On September 15, 2021, the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina imposed significant penalties on a defendant who defrauded thousands of trademark registration holders. The imposition of such...more
On February 14, 2020, the United States Patent and Trademark Office issued Revised Examination Guide 1-20, which addressed new mandatory electronic filing and specimen requirements and became effective on February 15, 2020....more
President Trump has signed Phase I of a much anticipated multi-part trade agreement between the United States and China with provisions that will aid the branded pharmaceutical industry. One of the main goals of the agreement...more
1/23/2020
/ China ,
Counterfeit Drugs ,
Criminal Liability ,
Dispute Resolution ,
Generic Drugs ,
Hatch-Waxman ,
Injunctive Relief ,
Intellectual Property Protection ,
Patent Infringement ,
Patents ,
Pharmaceutical Industry ,
Prescription Drugs ,
Trade Agreements ,
Trade Secrets ,
Trump Administration ,
US Trade Policies
The US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit has decided that patent owners may appeal the decisions of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) regarding the timeliness of inter partes review petitions under 35 U.S.C. §...more
1/16/2018
/ § 315(b) ,
Appeals ,
Broadcom ,
En Banc Review ,
Inter Partes Review (IPR) Proceeding ,
Judicial Review ,
Non-Appealable Decisions ,
Patent Trial and Appeal Board ,
Patents ,
Time-Barred Claims ,
USPTO
On October 4, 2017, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit issued a divided en banc decision in Aqua Products, Inc. v. Matal, vacating the Patent Trial and Appeal Board’s (PTAB) final written decision insofar as it...more
On September 21, 2017, the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in In re Cray, Inc. clarified the rules for determining proper venue in patent suits, building on the US Supreme Court’s May 2017 ruling in TC Heartland...more
As we implement the Eversheds Sutherland combination and expand our ability to serve clients around the globe, our US and international teams are working together to analyze issues impacting clients doing business in multiple...more
6/21/2017
/ America Invents Act ,
Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) ,
Anti-Money Laundering ,
Attorney-Client Privilege ,
Cross-Border ,
Enforcement Actions ,
EU ,
Legal Advice Privilege ,
Patent Litigation ,
Post-Grant Review ,
Privileged Communication ,
Tax Reform ,
UK ,
Website Accessibility
On June 23, in the popularly-termed “Brexit” referendum, the United Kingdom voted to exit the European Union, a decision which will have wide-ranging effects, including potential effects on intellectual property rights in the...more
6/27/2016
/ Community Trademark ,
EU ,
European Patent Convention ,
European Union Trade Mark (EUTM) ,
Intellectual Property Protection ,
Referendums ,
Trademark Registration ,
Treaty of Lisbon ,
UK ,
UK Brexit ,
Unitary Patent
On June 20, the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in Cuozzo Speed Technologies, LLC v. Lee, 2016 WL 3369425 (June 20, 2016) upheld the Patent Office’s long-held policy of construing a patent claim according to its broadest...more
6/22/2016
/ America Invents Act ,
Broadest Reasonable Interpretation Standard ,
Chevron Deference ,
Chevron v NRDC ,
Claim Construction ,
Cuozzo Speed Technologies ,
Cuozzo Speed Technologies v Lee ,
Inter Partes Review (IPR) Proceeding ,
Patent Litigation ,
Patent Trial and Appeal Board ,
SCOTUS ,
USPTO
On June 16, the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in Kirtsaeng v. John Wiley & Sons Inc., No. 15-375, resolved a circuit court split by reaffirming the test district courts should use to determine whether to award attorney’s fees...more
On June 13, the U.S. Supreme Court unanimously rejected the Federal Circuit’s rigid two-part test for awarding enhanced damages in patent cases. In two cases decided together, Halo Elecs., Inc. v. Pulse Elecs., Inc., and...more
6/15/2016
/ 35 U.S.C. § 284 ,
Enhanced Damages ,
Halo v Pulse ,
Judicial Discretion ,
Octane Fitness v. ICON ,
Patent Infringement ,
Patent Litigation ,
Patents ,
Preponderance of the Evidence ,
SCOTUS ,
Seagate ,
Stryker v Zimmer ,
Willful Infringement
The Defend Trade Secrets Act, signed into law on May 11, 2016, includes a whistleblower immunity notice provision. An employer that wants to preserve maximum recoveries for misappropriation against an employee should take...more
5/19/2016
/ Attorney's Fees ,
Confidential Information ,
Damages ,
Defend Trade Secrets Act (DTSA) ,
Employees ,
Employment Contract ,
Immunity ,
Independent Contractors ,
Intellectual Property Protection ,
Misappropriation ,
New Legislation ,
Notice Requirements ,
Trade Secrets ,
Whistleblower Protection Policies
After overwhelming passage in both the House and Senate, President Obama signed the Defend Trade Secrets Act into law on April 11, 2016. The Act provides a truly uniform, nationwide set of standards for protecting trade...more
As expected, overwhelming support for the Defend Trade Secrets Act of 2016 led to its passage in the U.S. House of Representatives yesterday by a 410-2 vote. During the floor debate, one Congressman noted that “Congress has...more
4/29/2016
/ Asset Seizure ,
Defend Trade Secrets Act (DTSA) ,
Employment Contract ,
Ex Parte ,
Intellectual Property Protection ,
Misappropriation ,
Pending Legislation ,
Private Right of Action ,
Remedies ,
Trade Secrets ,
Whistleblower Protection Policies
The U.S. Senate has unanimously approved a bill increasing the protections available to companies for their commercial secrets. The Defend Trade Secrets Act of 2016 (DTSA or the Act) provides for the first time a truly...more
4/12/2016
/ Corporate Counsel ,
Defend Trade Secrets Act (DTSA) ,
Employment Contract ,
Intellectual Property Protection ,
Misappropriation ,
Pending Legislation ,
Popular ,
Private Right of Action ,
Remedies ,
Trade Secrets ,
Uniform Trade Secrets Acts ,
Whistleblower Protection Policies
In its first substantive trademark ruling in more than a decade, the U.S. Supreme Court unanimously held on January 21, in Hana Financial, Inc. v. Hana Bank et al., No. 13-1211, that tacking – which is whether two trademarks...more
In Halo Electronics, Inc. v. Pulse Electronics, Inc., 2013-1472, - 1656 (October 22, 2014), the Federal Circuit concluded that there was no direct infringement when substantial activities of a sales transaction – including...more