Revisiting McGirt: New Legal Developments Challenge Oklahoma’s Landmark Ruling
The Supreme Court is expected to consider Teva’s pending petition for certiorari in the highly anticipated GlaxoSmithKline LLC v. Teva Pharms. USA, Inc. on May 11, 2023, a case that could carry enormous implications for the...more
NBA Properties Lands Slam Dunk in Intellectual Property Win Heard Around the Globe - NBA Properties, Inc. (“NBAP”), the exclusive licensee of the National Basketball Association (“NBA”) and NBA teams’ distinctive trademarks,...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
Recently, the Supreme Court received two petitions for writ of certiorari challenging the NHK-Fintiv rule. The PTAB applies the NHK-Fintiv rule when deciding whether to grant institution of an inter partes review. The two...more
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 all stakeholders looking at the entire...more
Most readers have been following the impact of the Federal Circuit’s decision in Arthrex and know that an earlier and less developed Arthrex I case is on cert to the Supreme Court asking the Court to address the appointments...more
On Friday, October 26, 2018, the U.S. Supreme Court granted certiorari in what could be a landmark decision concerning trademark issues in bankruptcy. In Mission Product Holdings, Inc. v. Tempnology LLC, the Court will...more
In In re SIMA Int'l, Inc., 2018 WL 2293705 (Bankr. D. Conn. May 17, 2018), the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the District of Connecticut ruled that a chapter 7 trustee's rejection of an intellectual property license agreement did...more
Our June 28 post discussed the petition for certiorari in the U.S. Supreme Court seeking review of the First Circuit’s January 12 decision in Mission Product Holdings, Inc. v. Tempnology, LLC. We noted that the respondent’s...more
All you trademark lawyers better sit down, because this may come as a shock: You are not “intellectual property” lawyers . . . at least not according to Section 11 U.S.C. § 101(35A) of the Bankruptcy Code, which intentionally...more
Dear Friends, After returning from a two week trip to China to work on the Solar Cells case, this March blog post will cover trade policy, including Trump’s impact on Trade Policy, trade, Customs, False Claims Act, the...more
The Ultramercial story is not over. In the latest step of a controversial case involving 35 U.S.C. § 101 that has been ongoing since 2009, patentee Ultramercial has petitioned the Supreme Court for a writ of certiorari. The...more