Constitutional Law Intellectual Property Civil Procedure

Read Constitutional Law updates, alerts, news, and analysis from leading lawyers and law firms:
News & Analysis as of

The SLANTS Trademark Will Play One More Gig: U.S. Supreme Court to Decide Constitutionality of Ban on Disparaging Trademarks

The U.S. Supreme Court announced today that it will review whether the U.S. Trademark Office can deny registration of offensive trademarks or whether such prohibition violates the First Amendment. The dispute affects the...more

Of Slants, Skins And Signs: The Supreme Court Grants Certiorari

We have been following the course of In re Tam as it has progressed through the PTO and the courts. To recap, at issue is whether Section 2(a) of the Lanham Act, which prohibits the registration of marks that may disparage...more

Will anyone be offended if the Supreme Court finds the disparagement provision of the Lanham Act invalid?

Yesterday, the Supreme Court of the United States announced that it has granted certiorari in Lee v. Tam, a case closely followed by trademark law gurus. Lee is before the Court after the United States Court of Appeals for...more

“Disparaging” Federal Trademark Registrations: Gearing Up for the Main Event

Today the Supreme Court agreed to decide an ongoing conflict, pitting a trademark registrant’s First Amendment rights against longstanding law precluding trademark registration of “disparaging” marks....more

Supreme Court to Review Whether “Offensive” Names Can Be Trademarked

The U.S. Supreme Court agreed today to review the Federal Circuit’s decision to strike down the Lanham Act’s ban on “disparaging” trademarks. The case, Lee v. Tam, No. 15-1293, involved an Asian American dance-rock band’s...more

Supreme Court Corner: Q3 2016

CASES WE ARE WATCHING - Lee v. Tam TRADEMARK – Cert. Pending Pro-Football, Inc. v. Amanda Blackhorse, et al. TRADEMARK – Cert. Pending ISSUE: Whether the Lanham Act’s disparagement clause violates the...more

Federal Circuit Overturns PTAB Denial of Motion to Amend Claims in IPR Proceeding

Veritas Technologies LLC v. Veeam Software Corp., No. 2015-1894 (Fed. Cir. Aug. 30, 2016). On recurring controversy in AIA trials is the difficulty patent owners face meeting the PTAB’s strict requirements for amending...more

Hartig Drug Co. v. Senju Pharmaceutical Co. (3rd Cir. 2016)

Perhaps one of the most influential first year law school classes for the task of learning how to "think like a lawyer" is civil procedure. Particularly when the professor is bold enough to engage students on the intricacies...more

Compliance with PTAB’s Requirements for Motion to Amend Arbitrary and Capricious?

In Veritax Technologies LLC, v. Veeam Software Corp., [2015-1894] (August 30, 2016), the Federal Circuit vacated the PTAB’s denial of the patent owner’s motion to amend in IPR2014-00090 as arbitrary and capricious....more

Student Athletes Fight to Keep Fantasy Sports-Related Right of Publicity Claims Alive

Last week, the plaintiff collegiate athletes in a putative class action lawsuit pending in the Southern District Court of Indiana filed their opposition to FanDuel and DraftKings’ respective motions to dismiss. The...more

The 100-Day Program at the ITC

In light of Audio Processing Hardware, it is now clear that, with respect to appeals of ITC 100-day program determinations, Commission determinations against a complainant are immediately appealable, while determinations in...more

Lights Out for Invalidity and Unenforceability Counterclaims After PTAB Invalidates Design Patent

Flipping the switch on the last remaining claims in the case, a Massachusetts Court recently dismissed as moot two defendants’ counterclaims for declaratory judgment of invalidity and unenforceability following a PTAB...more

July 2016: Appellate Update

The Effects of an Eight-Justice Supreme Court. Since Justice Scalia’s passing in February, the Supreme Court has operated with only eight justices, and it will continue to do so for as long as the Senate declines to consider...more

Medina v. Dash Films Inc. - USDC, S.D. New York, July 14, 2016

District court dismisses trademark infringement action against Kanye West and others, finding that defendants’ film series title “Loisaidas” is protected by First Amendment because it has artistic relevance, title is not...more

No Budding in Line Washington Redskins

In a case with special significance to our DuetsBlog crew (our founder Steve Baird started the fight to cancel the THE REDSKINS trademark registrations in 1992 – see more about the Harjo case here) and significant to...more

Supreme Court’s Cuozzo Decision Endorses AIA Trial Proceedings, But Preserves Key Roles for both the PTAB and Federal Courts in...

