Bar Exam Toolbox Podcast Episode 148: Listen and Learn -- Claim and Issue Preclusion (Civil Procedure)
JONES DAY TALKS®: Women in IP: 2020 in Review and a Look Toward 2021
Recently, in Sanofi-Aventis v. Mylan, 2:17-cv-09105-SRC-CLW, Judge Stanley Chesler of the United States District Court, District of New Jersey, denied a motion by defendant Mylan for summary judgment of invalidity of asserted...more
The Federal Circuit recently vacated part of its decision from three months ago, which held that “the Commission’s trademark decisions, like its patent decisions, do not have preclusive effect.” We reported on that decision....more
It has been a few years since the Supreme Court decision in the case B&B Hardware, Inc. v. Hargis Industries, Inc., and we are beginning to see the aftermath in the district courts. In B&B Hardware, the Supreme Court held...more
Federal district courts continue to apply the Supreme Court’s ruling in B&B Hardware, Inc. v. Hargis Indus., Inc., 135 S.Ct. (2015) with unpredictable results. The latest such example comes from the Southern District of New...more
Last week, the TTAB agreed to vacate a precedential decision at the direction of a district court judge putting an end (for now) to a stand-off between the administrative body and the federal judiciary. As we have previously...more
2015 U.S. Trademark Developments Every Food and Beverage Lawyer Should Know - In 2015, U.S. courts provided trademark practitioners with several issues to discuss and debate. Identified and summarized below are the...more
Both Sides Claim Victory in ITC Ruling re Converse's "Chuck Taylors" - Why it matters: On November 17, 2015, an International Trade Commission judge issued an initial ruling in In the Matter of Certain Footwear...more
Trademark owners and practitioners who took heart in the Supreme Court's seemingly confined holding that issue preclusion can but does not necessarily apply to likelihood of confusion determinations by the Trademark Trial and...more
The U.S. Supreme Court recently issued a decision that may significantly impact how Trademark Trial and Appeal Board (“TTAB”) cases are litigated and whether potential litigants elect to forego TTAB litigation in certain...more
H.J. Heinz Co. (“Heinz”) filed a federal lawsuit recently against Boulder Brands USA (“Boulder”) seeking to vacate and reverse a Trademark Trial and Appeal Board decision finding that Boulder’s SMART BALANCE trademark is not...more
The America Invents Act (AIA) created several adjudicative proceedings within the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) of the U.S. Patent & Trademark Office, including inter partes review, post-grant review, and covered...more
In a 7-2 decision authored by Justice Alito, the Supreme Court held on March 24, 2015, that issue preclusion may apply to Trademark Trial and Appeal Board (TTAB) decisions. The case, B&B Hardware, Inc. v. Hargis Industries,...more
On April 27, the Supreme Court surprisingly denied certiorari in Escamilla v. M2 Tech., Inc., U.S., No. 14-1012 rather than remanding the case for further consideration in light of the High Court's recent decision in B&B...more
The Supreme Court Rules TTAB Findings May Have Preclusive Effect in Later Federal Court Proceedings - B&B and Hargis have long contested each other’s rights in the mark "SEALTIGHT" for fasteners. B&B was the first to...more
On March 24, the US Supreme Court issued a decision that is likely to raise the stakes of proceedings before the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board (TTAB). In B&B Hardware, Inc.v. Hargis Industries, Inc., No. 13-352 (March 24,...more
Opposition and cancellation proceedings before the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board (TTAB) may take on additional significance after the U.S. Supreme Court’s recent decision in B&B Hardware v. Hargis Industries, No. 13-352,...more
Did TTAB proceedings — until now considered a relatively obscure branch of IP litigation, conducted before an administrative body of which most attorneys are blissfully unaware — just assume greater importance? That seems...more
Issuing its second trademark decision in 2015, the Supreme Court of the United States in a 7–2 decision reversed the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit, concluding that an administrative ruling by the U.S. Patent...more
Adverse findings in trademark registration opposition and cancellation proceedings in the United States Patent and Trademark Office (PTO) may come back to bite the parties to these relatively inexpensive administrative...more
This week, the Supreme Court issued an important ruling that will significantly impact the way parties handle trademark disputes in the United States. The opinion in B&B Hardware, Inv. v. Hargis Industries, Inc., 575 U.S....more
On Tuesday, March 24, 2015, the U.S. Supreme Court issued its second decision in substantive trademark law in nearly a decade. B&B Hardware, Inc. v. Hargis Indus., Inc., No. 13-352, slip op. at 22, 575 U.S. __ (2015). ...more
Last week, the U.S. Supreme Court held that a ruling by the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board (TTAB) may be binding on a federal court that later hears the same issue. The Court's decision is likely to significantly affect the...more
In the landmark B&B Hardware, Inc. v. Hargis Industries, Inc. case the Supreme Court held that administrative Trademark Trial and Appeal Board (TTAB) decisions on likelihood of confusion may preclude the parties from...more
U.S. SUPREME COURT CASES - B&B Hardware, Inc. v. Hargis Industries, Inc., Potential Issue Preclusion on Likelihood of Confusion Rulings - On March 24, 2015, the United States Supreme Court ruled that that a...more
B&B Hardware, Inc. v. Hargis Industries, Inc., 575 U.S. _____ (2015). The U.S. Supreme Court on Tuesday ruled that federal court decisions on “likelihood of confusion” can be precluded by earlier findings on the same...more