Having departed from our usual genre to write seriously about Bilski, we now return to the humorous, the ridiculous, and the pathetic, and report on a case which would appeal to the Addams Family and the Munsters. (In the Matter of: Certain Caskets)

Every now and then, we take time from our primary function – entertaining our readers – to write about something of legal significance. This is one such instance.

Proving that someone is reading our blog, one reader wrote in to inform us that we had overstated the holding in the below-identified case. We, therefore, reprint this blog post in amended form.

We have repeatedly advised our readers about proper royalty bases for damages calculations. Well, apparently some people are either not reading our blogs or can’t take advice. (LaserDynamics Inc. v. Quanta Computer, Inc. et al.)

Some time ago, we wrote a blog post concerning the travails of one Joel Tenenbaum. For those among our legion of faithful readers who are short of memory, Joel was sued by Sony BMG Music for using file-sharing software to download and share 30 songs in violation of their copyrights. We didn’t say “alleged” because, at trial, he admitted to these dastardly acts.

In the course of our extensive coverage of the spreading plague of patent false-marking suits, we opined that the courts were likely to focus on “standing” – or the lack thereof – as a means of reining in runaway trolls. Well, we were right. (Shizzle Pop, LLC v. Aviva Sports, Inc. et al. and United States of America, et al. v. WHAM-O, Inc.) (Yes, folks, a TWOFER.)

Sometimes an infringer (slimeball), having been dragged into court, does everything it can to obstruct the orderly progress of the litigation and, in the process, annoys the judge. Such tactics have their price. (ReedHycalog UK, Ltd. et al. v. Diamond Innovations Inc.)

Lawyers are always on the lookout for new ways to make a buck, as evidenced by the recent emergence of the "marking troll".

Newspapers, especially local or neighborhood newspapers, are wont to publish brief articles lauding local individuals or businesses, so-called “puff pieces.” The individuals or businesses are wont to copy these articles onto their websites, blogs, or other electronic forms of self-aggrandizement.

One would have thought that it is now well settled that joint infringement of a method claim, i.e. infringement where some of the steps are performed by one party and the remaining steps are performed by another party, can only occur when one of the parties exercises “control or direction” over the entire infringing process. Well, apparently not. (Golden Hour Data Systems, Inc. v. emsCharts, Inc. and Softtech LLC.)

Lest the reader think that IP law is boring and stodgy, we recount the recent Battle Of The Bras. (Plew v. Limited Brands Inc. et al.)

Katerina Plew is the inventor of a bra with multiple strap configurations. (For legal scholars who wish to really reach into this subject, see U.S.P.N. 6,733,362). Limited Brands is a company known to all by its nom de cleavage, Victoria’s Secret.

Sometimes you can make a decision which comes back to haunt you more than a century later. (Anheuser-Busch Inc. v. OHIM and Budejovicky Budvar NP)