On Monday, the justices ruled 5-4 that the “unreviewable authority” of administrative patent judges meant those APJs were appointed in violation of the Constitution’s appointments clause. The justices then ruled 7-2 that the...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
The Supreme Court ruled Monday that more than 200 administrative patent judges in the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office must be subject to greater supervision by the agency director in order to comply with the Constitution’s...more
On Monday, the justices heard 90 minutes of argument in United States v. Arthrex, Inc. and two consolidated cases about whether hundreds of administrative patent judges of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office are “principal...more
The justices continue their light load for the February argument session next week. First up is Monday’s United States v. Arthrex, Inc., consolidated with both Smith & Nephew, Inc. v. Arthrex, Inc. and Arthrex, Inc. v. Smith...more
3/1/2021
/ Administrative Patent Judges ,
Appointments Clause ,
Arthrex Inc v Smith & Nephew Inc ,
Constitutional Challenges ,
Patent Infringement ,
Patent Trial and Appeal Board ,
Patents ,
Petition for Writ of Certiorari ,
SCOTUS ,
United States v Arthrex Inc ,
USPTO
To wrap up 2019 and usher in 2020 for practitioners who handle Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) matters, Foley partners Jeanne Gills, Steve Maebius, and George Quillin discussed 2019’s major developments in a webinar on...more
1/23/2020
/ America Invents Act ,
Constitutional Challenges ,
Covered Business Method Proceedings ,
Final Written Decisions ,
Inter Partes Review (IPR) Proceeding ,
Patent Infringement ,
Patent Litigation ,
Patent Trial and Appeal Board ,
Patent-Eligible Subject Matter ,
Patents ,
Post-Grant Review ,
PTAB Precedential Opinion Panel (POP) ,
Real Party in Interest ,
USPTO
On April 24, 2018, the Supreme Court issued its opinion in SAS Institute Inc. v. Iancu, No. 16-969, holding that when the U. S. Patent and Trademark Office (PTO) institutes an inter partes review (IPR), it must decide the...more
4/26/2018
/ Administrative Proceedings ,
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 ,
Post-Grant Review ,
SAS Institute Inc. v Iancu ,
SCOTUS ,
Seventh Amendment ,
USPTO
In a case affecting aftermarket automotive suppliers, on February 20, 2018, the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan issued a decision declining to invalidate or render unenforceable two of Ford’s design...more
2/26/2018
/ Automotive Industry ,
Competition ,
Design Patent ,
Ford Motor ,
Intellectual Property Protection ,
Lanham Act ,
Patent Infringement ,
Patent Invalidity ,
Patent Litigation ,
Patent-Eligible Subject Matter ,
Patents ,
Trademarks
On May 30, 2017, the U.S. Supreme Court held in Impression Products, Inc. v. Lexmark International, Inc. that “patent exhaustion is uniform and automatic” and that patent exhaustion applies, both domestically (in an 8-0...more
6/2/2017
/ Appeals ,
Breach of Contract ,
Exports ,
Foreign Sales ,
Imports ,
Impression Products v Lexmark International ,
IP License ,
Kirtsaeng v. John Wiley & Sons ,
Patent Exhaustion ,
Patent Infringement ,
Patent Litigation ,
Patents ,
Resales Agreements ,
SCOTUS ,
Single-Use/No Resale Restriction ,
Stream of Commerce
On December 6, 2016, the Supreme Court issued a rare unanimous decision on the issue of damages for design patent infringement that continues the Apple v. Samsung smartphone legal odyssey. It also marks only the second time...more
12/7/2016
/ Apple v Samsung ,
Calculation of Damages ,
Cell Phones ,
Component Parts Doctrine ,
Damages ,
Design Patent ,
Manufacturers ,
Patent Infringement ,
Profits ,
Remand ,
Reversal ,
SCOTUS
The Appeal by Cuozzo Speed Technologies -
On June 20, 2016, the U.S. Supreme Court issued its opinion in Cuozzo Speed v. Lee, affirming the Federal Circuit’s prior ruling on an appeal taken from the Patent Trial and...more
6/21/2016
/ America Invents Act ,
Appeals ,
Broadest Reasonable Interpretation Standard ,
Claim Construction ,
Cuozzo Speed Technologies ,
Cuozzo Speed Technologies v Lee ,
Inter Partes Review (IPR) Proceeding ,
Likelihood of Success ,
Patent Trial and Appeal Board ,
SCOTUS ,
USPTO
This event is intended for in-house counsel and business executives only. New decisions. New rules. New strategies. In the world of IP, the hand your business is dealt is ever-changing.*
The more intertwined your IP...more
The tacking doctrine allows trademark owners to make slight modifications to their marks over time without an attendant loss of rights. Specifically, owners can claim priority in a mark based on the first use date of a...more
In a 6-3 decision earlier today, the United States Supreme Court held that Aereo infringes broadcasters’ copyrights by providing the means for subscribers to view programs through individually-assigned antennas at about the...more
On June 19, 2014, the Supreme Court issued its opinion in Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank Int’l, No. 13-298, which was previously discussed. In a unanimous opinion by Justice Thomas, the Court held, consistent with its precedent,...more
On June 18, 2014, a divided panel of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office Trademark Trial and Appeal Board (“TTAB”) ordered cancellation of six of the Washington Redskins’ trademark registrations holding that “Redskins” was a...more
6/20/2014
/ Blackhorse v Pro-Football ,
Disparagement ,
Football ,
Laches ,
Native American Issues ,
NFL ,
Redskins ,
Registration ,
Trademark Act ,
Trademark Trial and Appeal Board ,
Trademarks
On June 2, 2014, the United States Supreme Court issued opinions in Nautilus, Inc. v. Biosig Instruments, Inc., No. 13-369 and Limelight Networks, Inc. v. Akamai Techs., Inc., No. 12-786. In Nautilus, the Supreme Court...more
In 2013, the Supreme Court decided three patent cases. By June of 2014, it is expected that there will have been six more decisions in patent cases. This week alone, there have been oral arguments heard or decisions released...more
On March 11, 2014, in Danisco US Inc. v. Novozymes A/S, No. 2013-1214 (Fed. Cir.), the Federal Circuit held that pre-issuance conduct can be considered when determining whether a declaratory judgment defendant has instigated...more
The USPTO issued new guidelines for determining if claims are eligible for patenting in light of the Association for Molecular Pathology v. Myriad Genetics, Inc., 569 U.S., 133 S. Ct. 2107, 2116, 106 USPQ2d 1972 (2013), and...more
On January 10, 2014 the Supreme Court granted certiorari in two patent cases, one copyright case, and a fourth case that may have implications for federal trademark law. The Court had already granted certiorari in at least...more
On November 13, 2013, the U.S. Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) issued its first final decision in an inter partes review (IPR) proceeding brought by Garmin under the new administrative procedures established by the...more
On February 8, 2013, the Federal Circuit, sitting en banc, heard oral arguments in CLS Bank International v. Alice Corporation Pty. Ltd., No. 2011-1301, which vacated a panel opinion from the Federal Circuit, CLS Bank Int’l...more
On December 11, 2012, the European Parliament approved a set of three proposals to create (1) a “unitary” patent valid across 25 EU member states, (2) a simplified language regime for EU patents, and (3) a unified patent...more
On December 5, 2012, the U.S. House of Representatives passed the Patent Law Treaties Implementation Act. The Senate previously passed the Act on September 22, 2012....more