In Cuozzo Speed Techs., LLC v. Lee,[i] the U.S. Supreme Court rejected the patent owner’s challenge to the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office’s implementation of the Leahy-Smith America Invents Act’s new post grant proceedings....more

After Inventor Dies, Patent Infringement Lawsuit Is Dismissed for Lack of Standing on Court's Own Motion

Chris Tavantzis and ChrisTrikes Custom Motorcycles, Inc. ("ChrisTrikes") filed a complaint against a number of individuals and entities that allegedly infringed on a patent for a wheelchair-accessible motorcycle (the...more

Business Litigation Report - June 2016

Federal Circuit Recognizes New, but Limited, Privilege for Patent Agent Communications - Introduction - Patent agents are licensed to practice before the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”), and...more

Federal Circuit Review | June 2016

The PTAB Does Not Have to Consider New Arguments Raised in IPR Reply Briefs - In Intelligent Bio-Systems, Inc. v. Illumina Cambridge Ltd., Appeal No. 2015-1693, the Federal Circuit upheld a PTAB decision finding of...more

Federal Circuit Recognizes New, but Limited, Privilege for Patent Agent Communications

Introduction - Patent agents are licensed to practice before the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”), and perform the same duties as patent attorneys in proceedings before the USPTO, including preparing...more

Supreme Court Upholds the PTAB’s Status Quo in Cuozzo

On June 20, 2016, the Supreme Court issued its opinion in Cuozzo Speed Technologies, LLC v. Lee, which unanimously upheld the “broadest reasonable construction” claim construction standard (BRI) used by the Patent Trial and...more

Supreme Court Maintains Status Quo on Broadest Reasonable Claim Interpretation Test and Non-Appealability of Institution Decisions

On June 20, 2016, the U.S. Supreme Court issued its opinion in Cuozzo Speed Technologies LLC v. Lee, No. 15-4461, an appeal of an institution and cancellation decision in the first-ever petition for inter partes review...more

Cuozzo Speed Technologies, LLC v. Lee (2016) -- Question 2 -- PTAB Shenanigans and Reviewability

The saga of the first-filed IPR petition (IPR2012-00001) came to a close today when the Supreme Court decided the Cuozzo Speed Technologies, LLC v. Lee case. We have been following this case ever since the PTAB issued its...more

US Supreme Court affirms Federal Circuit on IPR Claim Construction Standard and that IPR Institution Decisions are Final and...

Yesterday, the US Supreme Court affirmed the Federal Circuit in Cuozzo v. Lee by confirming (i) the US Patent and Trademark Office ("PTO") application of the broadest reasonable construction ("BRI") standard to claim...more

Supreme Court Affirms “Broadest Reasonable Interpretation” Claim Construction Standard and Limited Appeals For AIA Trials

On June 20, 2016, the U.S. Supreme Court decided Cuozzo Speed Technologies, LLC v. Lee, No. 15-446. The Court affirmed the decision of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, holding that the USPTO acted within its...more

426 Results
|
View per page
Page: of 18

Follow Constitutional Law Updates on:

JD Supra Readers' Choice 2016 Awards

"My best business intelligence, in one easy email…"

Your first step to building a free, personalized, morning email brief covering pertinent authors and topics on JD Supra:

Sign up to create your digest using LinkedIn*

*By using the service, you signify your acceptance of JD Supra's Privacy Policy.

Already signed up? Log in here

*With LinkedIn, you don't need to create a separate login to manage your free JD Supra account, and we can make suggestions based on your needs and interests. We will not post anything on LinkedIn in your name. Or, sign up using your email address.
×