Claude
ChatGPT
PerplexityKSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc.
Replaced the rigid teaching-suggestion-motivation test with a flexible obviousness inquiry.
Practice Area Spotlight
Intellectual Property
IP litigators turn to Midpage for legal analysis grounded in case law, statutes, regulations, and agency guidance. Explore our IP-specific content and use cases below.
How IP Lawyers Use Midpage
Browse to see how Midpage works through IP questions from real lawyers.
Reasonable-Royalty ApportionmentSummarize how courts apply the Georgia-Pacific factors after VirnetX when apportioning reasonable-royalty damages for multi-component products.Obviousness & Motivation to CombineLook up KSR v Teleflex's obviousness framework and draft arguments for a motivation-to-combine dispute involving prior art references from unrelated fields.Claim ConstructionHow have district courts applied Phillips v. AWH when intrinsic evidence conflicts with expert testimony on claim term meaning?§ 285 Fee-ShiftingExplain how courts construe "exceptional case" under 35 U.S.C. § 285 after Octane Fitness, citing recent Federal Circuit decisions.Registration PreconditionExplain the registration precondition of 17 U.S.C. § 411(a) after Fourth Estate and its effect on our filing timeline.Fair Use After WarholHow have courts applied Warhol v. Goldsmith's transformativeness analysis to commercial uses of photographs in the past two years?DMCA Safe HarborDraft a brief section arguing our client satisfies the DMCA § 512(c) safe harbor. Look up Viacom v. YouTube on red-flag knowledge.Works Made for HireFind cases applying CCNV v. Reid's agency factors to determine whether freelance software developers created works made for hire.Parody & Source IdentificationHow have courts applied Jack Daniel's v. VIP Products when parody defendants use marks as source identifiers? Collect cases with outcomes.Genericness & Survey EvidenceResearch cases to analyze how courts assess genericness after USPTO v. Booking.com, including survey evidence standards, for a "generic.com"-style mark.Extraterritorial InfringementHow have courts applied Abitron v. Hetronic's domestic use requirement to online sales shipped from abroad? Find post-2023 decisions.Secondary Meaning: Color MarksFind Second Circuit cases on secondary meaning for color marks in fashion after Louboutin, summarizing the proof each court credited.
Core IP Collections
The statutes, regulations, agency materials, and courts behind IP litigation.
Statutes
The federal acts governing each intellectual property right — patents, copyright, trademarks, and trade secrets — section by section.
| Patent Act Eligibility (§ 101), novelty & obviousness (§§ 102–103), written description, enablement & definiteness (§ 112), infringement (§ 271), Hatch-Waxman safe harbor (§ 271(e)(1)), validity, defenses & remedies (§§ 282–289), post-grant review (§§ 311–329), design patents (§§ 171–173) | 35 U.S.C. |
| Copyright Act Definitions & fixation (§ 101), exclusive rights (§ 106), fair use (§ 107), first sale (§ 109), DMCA safe harbor (§ 512), anti-circumvention (§§ 1201–1205), mask works (§§ 901–914) | 17 U.S.C. |
| Lanham Act Registration (§§ 1051–1072), infringement (§ 1114), remedies (§§ 1116–1117), false designation & trade dress (§ 1125(a)), dilution (§ 1125(c)), cybersquatting (§ 1125(d)) | 15 U.S.C. |
| Defend Trade Secrets Act Civil remedies (§ 1836), definitions (§ 1839), economic espionage & trade secret theft (§§ 1831–1832) | 18 U.S.C. |
| Customs duties — import enforcement Exclusion of infringing imports (§ 1526), Section 337 unfair import practices (§ 1337) | 19 U.S.C. |
| Judiciary & judicial procedure IP venue & transfer (§§ 1400–1406), Federal Circuit jurisdiction (§ 1295), interlocutory appeals (§ 1292) | 28 U.S.C. |
Regulations
The CFR parts implementing patent and trademark practice, copyright registration, and customs border enforcement.
| Code of Federal Regulations — Patents Prosecution & examination (Part 1), assignments (Part 3), representation & practitioner conduct (Part 11), board appeals (Part 41), PTAB trials (Part 42) | 37 CFR |
| Code of Federal Regulations — Trademarks Application & registration (Part 2), assignments (Part 3), Madrid Protocol filings (Part 7), representation & practitioner conduct (Part 11) | 37 CFR |
| Code of Federal Regulations — Copyright Office General provisions & recordation (Part 201), registration (Part 202), FOIA (Part 203), Privacy Act (Part 204), legal processes (Part 205) | 37 CFR Ch. II |
| Code of Federal Regulations — Customs & Border Protection Trademark and copyright border enforcement measures (Part 133) | 19 CFR |
| Federal Register Rules USPTO, Copyright Office, ITC, and CBP final and proposed rulemakings | 1994–present |
Agency Decisions & Guidance
PTAB and TTAB decisions, the MPEP and TMEP examination manuals, and guidance from the Copyright Office, ITC, and FDA.
| USPTO Patent Trial & Appeal BoardComing soon IPR, PGR, derivation, and ex parte appeals | Decisions |
| USPTO Trademark Trial & Appeal BoardComing soon Opposition, cancellation, and ex parte appeals | Decisions |
| U.S. International Trade CommissionComing soon Unfair import investigations and exclusion orders | Section 337 |
| WIPO / UDRPComing soon ICANN UDRP administrative domain name proceedings | Domain disputes |
Courts & Tribunals
The appellate, trial, and administrative forums where IP disputes are heard — from the Federal Circuit to the ITC.
| Appellate U.S. Supreme Court; U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit; all 13 federal circuits; all 50 state supreme and appellate courts |
| Trial U.S. District Courts — including major IP venues such as D. Del., N.D. Cal., and S.D.N.Y., plus remaining federal district courts nationwide |
| Administrative U.S. International Trade Commission (Section 337); U.S. Patent Trial & Appeal Board (PTAB); U.S. Trademark Trial & Appeal Board (TTAB) |
Key Cases
The controlling authorities — linked to full text, treatment, and citing decisions in Midpage.
Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank Int’l
The two-step framework for patent eligibility of abstract ideas under § 101.
Amgen Inc. v. Sanofi
Genus claims must be enabled across their full scope, not just for exemplary embodiments.
Andy Warhol Found. v. Goldsmith
Narrowed transformative fair use where the new work shares the original’s commercial purpose.
Google LLC v. Oracle Am., Inc.
Reimplementing the Java API declarations was fair use as a matter of law.
Jack Daniel’s Props., Inc. v. VIP Prods. LLC
Rogers does not shield parody when the mark is used as a source identifier.
Kewanee Oil Co. v. Bicron Corp.
State trade secret law survives federal patent preemption.
Impression Prods., Inc. v. Lexmark Int’l, Inc.
Any authorized sale — domestic or foreign — exhausts patent rights.