Latest Publications

Share:

The Votes Are In: Highly Descriptive Marks Are Difficult to Protect

HERITAGE ALLIANCE V. AMERICAN POLICY ROUNDTABLE - Before Prost, Taranto, and Stark. Appeal from the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board. Continuous-use evidence is not necessarily prima facie evidence of acquired distinctiveness...more

No Error: The Board Committed No Procedural Error by Relying on Evidence Outside of the Prior Art Reference

SAGE PRODUCTS, LLC v. STEWART [OPINION] - Before Reyna, Cunningham, and Stark. Appeal from the United States Patent and Trademark Office, Patent Trial and Appeal Board. The Board did not abuse its discretion by relying on...more

Traffix Jam – Technical Functionality Prevents Trademark Protection for the Color Pink

CERAMTEC GMBH v. COORSTEK BIOCERAMICS LLC - Before Lourie, Taranto, and Stark.  Appeal from the United States Patent and Trademark Office, Trademark Trial and Appeal Board. A utility patent may still be considered strong...more

Zoned Out: The Zone of Natural Expansion Doctrine Can Only Be Used Defensively

DOLLAR FINANCIAL GROUP, INC. v. BRITTEX FINANCIAL, INC. [OPINION] - Before Prost, Taranto, and Hughes.  Appeal from the United States Patent and Trademark Office, Trademark Trial and Appeal Board. The zone of natural...more

Inaction Can Lead To Argument Forfeiture on Appeal

ALIVECOR, INC. v. APPLE INC. Before Hughes, Linn, and Stark. Appeal from Patent Trial and Appeal Board - A party in a PTAB proceeding forfeits the ability to challenge an opposing party’s discovery obligation violation...more

Pulling the Cord on Unstated Claims Limitations

IQRIS TECHNOLOGIES LLC v. POINT BLANK ENTERPRISES, INC. Before Lourie, Linn, and Stoll. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida - The district court erred in construing the term “pull...more

A Private Sale Is Not Sufficient for Public Disclosure Under 35 USC 102(b)(2)(B)

Before Dyk, Clevenger, and Stoll. Appeal from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board. Summary: An invention is not “publicly disclosed” under 35 USC 102(b)(2)(B) by the inventor’s private sale, even though a private sale may...more

Relying on Computer-Implemented, Result-Focused Functional Language Is a Bad Bet

Before Dyk, Prost, and Stark. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey. Summary: Recitations of a computer-implemented method can be an abstract idea and non-eligible under 35 U.S.C. § 101...more

Going down With the Ship: Non-infringing Indications Are Barred When Listed in the Same ANDA as Infringing Indications

SALIX PHARMACEUTICALS, LTD. v. NORWICH PHARMACEUTICALS., INC. Before Lourie, Chen, and Cunningham.  Appeal from the District of Delaware Summary: The Federal Circuit ruled that an ANDA listing an infringing indication cannot...more

Prosecution History May Support a Motivation to Combine

Elekta Limited v. Zap Surgical Systems, Inc. Before: Reyna, Stoll, and Stark. Appeal from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board. Summary: Patentee’s failure during prosecution to distinguish relevant art provided support...more

What You “Said” in Your Claims May Be Limiting

SALAZAR V. AT&T MOBILITY LLC - Before Stoll, Schall, and Stark. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas. Summary: While the indefinite article “a” means “one or more” in open...more

Failure of ITC to Follow Its Own Rules May Constitute Harmless Error

SWAGWAY, LLC v. ITC [REVISED OPINION - PRECEDENTIAL] - Before Dyk, Mayer, and Clevenger. Appeal from the International Trade Commission. Summary: Although the ITC must strictly comply with its rules, failure to do so...more

Momenta Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v. Bristol-Myers Squibb Company

Federal Circuit Summaries - Before Newman, Dyk, and Chen. Appeal from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board. Summary: An injury-in-fact is required to establish Article III standing for judicial review of agency action,...more

In Re: Durance

Federal Circuit Summaries - Before Lourie, Reyna, and Chen. Appeal from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“PTAB”). Summary: Nothing in § 41.41(b)(2) bars a reply brief from addressing new arguments raised in the...more

The Medicines Company v. Hospira, Inc.

Federal Circuit Summaries - Before Dyk, Wallach, and Hughes. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Delaware. Summary: A distribution agreement qualifies as an invalidating “offer for sale”...more

15 Results
 / 
View per page
Page: of 1

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