News & Analysis as of

Constitutional Law Intellectual Property

Read Constitutional Law updates, alerts, news, and analysis from leading lawyers and law firms:

Advertising Law - July 2017 #3

Twitter Working to Limit Fake Stories, Accounts - In an effort to combat fake accounts, false stories and other abuses, Twitter is considering the use of a new feature to let users flag Tweets that contain misleading,...more

The First Amendment Protects The Trademark Registrability Of THE SLANTS And THE WASHINGTON REDSKINS Irrespective Of Political...

by Weintraub Tobin on

In 2014, the Washington Redskins lost a battle before the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board (“TTAB”) where the petitioner, a group of Native American activists, sought cancellation of the “Washington Redskins” trademark, which...more

The PTAB Grants the University of Minnesota Sovereign Immunity but does not Terminate IPR

by Knobbe Martens on

The PTAB has again addressed sovereign immunity in the context of an IPR. Reactive Surfaces, LTD. petitioned for IPR of U.S. Patents No. 8,394,618 and 8,252,571. The ’618 and ’571 patents are co-owned by Toyota Motor...more

Are State-Owned Patents Immune From IPRs Under The Eleventh Amendment?

by Foley & Lardner LLP on

In separate non-precedential decisions issued by three different panels, the PTAB has permitted state university patent owners to invoke the Eleventh Amendment in Inter Partes Review proceedings. Each panel found that IPR...more

French Court Rules on Patent Revocation Interest to Sue, Statutes of Limitation

by Jones Day on

On April 28, 2017, the French tribunal de grande instance de Paris issued an interesting decision regarding both standing to sue and statute of limitations applicable to patent revocation actions....more

Who Has Standing to Oppose or Cancel My Trademark?

by Revision Legal on

The first question in any trademark opposition or cancellation proceeding is likely a question of whether the opposer (for opposition proceedings) or petitioner (for cancellation proceedings) has standing to pursue the...more

MoFo IP Newsletter - July 2017

by Morrison & Foerster LLP on

Supreme Court Hits Reset on Patent Venue Law in TC Heartland - In the recent TC Heartland LLC v. Kraft Foods Group Brands LLC decision, the Supreme Court reversed nearly thirty years of patent venue law and held that a...more

Intellectual Property Law - July 2017

SCOTUS: For Patent Venue, Domestic Corporations ‘Reside’ Where Incorporated - Why it matters: On May 22, 2017, the Supreme Court issued its decision in TC Heartland LLC v. Kraft Foods Group Brands LLC—rejecting...more

Free speech legal battle changes law on disparaging trademarks

by McAfee & Taft on

Last month, in Matal v. Tam, the U.S. Supreme Court affirmed the Federal Circuit Court of Appeal’s decision that struck down a portion of Section 2(a) of the Lanham Act....more

Outside Constitutional Protection, Within Anti-SLAPP Statute

by McDermott Will & Emery on

Addressing the issue of defending against claims seeking to remedy alleged misappropriation or misuse of a business’s trade secrets or confidential information by invoking the Texas Citizens Participation Act (TCPA), the...more

News from Abroad -- UK Progress on Unitary Patent (UP) and Unified Patent Court (UPC)

The UK has become the ninth state to deposit the document required to apply the Protocol on Provisional Application (PPA), which is an essential step towards formation of the UPC. Four more deposits, including that of...more

Three Questions from the Supreme Court’s Decision on “Offensive” Trademarks

by Dickinson Wright on

Last week the Supreme Court ruled that the Trademark Office may not refuse federal registration to a trademark merely because the mark is “disparaging.” The decision has attracted a lot of media attention, much of it...more

Band Trademark Can Rock On: Lanham Act Disparagement Clause Unconstitutional

by McDermott Will & Emery on

In an 8–0 decision, the Supreme Court of the United States affirmed an en banc panel of the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit and found the disparagement clause of the Lanham Act to be facially unconstitutional...more

Does IPR Extinguish Private Property Rights?

by McDermott Will & Emery on

The Supreme Court of the United States granted certiorari to decide whether only Art. III federal courts, not executive branch tribunals such as the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB), can decide whether a patent is...more

Boletín Mensual de Telecomunicaciones - Junio 2017

by Holland & Knight LLP on

Las siguientes publicaciones fueron hechas por autoridades del gobierno federal durante Junio de 2017 en relación con el Sector de Telecomunicaciones de México....more

UPC Edging Closer Towards Reality, German Challenge Remains

by White & Case LLP on

Battling continued headwind, the Unified Patent Court (UPC) took another step toward reality in Europe this week, as the UK laid before Parliament the Order on Privileges and Immunities for the UPC....more

Supreme Court Rules Trademarks are Protected by First Amendment's Free Speech Clause

by Best Best & Krieger LLP on

Trademarks do not constitute government speech, the U.S. Supreme Court recently ruled. Instead, trademarks qualify as speech protected by the First Amendment Free Speech Clause. As a result, the government cannot reject a...more

Mexico Telecommunications Update - June 2017

by Holland & Knight LLP on

The following announcements were made by public government authorities in June 2017 regarding Mexico's telecommunications sector: Public Call for Official Approval as Telecommunications and Broadcasting Expert - The...more

Bring on the Bad Word Brands? What the Supreme Court's Decision in Matal v. Tam Means for Trademark Owners

The Supreme Court’s June 19, 2017 decision in the Matal v. Tam case has been burning-up the news wires all week. The decision struck down a 70-year-old ban on federally registering disparaging trademarks, finding that the...more

Matal v. Tam: Supreme Court Rules USPTO Prohibition of Offensive Marks Based On Disparagement Clause Is Unconstitutional Under...

Historically, the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (PTO) has refused to register trademarks considered to be offensive in that they disparaged a particular person, group or institution. Now the PTO cannot deny the...more

What’s In a Name?

by Pessin Katz Law, P.A. on

On June 19, 2017, Justice Samuel A. Alito, delivered the unanimous opinion of the United States Supreme Court (the “Court”) in Matal v Tam, No. 15-1293, Oct. Term, 2016, argued January 18, 2017. Simply stated, the Court...more

Federal Circuit Denies Motion to Stay Pending Supreme Court Decision in Oil States

by Jones Day on

On June 12, 2017, the U.S. Supreme Court granted certiorari in Oil States Energy Servs., LLC v. Greene’s Energy Group, LLC, to decide whether inter partes review (IPR) violates the Constitution by extinguishing patent rights...more

Trademark Act Offends Free Speech

by SmithAmundsen LLC on

The Supreme Court ruled that the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) may not deny registration of trademarks on the basis that they are offensive or hateful. As previously discussed, in In re Simon Shiao...more

Supreme Court Holds Disparagement Clause Unconstitutional

by Perkins Coie on

In a much anticipated decision, the U.S. Supreme Court held in Matal v. Tam, 582 U.S. ___ (June 19, 2017) that a provision of the Lanham Act banning the registration of marks considered disparaging to “persons, institutions,...more

The Dilution Delusion?

I hesitate to add to the fallout from Matal v. Tam, the Supreme Court’s decision last week invalidating the disparagement clause of Section 2(a) of the Trademark Act. That said, here I go....more

975 Results
|
View per page
Page: of 39
Cybersecurity

Follow Constitutional Law Updates on:

"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 using*

Already signed up? Log in here

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