Intellectual Property Constitutional Law

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

This Year’s Top Ten IP Cases

#10 Design Patent Damages § 289 - Samsung Elecs. Co., v. Apple Inc., 580 U.S. _ (Dec. 6, 2016) - In the case of a multicomponent product, the relevant article of manufacture for arriving at a damages award under...more

Federal Circuit Requires Standing to Appeal PTAB’s Final Decisions

Although arguably foreshadowed, some may be surprised to learn that a party with the right to challenge the validity of a patent at the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”) may not have the right to appeal an...more

Federal Circuit Finds IPR Petitioner Lacks Standing To Appeal

On January 9, 2017, in Phigenix, Inc. v. Immunogen, Inc., the Federal Circuit held that petitioner Phigenix lacked standing to appeal an adverse final written decision in an IPR. While acknowledging that the AIA permits a...more

Federal Circuit Requires Standing To Appeal An IPR Decision

In the case of Phygenix, Inc. v. ImmunoGen, Inc., the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) held that the petitioner (Phygenix) that had unsuccessfully challenged certain claims of ImmunoGen’s U.S. Patent No....more

Losing IPR Petitioners May Lack Standing To Appeal

When the Patent Trial and Appeal Board issues a final written decision finding against an IPR Petitioner, can that Petitioner necessarily appeal that adverse decision? In a case of first impression, the Federal Circuit...more

An IPR Does Not Necessarily Have Standing to Appeal if it Loses

In Phigenix, Inc. v. ImmunoGen, Inc., [2016-1544] (January 9, 2017), the Federal Circuit held that Phigenix, the losing petitioner in an IPR, lacked standing to appeal the PTAB’s decision that claims 1–8 of U.S. Patent No....more

Federal Circuit Dismisses IPR Appeal for Lack of Standing

In Phigenix v. ImmunoGen, Appeal No. 16-1544 (Fed. Cir. Jan. 9, 2017), a precedential decision, the Federal Circuit found that the petitioner lacked standing to appeal the Patent Trial and Appeal Board’s (PTAB) final written...more

U.S. Supreme Court to Hear Arguments on January 18, 2017 in “The Slants” Case.

As we reported to you last September, the U.S. Supreme Court agreed to hear the case involving the constitutionality of the provisions of the Lanham Act upon which the U.S. Trademark Office relied to deny registration of the...more

Phigenix, Inc. v. ImmunoGen, Inc. (Fed. Cir. 2016)

Can any petitioner appeal a Board's final written decision from an inter partes review or post grant review proceeding? Contrary to the language of 35 U.S.C. § 141(c) which permits any party "who is dissatisfied with" the...more

Who Owns IP Rights in the Age of Artificial Intelligence?

AI raises issues that go to the very foundations of intellectual property law, including the economic incentive to encourage certain activities, and the “moral rights” associating with according credit to authors....more

Trademark Year In Review And What Lies Ahead: The Lanham Act’s New Year’s Resolutions For 2017

2016 is now in the rear view mirror. At the beginning of a new year, we often take a moment to reflect on the past year, while setting goals for the present. It’s a time to say, “Last year had its ups and downs, but this...more

Employment Law 2016 Review

Preparing for Medical Marijuana in Pennsylvania - Marijuana legalization reached Pennsylvania in 2016, bringing with it a host of new questions employers are going to have to answer. Signed into law on April 17, the...more

Louis Vuitton Left Holding the Bag

In Louis Vuitton Malletier S.A. v. My Other Bag, Inc., [16-241-cv] (December 22, 2016), the Second Circuit affirmed summary judgment for My Other Bag that its parody bag did not infringe or dilute Louis Vuitton’s trademark...more

Seven IP Cases to Watch in Early 2017

SCA Hygiene AB v. First Quality Baby Products. LLC (Docket No. 15-927, S. Ct.) - In SCA Hygiene AB v. First Quality Baby Products LLC,the Supreme Court will consider “[w]hether and to what extent the defense of laches...more

Federal Circuit PTAB Appeal Statistics – December 2016

Through December 1, 2016, the Federal Circuit decided 141 PTAB appeals from IPRs and CBMs. The Federal Circuit affirmed the PTAB on every issue in 109 (77.30%) of the cases, and reversed or vacated the PTAB on every issue in...more

Exploring the Legal Contours of Patent Subject Matter Eligibility

I'd like to go back to some first principles and history. Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution neatly divided the promotion of, on the one hand: Science, the fields of knowledge and ideas, by securing exclusive...more

3D Printing of Manufactured Goods: An Updated Analysis

(NEW YORK) December 15, 2016 – Reed Smith LLP today released “3D Printing of Manufactured Goods: An Updated Analysis,” a comprehensive new white paper that provides in-house counsel and industry leaders with an in-depth look...more

Copyright and Trademark Case Review: John Madden Football, Rhett Butler and the Commerce Clause

Copyright Opinions - Absence of Source Code for Video Games Results in JMOL of Non-Infringement: Antonick v. Electronic Arts, Inc., No. 14-15298 (9th Cir. Nov. 22, 2016). Hurwitz, J. In a suit for royalties on EA's...more

Google v. The Court: Free Speech and IP Rights (Part 2)

Last week, hearings concluded in the important case of Google Inc. v. Equustek Solutions Inc., et al. The Supreme Court of Canada (SCC) will render its judgment in writing, and the current expectation is that it will clarify...more

The Supreme Court - December, 2016

The Supreme Court of the United States granted certiorari in seven cases on Friday afternoon: Impression Products, Inc. v. Lexmark International, Inc., No. 15-1189: 1) Whether a "conditional sale" that transfers title to...more

Supreme Court Update: Bravo-Fernandez V. United States (15-537) And Order List

12.2.2016 Greetings Court Fans! The Court issued its first signed opinion of the term this week, a unanimous decision in Bravo-Fernandez v. United States (15-537) holding that the Double Jeopardy Clause does not bar the...more

Spotlight on Upcoming Oral Arguments – December 2016

Monday December 5, 2016 - Voxathon v. FCA, No. 16-1614, Courtroom 201 - This decision arises from a E.D. Tex. case in which the court held that Voxathon’s claims directed to a telephone set with multiple call...more

No Love for ♥ DC

In a case before the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board (“Board”), the Board cancelled and abandoned the trademark registration and trademark application for the I "Heart" DC marks owned by an individual, Jonathan A. Chien...more

When Trademark Registration is a Nice Gesture

Representations of gestures can be trademarks. For example Facebook’s Application No. 85020073 covers a depiction of a thumbs up gesture followed with the word “LIKE” in a rectangle...more

More Than Zero: Under the Lanham Act, One Interstate Sale Qualifies as Actual Use of a Trademark in Commerce

In 2009, the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office rejected shoe manufacturer Adidas’s application to trademark the phrase “ADIZERO,” due to a likelihood of confusion with an existing mark: “ADD A ZERO,” a clothing trademark held...more

816 Results
|
View per page
Page: of 33

Follow Intellectual Property Updates on:

Popular Topics

"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.
×