions? Law and ethics over time in Kew’s overseas plant collecting history’ #Skystorians
Brian Frye is a pretty intimidating guy. If you're too nervous to speak with him, feel free to reach out to me--I am happy to do guest-hosted interviews!
I always wonder - usually in vain - just how big auction houses determine provenance information. Thanks to the Epstein Files, we can see exactly how a seemingly rock-solid provenance was built on shifting sands for this Hercules. 🧵
Mike Pence got totally owned here: Jewish plaintiffs won a ruling against Indiana's abortion ban, using the law he signed 11 years ago as governor to help evangelicals refuse to cater gay weddings and such. Now similar challenges could win in other red states. We tell the story at @forward.com.
Check out this important new paper by my colleague @design-law.bsky.social about a new form of judge shopping - where plaintiffs add or drop defendants in mass joinder #IP cases based on the judge they are assigned. She compares this to cheating maneuvers in #roulette!
“What makes it so special … is that you can walk to the coast anywhere in England, turn left or right, and walk beside the sea for as long as you like.” ❤️
For example, the following images demonstrate the striking similarities in between Plaintiff’s patented design, Plaintiff’s Trade Dress, and Defendant’s products: Patented design from the ’325 Patent (left) and Defendant’s infringing design (right)
Today in "Nope, Not Infringing": Parting Stone, Inc. v. Remember Me Pebbles LLC, Docket No. 2:26-cv-00931 (W.D. Wash. Mar 18, 2026).
This patent covers a design for "solidified cremation remains," as show in in the drawing. Not any stone-shaped solidified remains.
#ConceptFallacy
Issues Discussed: 35 u.s.c.1 02 Attorne Applicant(s) CROWE, Justin D. Art AIA {First Inventor Page Unit to File) Status 2912 Yes 1 of 2 Telephonic The claimed design is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by the overall ornamental appearance of the aggregate or stones of Johnson 1691721 (11/13/1928). The U.S. Patent to Johnson was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention 4/27/2019. 35 u.s.c.1 71 The claimed design is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 171 as the design lacks originality; the design is simulating organic shapes, aggregate or stones which applicant did not invent. Applicant's design has in no way departed from the natural appearance of organic shapes, aggregate or stones as shown in Johnson 1691721. Other The Solidified Cremation Remains as disclosed in the Replacement Drawing 10/16/2020 is the claimed design. Applicant may choose to pursue a utility application
Ooh, you know that the originality rejection caught my eye.
Cathay in front California Western School of Law plaque.
Enjoyed sharing my latest project on The Copyrightability of Living Organisms with the engaging law faculty @californiawestern.bsky.social. Great feedback on my early stage project and SO MUCH SUN! 🌞
Religious organizations have long weaponized #copyright to silence critics. My new post on @ericgoldman.bsky.social’s blog breaks down RRT v Bawtinheimer - a suit by the Plymouth Brethren Christian Church against an ex member - and why it feels like a classic case of “copyright silencing.” 👇🏽
![At the end of his final judgment order, Judge Seeger stated:
The Court declines the request to award profits because Plaintiff offered evidence of revenue, not profits. Revenue and profits are not the same thing. The Court declines the invitation to assume that all of the revenue equals profits.
And while it’s true that revenue and profits are not the same thing, the Lanham Act specifically provides that “[i]n assessing profits the plaintiff shall be required to prove defendant’s sales only; defendant must prove all elements of cost or deduction claimed.” 15 U.S.C. § 1117. And the Seventh Circuit has previously interpreted that part of § 1117 to mean exactly what it says. See WMS Gaming Inc. v. WPC Prods. Ltd., 542 F.3d 601, 609 (7th Cir. 2008), as amended (Sept. 16, 2008) (“WMS has provided evidence of the profits that PartyGaming earned from its U.S. sales. In the absence of evidence from PartyGaming showing that deductions are warranted, WMS is entitled to the revenues supported by its evidence.”).
Dyson filed an uncontested appeal and the Seventh Circuit reversed. That part wasn’t particularly notable, given the statutory language and precedent in WMS Gaming.
