Intellectual Property Law Blog
JANUARY 11, 2023
Mask work is a type of intellectual property protection designed to protect layout designs (topographies) of integrated circuits. Under the SCPA, a mask work is a series of related images that forms a design or part of a design used to produce an integrated circuit. Copyright Office by year for the last 10 years.
Intellectual Property Law Blog
JANUARY 11, 2023
Understanding Mask Work Mask work is a type of intellectual property protection designed to protect layout designs (topographies) of integrated circuits. Under the SCPA, a mask work is a series of related images that forms a design or part of a design used to produce an integrated circuit. In particular, Section 1213.2
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
Patently-O
NOVEMBER 21, 2021
Mennell, Koret Professor of Law; Director, Berkeley Center for Law & Technology; Faculty Director, Berkeley Judicial Institute; University of California at Berkeley School of Law, and Ella Corren, University of California at Berkeley School of Law, J.S.D.
JIPEL Copyright Blog
APRIL 26, 2021
How does an influencer and fashion designer become so despised? In this case, via alleged copyright infringement. TGE claimed Bernstein copied their signature pattern of nude female silhouette line drawings, which had been printed on their tissue paper since the store’s inception in 2016. The account and its 2.6
IPilogue
OCTOBER 26, 2022
The Code of the Cultural and Landscape Heritage’s legal force is separate from copyright laws and remains in effect when copyright protection does not. The Italian Code , which came into effect in 2004 and was updated in 2016, operates independently from copyright law.
LexBlog IP
JANUARY 11, 2023
Mask work is a type of intellectual property protection designed to protect layout designs (topographies) of integrated circuits. Under the SCPA, a mask work is a series of related images that forms a design or part of a design used to produce an integrated circuit. Copyright Office by year for the last 10 years.
IPilogue
DECEMBER 9, 2022
In the verdict form the jury stated that Defendants had not proven fair use, the Plaintiff (Alexander) should receive $3,750 USD for actual losses from the Defendant’s use of the tattoo designs, and did not answer as to profits can be attributed to the Plaintiff for use of the tattoos. Citing Muhammad-Ali v. Final Call, Inc.,
Expert insights. Personalized for you.
189 
Let's personalize your content