<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	xmlns:slash="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/slash/"
	>

<channel>
	<title>One LLP</title>
	<atom:link href="http://onellp.com/blog/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://onellp.com/blog</link>
	<description>Copyrights, Trademarks, Trade Secrets, &#38; Patents</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Fri, 18 Jan 2013 17:49:36 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<language>en</language>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.1</generator>
<xhtml:meta xmlns:xhtml="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml" name="robots" content="noindex" />
		<item>
		<title>Up, Up &amp; Away &#8211; Superman Copyright Saga Winds Down</title>
		<link>http://onellp.com/blog/up-up-away-superman-copyright-saga-winds-down/</link>
		<comments>http://onellp.com/blog/up-up-away-superman-copyright-saga-winds-down/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 18 Jan 2013 17:49:36 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>One LLP</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Copyrights]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Infringement Nation]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://onellp.com/blog/?p=1108</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Image taken by Keven Law, Los Angeles, CA and under Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike License, Wikimedia Commons.  In the long-running Superman litigation, the Ninth Circuit has addressed large parts of the dispute.]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://onellp.com/blog/up-up-away-superman-copyright-saga-winds-down/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Federal Trade Secrets</title>
		<link>http://onellp.com/blog/federal-trade-secrets/</link>
		<comments>http://onellp.com/blog/federal-trade-secrets/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 16 Jan 2013 17:08:21 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>One LLP</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Infringement Nation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Trade Secrets]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://onellp.com/blog/?p=1100</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Image - les petits secrets, 1872, Public Domain courtesy of Wikimedia Commons.  The net effect of the law is that employers have a stronger federal remedy in their arsenal to address employee or competitor trade secret violations.
]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://onellp.com/blog/federal-trade-secrets/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>$60 Million Trademark Verdict Reversed</title>
		<link>http://onellp.com/blog/60-million-trademark-verdict-reversed/</link>
		<comments>http://onellp.com/blog/60-million-trademark-verdict-reversed/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Sun, 30 Dec 2012 16:49:17 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>One LLP</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Infringement Nation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Trademarks]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://onellp.com/blog/?p=1084</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[The Ninth Circuit reversed Judge Real in a federal trademark case.  After the plaintiff secured a $60 million verdict, the Ninth Circuit vacated the judgment and reversed.  Specifically, the court found that Judge Real misstated the law to the jury in several respects regarding fraudulent trademark registrations, and also failed to instruct the jury on the legal basis to challenge an “incontestable” mark.]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://onellp.com/blog/60-million-trademark-verdict-reversed/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Trade Secret Experts and Damages</title>
		<link>http://onellp.com/blog/trade-secret-experts-and-damages/</link>
		<comments>http://onellp.com/blog/trade-secret-experts-and-damages/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 28 Dec 2012 16:47:04 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>One LLP</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Infringement Nation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Trade Secrets]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://onellp.com/blog/?p=1082</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[In Management &#038; Engineering Technologies, Inc. v. Information Systems Support, Inc., the plaintiff filed suit for trade secret misappropriation based upon the defendant’s use of the plaintiff’s profit margin and general expense rate information.  The jury found that such data could constitute a trade secret because the information was maintained in a vault, was password protected and was marked “confidential.”]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://onellp.com/blog/trade-secret-experts-and-damages/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Software and Copyrights</title>
		<link>http://onellp.com/blog/software-and-copyrights/</link>
		<comments>http://onellp.com/blog/software-and-copyrights/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 27 Dec 2012 17:54:24 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>One LLP</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Infringement Nation]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://onellp.com/blog/?p=1078</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Copyrights in software often trigger work for hire and employer-employee agency questions because of the fact that so much software development occurs within corporation or through 1099 independent contractors.]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://onellp.com/blog/software-and-copyrights/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Scenes a Faire and Dangerous Driving</title>
		<link>http://onellp.com/blog/scenes-a-faire-and-dangerous-driving/</link>