What is interesting is that the Seventh Circuit seemed to go out of its way to note that “[t]he Lanham Act does give district courts the ability to modify an award of profits if the court deems the modification just” and expressly stated that “[o]n remand, if the district court wishes to award more or less than these profits, it retains the discretion to do so, as long as it makes a finding based on the facts of the case.”](https://cdn.bsky.app/img/feed_thumbnail/plain/did:plc:hvwhptk4oerwsuzau66ikwfy/bafkreiden2uhepqhnkoqxoa3g7g2l6tzhrspmc2mvo4qs7ueaq5sbceuo4)
At the end of his final judgment order, Judge Seeger stated: The Court declines the request to award profits because Plaintiff offered evidence of revenue, not profits. Revenue and profits are not the same thing. The Court declines the invitation to assume that all of the revenue equals profits. And while it’s true that revenue and profits are not the same thing, the Lanham Act specifically provides that “[i]n assessing profits the plaintiff shall be required to prove defendant’s sales only; defendant must prove all elements of cost or deduction claimed.” 15 U.S.C. § 1117. And the Seventh Circuit has previously interpreted that part of § 1117 to mean exactly what it says. See WMS Gaming Inc. v. WPC Prods. Ltd., 542 F.3d 601, 609 (7th Cir. 2008), as amended (Sept. 16, 2008) (“WMS has provided evidence of the profits that PartyGaming earned from its U.S. sales. In the absence of evidence from PartyGaming showing that deductions are warranted, WMS is entitled to the revenues supported by its evidence.”). Dyson filed an uncontested appeal and the Seventh Circuit reversed. That part wasn’t particularly notable, given the statutory language and precedent in WMS Gaming. What is interesting is that the Seventh Circuit seemed to go out of its way to note that “[t]he Lanham Act does give district courts the ability to modify an award of profits if the court deems the modification just” and expressly stated that “[o]n remand, if the district court wishes to award more or less than these profits, it retains the discretion to do so, as long as it makes a finding based on the facts of the case.”
Big #ScheduleA news:
Last year, Dyson won an uncontested appeal on a Lanham Act remedies issue. That decision, Dyson v. David 7, made number nine on my wrap-up of the most important Schedule A developments of 2025: blog.ericgoldman.org/archives/202...
The weather in the Washington DC area in the summer is . . . well . . . anyway, this sounds like a cool opportunity!
www.usajobs.gov/job/86114660...
Note that copyright already protects disembodied designs.
So you don't *need* design patents for this stuff...unless your design fails to meet the low bar set by Feist.
papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers....
Would you rather be perceived as likable or competent?
Would you rather be “shrill” but finish your sentence or polite but interrupted by your male colleague?
Would you rather shoot literal botulism into your face or look your real age, you hag?
"This $2,500 scholarship will support a woman+ who is currently enrolled in law school or graduate school studies in the fields of law, science, technology, engineering, or math and/or is a recent graduate thereof seeking professional testing/certification for the first time."
I’m sorry I missed yours! I’m coming out to SD this month and would love to chat. ❤️ Will DM you.
A triceratops skeleton that once greeted visitors at a Wyoming museum is heading to an online auction as dinosaur prices keep soaring.
Always appreciate 🙏🏼 @rtushnet.bsky.social’s blogging! So helpful to review feedback on my projects and catch-up on all the fascinating IP talks that I missed. Here’s a great summary of projects from #WIPIP26 Panel 6 @bulaw.bsky.social, including my early-stage project on copyright & living organisms
Never thought I’d use the words “juicing” and “fish” in the same sentence
😂🐠🐡🐟
Enjoyed chatting with @ashleybelanger.bsky.social @arstechnica.com about Copyright x AI x Microsoft x Harry Potter 👇🏽 check it out below…
Wow.
I feel like I should add: This isn't just an IPLAC event. This event will be hosted by--and began as a program organized by students at--Loyola Law School Chicago.
If you’re in the D.C.-area on Thursday (Feb 12), and love nature or copyright law, come hear my talk @gwlaw.bsky.social! Details below 🐛
Join us for the first GWCLT Speaker Series of the semester: Professor @cathaysmith.bsky.social of @chicagokentlaw.bsky.social on “Copyrighting Nature”—when copyright should protect or exclude works created by nature, duplicating nature, or inspired by it. Lunch provided!
Same. ⬇️
You can pry my em dashes out of my cold dead hands.
