Thank you for reading the May 2023 issue of Sterne Kessler's MarkIt to Market® newsletter. This month, we discuss Taco Bell's attempt to cancel two TACO TUESDAY trademark registrations, and a precedential TTAB decision...more
6/1/2023
/ Andy Warhol Foundation for the Visual Arts Inc v Goldsmith ,
Artists ,
Controlled Substances Act ,
Copyright ,
Drug Paraphernalia ,
Functionality ,
Generic Marks ,
Intellectual Property Litigation ,
Intellectual Property Protection ,
Patent Litigation ,
Patents ,
Pharmaceutical Patents ,
SCOTUS ,
The Copyright Act ,
Trademark Registration ,
Trademark Trial and Appeal Board ,
Trademarks ,
Transformative Use ,
USPTO
On May 25, 2023, the US Supreme Court issued its opinion in Dupree v. Younger, which resolved a split among the courts of appeals concerning whether “purely legal” issues raised at the summary-judgment stage must be re-raised...more
It has been nearly thirty years since the US Supreme Court has considered whether a creative work qualifies as a transformative use under the Copyright Act. The last time was in 1994, when the Court in Campbell v. Acuff-Rose...more
5/19/2023
/ Andy Warhol Foundation for the Visual Arts Inc v Goldsmith ,
Artistic Works ,
Artists ,
Copyright ,
Copyright Infringement ,
Copyright Litigation ,
Corporate Counsel ,
Fair Use ,
Intellectual Property Protection ,
SCOTUS ,
The Copyright Act ,
Transformative Use
This morning, the US Supreme Court issued its opinion in Amgen v. Sanofi, a closely watched case concerning patent law’s enablement requirement. Under that requirement, codified at 35 U.S.C. § 112(a), a patent specification...more
5/19/2023
/ Amgen ,
Biotechnology ,
Enablement Inquiries ,
Healthcare ,
Inventions ,
Judicial Proceedings ,
Life Sciences ,
Patent Litigation ,
Patents ,
Pharmaceutical Industry ,
Pharmaceutical Patents ,
Sanofi ,
SCOTUS
On March 27, the U.S. Supreme Court heard oral argument in Amgen v. Sanofi, a closely watched case concerning the appropriate legal standard for patent law's enablement requirement.
That requirement is found in Title 35...more
4/4/2023
/ Amgen ,
Biotechnology ,
Enablement Inquiries ,
Inventions ,
Judicial Proceedings ,
Life Sciences ,
Oral Argument ,
Patent Litigation ,
Patents ,
Pharmaceutical Industry ,
Pharmaceutical Patents ,
Sanofi ,
SCOTUS
On Monday, March 27, 2023, at 10:00 a.m. EDT, the Supreme Court of the United States will hear oral arguments in Amgen Inc. v. Sanofi, No. 21-757. William H. Milliken, a director in Sterne Kessler’s Trial & Appellate Practice...more
3/24/2023
/ Amgen ,
Biotechnology ,
Enablement Inquiries ,
Inventions ,
Judicial Proceedings ,
Life Sciences ,
Online Commentary ,
Oral Argument ,
Patent Infringement ,
Patent Litigation ,
Patents ,
Pharmaceutical Industry ,
Pharmaceutical Patents ,
Sanofi ,
SCOTUS
On Wednesday, October 12, 2022, at 10 a.m. EDT, the Supreme Court of the United States will hear oral arguments in The Andy Warhol Foundation for the Visual Arts, Inc. v. Goldsmith, No. 21-869. William H. Milliken, a director...more
This morning, the Supreme Court denied certiorari in the closely-watched patent eligibility case of American Axle v. Neapco. There were no noted dissents and no statements respecting the denial of certiorari. The denial means...more
[co-author: Jamie Dohopolski]
Last year, the continued global COVID-19 pandemic forced American courts to largely continue the procedures set in place in 2020. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit was no...more
2/9/2022
/ § 314(d) ,
35 U.S.C. §315(e)(1) ,
Absolute Intervening Rights Doctrine ,
Abuse of Discretion ,
Administrative Patent Judges ,
Administrative Procedure Act ,
America Invents Act ,
Appeals ,
Appointments Clause ,
Arbitrary and Capricious ,
Article of Manufacture ,
Assignor Estoppel ,
Burden of Proof ,
Claim Construction ,
Collateral Estoppel ,
Commercial Success ,
Confidential Information ,
Constitutional Challenges ,
Demand Letter ,
Denial of Institution ,
Design Patent ,
Director of the USPTO ,
Dismissals ,
Doctrine of Prosecution Disclaimer ,
Due Process ,
Equitable Estoppel ,
Estoppel ,
Evidence ,
Ex Partes Reexamination ,
Executive Branch ,
Executive Powers ,
Federal Rules of Evidence ,
Final Written Decisions ,
Forum Selection ,
FRCP 52(c) ,
GATT ,
Inferior Officers ,
Intellectual Property Litigation ,
Intellectual Property Protection ,
Inter Partes Reexamination ,
Inter Partes Review (IPR) Proceeding ,
International Trade Commission (ITC) ,
Intervening Acts ,
Inventions ,
Issue Preclusion ,
Judicial Review ,
Lack of Authority ,
Lack of Jurisdiction ,
Likelihood of Success ,
Minerva Surgical Inc. v Hologic Inc. ,
Motion for Summary Judgment ,
Motivation to Combine ,
Nexus ,
Non-Disclosure Agreement ,
Nonobvious ,
Obviousness ,
Ornamental Design ,
Parallel Proceedings ,
Patent Applications ,
Patent Filings ,
Patent Infringement ,
Patent Litigation ,
Patent Prosecution ,
Patent Trial and Appeal Board ,
