The Supreme Court recently heard oral arguments in the case of Vidal v. Elster to determine whether the USPTO’s refusal to register the trademark “Trump Too Small” violates the applicant’s First Amendment rights. Scott Hervey...more
11/17/2023
/ Constitutional Challenges ,
Donald Trump ,
First Amendment ,
Free Speech ,
Lanham Act ,
Political Affiliation ,
Public Figures ,
SCOTUS ,
Trademark Application ,
Trademarks ,
USPTO ,
Vidal v Elster
The Supreme Court recently heard oral arguments in the case of Vidal v. Elster to determine whether the USPTO’s refusal to register the trademark “Trump Too Small” violates the applicant’s First Amendment rights. Scott Hervey...more
11/17/2023
/ Constitutional Challenges ,
Donald Trump ,
First Amendment ,
Free Speech ,
Lanham Act ,
Political Affiliation ,
Public Figures ,
SCOTUS ,
Trademark Application ,
Trademarks ,
USPTO ,
Vidal v Elster
In U.S. v. Arthrex, case number 19-1434; Smith & Nephew v. Arthrex, case number 19-1452; and Arthrex v. Smith & Nephew, case number 19-1458, the Supreme Court of the United States recently held that Patent Trial and Appeal...more
6/25/2021
/ Administrative Patent Judges ,
Appointments Clause ,
Arthrex Inc v Smith & Nephew Inc ,
Executive Branch ,
Executive Powers ,
Inter Partes Review (IPR) Proceeding ,
Patent Trial and Appeal Board ,
Patents ,
SCOTUS ,
United States v Arthrex Inc ,
USPTO
On March 16, 2021, U.S. Circuit Judge Evan J. Wallach for the Federal Circuit Court of Appeals announced he plans to take senior status on May 31, 2021. This semi-retirement is set to create the first vacancy at the Federal...more
In a unanimous ruling, the U.S. Supreme Court in Peter v. NantKwest, case number 18-801, struck down the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office’s (USPTO) recent and often-criticized effort to recoup its legal fees – even in cases...more
12/20/2019
/ American Rule ,
Attorney's Fees ,
Civil Claims ,
Fee-Shifting ,
Litigation Fees & Costs ,
Patent Act ,
Patent Applicants ,
Peter v NantKwest Inc ,
Prevailing Party ,
Remedies ,
SCOTUS ,
Section 145 ,
Summary Judgment ,
USPTO
In APPLE INC. v. PEPPER ET AL., case number 17-204, the United States Supreme Court considered a case alleging Apple has monopolized the retail market for the sale of apps and has unlawfully used its monopolistic power to...more
5/17/2019
/ Antitrust Violations ,
Appeals ,
Apple Inc v Pepper ,
Class Action ,
Direct Purchasers ,
Dismissals ,
Internet Retailers ,
iPhone ,
Mobile Apps ,
Monopolization ,
Reversal ,
SCOTUS
In a 7-2 opinion, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in OIL STATES ENERGY SERVICES, LLC v. GREENE’S ENERGY GROUP, LLC that inter partes review does not violate Article III or the Seventh Amendment of the Constitution. Thus, the...more
4/27/2018
/ America Invents Act ,
Article III ,
Constitutional Challenges ,
Inter Partes Review (IPR) Proceeding ,
Oil States Energy Services v Greene's Energy Group ,
Patent Trial and Appeal Board ,
Patents ,
Public Rights Doctrine ,
SCOTUS ,
Seventh Amendment ,
USPTO
The U.S. Supreme Court’s May 22, 2017 ruling in TC Heartland v. Kraft Foods held that personal jurisdiction alone does not convey venue for patent cases under the patent venue statute. Previously, the Court of Appeals for...more
In SANDOZ INC. v. AMGEN INC. et al., the United States Supreme Court in a unanimous opinion ruled that biosimilar makers can give their required 180-day statutory notice of sales before their products win approval by the...more
In SCA Hygiene Products AB et al. v. First Quality Baby Products LLC et al., the United States Supreme Court held that laches cannot be invoked as a defense against a claim for patent infringement damages brought within U.S.C...more