In Amgen Inc. v. Sanofi, the Supreme Court unanimously held that “[i]f a patent claims an entire class of processes, machines, manufactures, or compositions of matter, the patent specification must enable a person skilled in...more
5/22/2024
/ Amgen ,
Amgen v Sanofi ,
Healthcare ,
Intellectual Property Protection ,
Inventions ,
Life Sciences ,
Patent Applications ,
Patent Litigation ,
Patents ,
Pharmaceutical Industry ,
Pharmaceutical Patents ,
Popular ,
Sanofi ,
SCOTUS
In Andy Warhol Foundation for the Visual Arts, Inc. v. Goldsmith, the Supreme Court held, in a 7-2 decision, that the Andy Warhol Foundation for the Visual Arts (AWF) infringed photographer Lynn Goldsmith’s copyright when it...more
11/8/2023
/ Andy Warhol Foundation for the Visual Arts Inc v Goldsmith ,
Artists ,
Copyright ,
Copyright Infringement ,
Copyright Litigation ,
Fair Use ,
Fine Art ,
Intellectual Property Protection ,
Photographs ,
Prince ,
SCOTUS ,
Subjective Standard ,
Transformative Use
In Minerva Surgical, Inc. v. Hologic, Inc., the Supreme Court held, in a 5–4 opinion, that the doctrine of assignor estoppel continues to apply, but only for an assignor’s invalidity assertion that contradicts explicit or...more
In United States v. Arthrex, Inc., the Supreme Court held that Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) administrative patent judges (APJs) are unconstitutionally appointed. However, the Court resolved the problem by making PTAB...more
12/7/2021
/ Administrative Patent Judges ,
Appointments Clause ,
Arthrex Inc v Smith & Nephew Inc ,
Constitutional Challenges ,
Executive Branch ,
Executive Powers ,
Inter Partes Review (IPR) Proceeding ,
Patent Trial and Appeal Board ,
Patents ,
Principle Officers ,
SCOTUS ,
United States v Arthrex Inc ,
USPTO
In U.S. Patent & Trademark Office v. Booking.com B.V., the Supreme Court held, in an 8-1 decision, that a generic word combined with the top-level domain “.com” can be a federally protectable trademark if it has secondary...more
8/25/2020
/ Acquired Distinctiveness ,
Appeals ,
Booking.com ,
Domain Name Registration ,
Domain Names ,
Generic Marks ,
Lanham Act ,
SCOTUS ,
Trademark Registration ,
Trademarks ,
United States Patent and Trademark Office v Booking.com BV ,
USPTO
In Halo Electronics, Inc. v. Pulse Electronics, Inc.,1 the Supreme Court held that 35 U.S.C. Section 284 provides for enhanced damages in egregious cases...more
In Peters v. NantKwest, Inc., the Supreme Court, in a unanimous decision written by Justice Sonia Sotomayor, held that the “all expenses of the proceedings” provision of a 35 U.S.C. § 145 civil appeal does not include the...more
6/12/2020
/ 35 U.S.C. § 145 ,
American Rule ,
Attorney's Fees ,
Civil Claims ,
Fee-Shifting ,
Judicial Review ,
Litigation Fees & Costs ,
Patent Act ,
Patent Applicants ,
Patents ,
Peter v NantKwest Inc ,
Prevailing Party ,
SCOTUS ,
Section 145 ,
USPTO
In Allen v. Cooper, the Supreme Court held that the copyright clause in the U.S. Constitution did not authorize Congress to abrogate states’ Eleventh Amendment immunity from copyright infringement. In addition, Congress’s...more
In Thryv, Inc. v. Click-to-Call Technologies, LP, the Supreme Court held that the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (Board) decision whether an inter partes review (IPR) petition was timely filed could not be appealed.
In a...more
5/28/2020
/ § 314(d) ,
§ 315(b) ,
§314(a) ,
§314(b) ,
America Invents Act ,
Appeals ,
Dissenting Opinions ,
Inter Partes Review (IPR) Proceeding ,
Judicial Review ,
Non-Appealable Decisions ,
Patent Infringement ,
Patent Litigation ,
Patent Trial and Appeal Board ,
Patents ,
SCOTUS ,
Thryv Inc v Click-To-Call Technologies LP ,
Time-Barred Claims ,
Vacated
In Georgia v. Public.Resource.Org Inc., in a 5-4 vote, the Supreme Court held that an annotated version of Georgia’s official state law code was not copyrightable and rejected a claim for copyright infringement that Georgia...more
5/18/2020
/ Annotated Case Law ,
Appeals ,
Copyright ,
Copyright Infringement ,
Copyrightable Subject Matter ,
Georgia v. Public.Resource.Org Inc ,
Government Edicts Doctrine ,
Legislative Duties ,
Reaffirmation ,
Reversal ,
SCOTUS ,
Statutory Code ,
The Copyright Act
In Romag Fasteners, Inc. v. Fossil Group, Inc., the Supreme Court held that a district court may award the plaintiff with the defendant’s profits even without a showing of willfulness for trademark infringement. However, the...more
5/6/2020
/ § 1125(a) ,
§ 1125(c) ,
Appeals ,
Burden of Proof ,
Charge-Filing Preconditions ,
Compensatory Awards ,
Dilution ,
Disgorgement ,
Lanham Act ,
Lost Profits ,
Remand ,
Remedies ,
Romag Fasteners v Fossil ,
SCOTUS ,
Trademark Infringement ,
Trademark Litigation ,
Trademarks ,
Vacated ,
Willful Infringement
In Mission Product Holdings Inc. v. Tempnology LLC, the Supreme Court, in an 8-to-1 decision, held that bankrupt trademark owners cannot use bankruptcy law to unilaterally revoke a trademark license. The Court summarized the...more
6/3/2019
/ Bankruptcy Appellate Panel (BAP) ,
Bankruptcy Code ,
Breach of Contract ,
Commercial Bankruptcy ,
Debtors ,
Exclusions ,
Executory Contracts ,
IP License ,
Mission Product Holdings Inc v Tempnology LLC ,
Rescission ,
Reversal ,
SCOTUS ,
Section 365 ,
Split of Authority ,
Trademark Licenses ,
Trademarks ,
Trustees
In Helsinn Healthcare S.A. v. Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc., the Supreme Court affirmed the Federal Circuit’s decision that the sale of an invention to a party who is contractually obligated to keep the invention...more
1/29/2019
/ America Invents Act ,
Appeals ,
Assignment of Inventions ,
Confidentiality Agreements ,
Helsinn Healthcare SA v Teva Pharmaceuticals USA Inc ,
Inventions ,
On-Sale Bar ,
Patent Applications ,
Patent Infringement ,
Patents ,
Pharmaceutical Industry ,
Pharmaceutical Patents ,
Public Use ,
Reaffirmation ,
Reversal ,
SCOTUS ,
Section 102 ,
Third-Party Relationships