Patent Validity ,
Patents ,
Petition for Writ of Certiorari ,
Pharmaceutical Patents ,
Post-Grant Review ,
Pre-GATT ,
Preliminary Injunctions ,
Principle Officers ,
Printed Publications ,
Prior Art ,
Real Party in Interest ,
Remand ,
Reversal ,
Rule 36 ,
Scope of Review ,
SCOTUS ,
Section 325(d) ,
Sua Sponte ,
Substantial Evidence ,
Totality of Evidence ,
United States v Arthrex Inc ,
USPTO ,
Vacated ,
Writ of Mandamus
Following the Supreme Court’s decision in United States v. Arthrex, the Federal Circuit issued requests for briefing regarding the decision’s impact in pending PTAB appeals in which an Appointments Clause challenge had been...more
[co-author: Jay Bober, Summer Associate]
The PTAB Strategies and Insights newsletter provides timely updates and insights into how best to handle proceedings at the USPTO. It is designed to increase return on investment for...more
8/2/2021
/ Administrative Patent Judges ,
Administrative Procedure Act ,
Appointments Clause ,
Burden of Proof ,
Claim Construction ,
Denial of Institution ,
Evidence ,
Executive Branch ,
Executive Powers ,
Intel ,
Intellectual Property Protection ,
Inter Partes Review (IPR) Proceeding ,
International Trade Commission (ITC) ,
Oral Hearings ,
Parallel Proceedings ,
Patent Infringement ,
Patent Invalidity ,
Patent Litigation ,
Patent Trial and Appeal Board ,
Patent Validity ,
Patents ,
Petition For Rehearing ,
Prejudice ,
Prior Art ,
Qualcomm ,
Remand ,
SCOTUS ,
Statutory Deadlines ,
Stipulations ,
Sua Sponte ,
United States v Arthrex Inc ,
USPTO ,
Vacated
[co-authors: Patrick Murray, Risa Rahman, and Jae Bandeh]
The PTAB Strategies and Insights newsletter provides timely updates and insights into how best to handle proceedings at the USPTO. It is designed to increase return...more
7/6/2021
/ Assignor Estoppel ,
Disciplinary Proceedings ,
Estoppel ,
Final Written Decisions ,
First Amendment ,
Inter Partes Review (IPR) Proceeding ,
Mahanoy Area School District v B.L. ,
Medical Devices ,
Minerva Surgical Inc. v Hologic Inc. ,
Patent Infringement ,
Patent Litigation ,
Patent Trial and Appeal Board ,
Patents ,
Public Schools ,
SCOTUS ,
Snapchat ,
Student Speech ,
Students ,
Tinker v Des Moines Independent Community School Dist. ,
USPTO
Yesterday, the US Supreme Court issued its decision in Minerva Surgical, Inc. v. Hologic, Inc., concerning the fate of the patent-law doctrine of assignor estoppel—i.e., estoppel against a patent owner who assigns his rights...more
The US Supreme Court held in United States v. Arthrex that administrative patent judges’ ability to render final decisions on patentability on behalf of the Executive Branch is “incompatible with their status as inferior...more
6/21/2021
/ Administrative Patent Judges ,
Appointments Clause ,
Constitutional Challenges ,
Corporate Counsel ,
Director of the USPTO ,
Inferior Officers ,
Inter Partes Review (IPR) Proceeding ,
Patent Litigation ,
Patent Trial and Appeal Board ,
Patents ,
Principle Officers ,
SCOTUS ,
United States v Arthrex Inc ,
USPTO
When oral arguments commence in United States v. Arthrex, Inc., No. 19-1434 (U.S.) on Monday, March 1, William H. Milliken, a director in Sterne Kessler’s Trial & Appellate Practice Group, will be live tweeting updates from...more
2/26/2021
/ 5 U.S.C. § 7513(a) ,
Administrative Patent Judges ,
Appointments Clause ,
Arthrex Inc v Smith & Nephew Inc ,
Constitutional Challenges ,
Director of the USPTO ,
Inferior Officers ,
Inter Partes Review (IPR) Proceeding ,
Oral Argument ,
Patent Litigation ,
Patent Trial and Appeal Board ,
Patents ,
Polaris Innovations Ltd v Kingston Technology Co ,
Principle Officers ,
SCOTUS ,
Severability Doctrine ,
Tenure ,
United States v Arthrex Inc
In October 2020, the Supreme Court agreed to review the Federal Circuit’s holding in Arthrex Inc. v. Smith & Nephew Inc., 941 F.3d 1320 (Fed. Cir. 2019), that the scheme for appointing the Patent Trial and Appeal Board’s...more
2/11/2021
/ Administrative Patent Judges ,
Appointments Clause ,
Certiorari ,
Constitutional Challenges ,
Inferior Officers ,
Inter Partes Review (IPR) Proceeding ,
Patent Litigation ,
Patent Trial and Appeal Board ,
Principle Officers ,
SCOTUS ,
Severability Doctrine ,
Tenure ,
United States v Arthrex Inc
In Thryv, Inc. v. Click-to-Call Technologies, LP the Supreme Court held, 7-2, that patent owners cannot appeal determinations by the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) declining to apply the time-bar of 35 U.S.C. § 315(b)....more
4/21/2020
/ § 314(d) ,
§ 315(b) ,
§314(a) ,
§314(b) ,
America Invents Act ,
Appeals ,
Cuozzo Speed Technologies v Lee ,
Dissenting Opinions ,
Inter Partes Review (IPR) Proceeding ,
Judicial Review ,
Non-Appealable Decisions ,
Patent Infringement ,
Patent Litigation ,
Patent Trial and Appeal Board ,
Patents ,
SAS Institute Inc. v Iancu ,
SCOTUS ,
Thryv Inc v Click-To-Call Technologies LP ,
Time-Barred Claims ,
Vacated