		<comments>http://onellp.com/blog/scenes-a-faire-and-dangerous-driving/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 11 Oct 2012 21:30:53 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>One LLP</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Copyrights]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Fair Use]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Infringement Nation]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://onellp.com/blog/?p=1069</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Under the doctrine of scenes a faire, a court will protect a copyrighted work from infringement if the expression embodied in the work necessarily flows from a commonplace idea.  Scenes a faire has been literally translated to “scenes which ‘must’ be done.”]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://onellp.com/blog/scenes-a-faire-and-dangerous-driving/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Software &amp; Copyright, Employees and Works for Hire</title>
		<link>http://onellp.com/blog/software-copyright-employees-and-works-for-hire/</link>
		<comments>http://onellp.com/blog/software-copyright-employees-and-works-for-hire/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 10 Sep 2012 15:39:47 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>One LLP</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Copyrights]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Infringement Nation]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://onellp.com/blog/?p=1079</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[The Ninth Circuit recently applied in the software context the rule that absent a written agreement to the contrary, the employer is the author of a work made for hire.  Copyrights in software often trigger work for hire and employer-employee agency questions because of the fact that so much software development occurs within corporation or through 1099 independent contractors. ]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://onellp.com/blog/software-copyright-employees-and-works-for-hire/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>While Content Owners Applaud Google&#8217;s New Search Algorithm, Others Question the Move</title>
		<link>http://onellp.com/blog/while-content-owners-applaud-googles-new-search-algorithm-others-question-the-move/</link>
		<comments>http://onellp.com/blog/while-content-owners-applaud-googles-new-search-algorithm-others-question-the-move/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 30 Aug 2012 15:42:28 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>One LLP</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Copyrights]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Infringement Nation]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://onellp.com/blog/?p=1056</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[(Photo courtesy of Creative Common&#8217;s user Rudy Herman) Google recently announced a dramatic change to its search algorithm, which will now lower results from sites that receive multiple DMCA takedown notifications. Although Google steadfastly maintains that it is not required by law to take such steps, the move suggests that growing pressure from the content [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://onellp.com/blog/while-content-owners-applaud-googles-new-search-algorithm-others-question-the-move/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Coach Is Awarded $44 Million under Lanham Act Against Website Selling Counterfeit Handbags</title>
		<link>http://onellp.com/blog/coach-is-awarded-44-million-under-lanham-act-against-website-selling-counterfeit-handbags/</link>
		<comments>http://onellp.com/blog/coach-is-awarded-44-million-under-lanham-act-against-website-selling-counterfeit-handbags/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 09 Aug 2012 22:26:15 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>One LLP</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Trademarks]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://onellp.com/blog/?p=1043</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Apparel designer Coach sued Linda and Courtney Allen in the Southern District of New York for counterfeiting and trademark infringement. Judge Colleen McMahon granted Coach’s motion for summary judgment against the defendants &#8212; who were acting as their own attorneys &#8212; and awarded maximum statutory damages of $44 million because of their “contumacious” behavior. The Allens [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://onellp.com/blog/coach-is-awarded-44-million-under-lanham-act-against-website-selling-counterfeit-handbags/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Federal Circuit Upholds Sanctions Against Litigation Counsel for Failure to Answer Contention Interrogatories</title>
		<link>http://onellp.com/blog/federal-circuit-upholds-sanctions-against-litigation-counsel-for-failure-to-answer-contention-interrogatories/</link>
		<comments>http://onellp.com/blog/federal-circuit-upholds-sanctions-against-litigation-counsel-for-failure-to-answer-contention-interrogatories/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 03 Aug 2012 23:00:06 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>jardalan</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Federal Circuit]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[contention interrogatories]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[discovery]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[ethics]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Federal Circuit Court of Appeals]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[patent infringement]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[sanctions]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://onellp.com/blog/?p=1037</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[In a recent patent infringement suit filed by Rates Technology, Inc., against Mediatrix, the lead attorney for RTI unsuccessfully appealed discovery sanctions ordered against him after he failed to respond to contention interrogatories on behalf of RTI. The contention interrogatories asked Rates to describe its basis for its patent infringement claim against Mediatrix. The sanctions [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://onellp.com/blog/federal-circuit-upholds-sanctions-against-litigation-counsel-for-failure-to-answer-contention-interrogatories/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
	</channel>
</rss>
