News & Analysis as of

Supreme Court of the United States › United States Patent and Trademark Office

The United States Supreme Court is the highest court of the United States and is charged with interpreting federal law, including the United States Constitution. The Court's docket is largely discretionary... more +
The United States Supreme Court is the highest court of the United States and is charged with interpreting federal law, including the United States Constitution. The Court's docket is largely discretionary with only a limited number of cases granted review each term.  The Court is comprised of one chief justice and eight associate justices, who are nominated by the President and confirmed by the Senate to hold lifetime positions. less -
Foley & Lardner LLP

Alice Patent Eligibility Analysis Divergence Before USPTO and District Court

Foley & Lardner LLP on

The Mayo/Alice framework for determining subject matter eligibility of patents under 35 U.S.C. §101 has long since antagonized both patent prosecutors and litigators alike, causing significant uncertainty in the realm of...more

Erise IP

Eye on IPRs, July 2024: Impact of the End of Chevron on USPTO; PTAB Filings Are Up; and More

Erise IP on

Every month, Erise’s patent attorneys review the latest inter partes review (IPR) cases and news to bring you the stories that you should know about: What Does the End of Chevron Deference Mean for the USPTO? In June, the...more

Fish & Richardson

How the Timing of Director Review May Affect Co-Pending Litigation

Fish & Richardson on

Director Review at the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) remains a hot topic in patent law. The Director first established an interim process for Director Review in the wake of the Supreme Court’s 2021 decision in United...more

Mintz - Intellectual Property Viewpoints

Supreme Court Doesn’t Want to Play the Name Game: Prohibition Against Using a Person’s Name in a Registered Mark Without Consent...

Mintz - Intellectual Property Viewpoints on

On June 13, 2024, the Supreme Court held that the Lanham Act’s prohibition on registering trademarks utilizing another person's name without consent was constitutional. In Vidal v. Elster 602 U. S. ____ (2024), the Supreme...more

Rothwell, Figg, Ernst & Manbeck, P.C.

This Summer in Artificial Intelligence: Newly Released USPTO Guidance and Exemplary Worldwide Inventorship Updates

Rothwell, Figg, Ernst & Manbeck, P.C. on

The United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) recently published new guidance on subject-matter eligibility as related to Artificial Intelligence (AI), opening a written comment window to respond with a deadline of...more

Fitch, Even, Tabin & Flannery LLP

IP Alert: Are Terminal Disclaimers Destined for Termination?

Fitch, Even, Tabin & Flannery LLP on

July 17, 2024 Applicant-submitted terminal disclaimers tie similar co-owned patents to a common expiration date and typically serve to ensure that a later-filed continuation application lives no longer than its parent. The...more

Womble Bond Dickinson

USPTO Issues Updated Guidance on Patent Subject Matter Eligibility and AI

Womble Bond Dickinson on

From the U.S. Supreme Court’s perspective, its Mayo and Alice decisions from 2012 and 2014, respectively, are still sufficient to govern patent law’s § 101 analysis. This inference stems in-part of the Supreme Court’s cert...more

Venable LLP

Loper Decision Impact on Patent Law

Venable LLP on

Venable has offered general thoughts on the potential fallout from the Supreme Court's reversal of the long-standing Chevron deference, as well as practice area-specific analysis. Here, the Intellectual Property Litigation...more

Morgan Lewis

Impact on IP Law in the Wake of US Supreme Court’s Decision

Morgan Lewis on

The US Supreme Court’s June 28, 2024 decision in Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo and Relentless Inc. v. Department of Commerce overruled the forty-year-old Chevron U.S.A. Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council Inc....more

Fenwick & West LLP

Potential Impact on USPTO Regulations of Supreme Court Unraveling the Chevron Deference

Fenwick & West LLP on

The U.S. Supreme Court's decision to no longer give deference to government agency interpretations could lead to challenges against U.S. Patent and Trademark Office rules....more

Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati

U.S. Supreme Court Administrative Law Decisions Raise Questions for U.S. Patent and Trademark Office Proceedings

Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati on

Last week, the U.S. Supreme Court decided two important administrative law cases that are expected to increase judicial authority over agency adjudications and rulemaking. In Securities & Exchange Commission v....more

Haug Partners LLP

Supreme Court Upholds Validity of Names Clause in Trump Too Small Decision

Haug Partners LLP on

Referred to as the “names clause”, the Lanham Act prohibits registration of a mark that consists of or comprises a name that identifies a particular living individual without written consent.1 This includes full names,...more

Akerman LLP

Content-Based but Viewpoint-Neutral: Federal Trademark Law “Names Clause” Withstands Constitutional Challenge

