Intellectual property laws are changing rapidly in response to new technologies. In this blog, Perkins Coie’s Intellectual Property Litigation attorneys offer insights into new developments in copyright, trademark, and trade secrets, with a particular focus on how these developments apply to technology companies. The blog's current contributing authors are Karin Aldama, Jeremy Buxbaum, Christopher ColemanRebecca Engrav (editor), Joseph McMillan, Autumn Nero, and Charles Sipos, joined by other attorneys for guest posts.

For coverage of patent developments, see Perkins Coie's separate blog, Patent Law Insights.
January 13, 2012 | Posted by Jeremy L. Buxbaum, Ph.D.
The Central District of California granted a motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, ruling that the Lanham Act (the "Act") does not apply extraterritorially where the claims are not sufficiently linked to American commerce and where there is a strong potential for conflict with foreign law. Pinkberry, Inc. v. JEC Int'l Corp., No. CV 11-6540 PSG, 2011 WL 6101828 (C.D. Cal. Dec. 7, 2011) (order granting motion to dismiss).
January 3, 2012 | Posted by Karin Scherner Aldama
The Western District of Pennsylvania recently granted affirmative summary judgment on trademark infringement claims regarding the use of trademarks related to the marks “The Terrible Towel®” and “The Terrible™” (collectively, the “Terrible Mark”), used in connection with the Pittsburgh Steelers’ rally towels. AVS Found. v. Eugene Berry Enter., LLC, __ F. Supp. 2d __, No. 11 CV 01084, 2011 WL 6056903 (W.D. Pa. Dec. 12, 2011). In so doing, the court not only found likelihood of confusion and intentional infringement, but also concluded, relying in part on a Wikipedia entry, that the Terrible Mark is famous.
December 13, 2011 | Posted by Karin Scherner Aldama

Reiterating and expanding upon its recent holding in Perfect 10, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 653 F.3d 976 (9th Cir. 2011), described on this blog here, the Ninth Circuit has re-emphasized that litigants can no longer rely on a presumption of irreparable harm in seeking preliminary injunctions in copyright infringement—and possibly all other—cases. Flexible Lifeline Sys., Inc. v. Precision Lift, Inc., 654 F.3d 989 (9th Cir. 2011) (per curiam).