Akerman LLP on

There has long been a tension between the Free Speech Clause of the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution and federal trademark law. In two relatively recent Supreme Court trademark cases, the First Amendment won, enabling...more

PilieroMazza PLLC

Weekly Update for Government Contractors and Commercial Businesses – June 2024 #4

PilieroMazza PLLC on

Construction Industry Wage-and-Hour Issues: 6 Tips for Laying a Foundation of Compliance - The construction industry feeds a significant part of the U.S. economy, providing millions of short- and long-term jobs across the...more

Lathrop GPM

Broad Biotech Patent Claims-the Saga Continues

Lathrop GPM on

There now is increased interest about the written description and enablement requirements for patent applications claiming antibodies. This may stem from the recent U.S. Supreme Court decision in Amgen v. Sanofi, finding lack...more

Holland & Knight LLP

U.S. Supreme Court Upholds Constitutionality of Federal Trademark Statute's "Names Clause"

Holland & Knight LLP on

The U.S. Supreme Court unanimously rejected a First Amendment challenge to the "names clause" of the Lanham Act on June 13, 2024. See Vidal v. Elster, No. 22-704. The names clause prohibits federally registering a trademark...more

Irwin IP LLP

Supreme Court Rules: Elster Can Say "Trump Too Small" But Can't Trademark It!

Irwin IP LLP on

Vidal v. Elster, 602 U.S. (2024) - In a landmark decision affirming longstanding principles of trademark law, the United States Supreme Court ruled that the Lanham Act’s names clause does not violate the First Amendment,...more

Bradley Arant Boult Cummings LLP

Trademarking History: Justices Uphold Names Clause, Clash Over Reasoning

Bradley Arant Boult Cummings LLP on

On June 13, 2024, the Supreme Court handed down its decision in Vidal v. Elster, a case that pitted trademark law against the First Amendment’s free speech protections. While the Court unanimously upheld the Patent and...more

Seyfarth Shaw LLP

Lanham Act’s Personal Names Restriction Does Not Violate First Amendment

Seyfarth Shaw LLP on

As expected, based on the tenor of the Justices’ questions during oral argument, the U.S. Supreme Court has ruled against a trademark applicant seeking to register a mark commenting on former President Donald Trump. The...more

Genova Burns LLC

Unanimous But Fractured: Supreme Court Upholds Rejection of “Trump Too Small” Trademark, With Little Guidance for the Future

Genova Burns LLC on

Last week, the U.S. Supreme Court decided in Vidal v. Ester, 602 U.S. ___ (2024) that the federal prohibition on registering trademarks that identify a living individual without their consent does not violate the First...more

Sterne, Kessler, Goldstein & Fox P.L.L.C.

SCOTUS Rules on "Trump Too Small"—Third Recent Ruling on First Amendment Implications for Lanham Act 

Sterne, Kessler, Goldstein & Fox P.L.L.C. on

The June 13, 2024, U.S. Supreme Court decision in Vidal v. Elster made waves in the trademark community. All of the Court’s decisions are significant, and this matter was of particular interest because the decision marked the...more

Greenberg Glusker LLP

Supreme Court Says First Amendment Can’t Save 'Trump Too Small' Trademark Bid

Greenberg Glusker LLP on

On June 13, the Supreme Court issued an opinion in Vidal v. Elster, 602 U. S. ____ (2024), a case involving a plaintiff’s attempt to register the trademark “Trump too small” (a reference to a key political issue in the 2016...more

Dorsey & Whitney LLP

The Supreme Court Update - June 14, 2024

Dorsey & Whitney LLP on

On Thursday, June 13, the Supreme Court of the United States issued three decisions: FDA v. Alliance for Hippocratic Medicine, No. 23-235: This case involves an attempt to rescind the Food and Drug Administration’s...more

Kilpatrick

Vidal v. Elster: The Supreme Court Affirms the Constitutionality of Section 2(c) of the Lanham Act

Kilpatrick on

In Vidal v. Elster, the Supreme Court addressed the constitutionality of Section 2(c) of the Lanham Act, which prohibits the registration as a trademark or service mark of any “name, portrait, or signature identifying a...more

Morrison & Foerster LLP

From Rubio's Joke to the Supreme Court: The Journey of 'Trump Too Small' in Vidal v. Elster

Morrison & Foerster LLP on

Does the Lanham Act’s restriction on registration of trademarks that include an individual’s name without the consent of such individual violate the Free Speech Clause of the First Amendment, even when the mark expresses...more

706 Results
 / 
View per page
Page: of 29
Next »

"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 Log in
*By using the service, you signify your acceptance of JD Supra's Privacy Policy.
- hide
- hide