On Wednesday, November 17, 2021, the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office published its final rule for new procedures allowing third parties to challenge unused trademark registrations. The rule enacts changes in trademark law embodied in the Trademark Modernization Act (TMA) that went into force in December, 2020.
This week, over a thousand attendees are expected at the annual meeting of the American Intellectual Property Law Association. Today in a pre-meeting briefing, senior U.S. Patent and Trademark (USPTO) officials gave updates on key areas of ongoing activity by the Office.
In a precedential decision, three Federal Circuit Judges O'Malley, Stoll, and Reyna agreed that U.S. Patent No. 9,246,903 claims patent eligible subject matter, but there was disagreement on how to arrive at that decision.
Validity challenges can take many forms, several of which can be employed after an action begins in federal court. In re: Vivint, Inc., 2020-1992 (CAFC 2021) is a salient example of how zealous representation in the form of serial petitioning can arise to abuse of process and, ultimately, be counterproductive.
On August 5, a split Federal Circuit vacated the district court’s ruling of no induced infringement against Teva Pharmaceuticals (Teva) of a GlaxoSmithKline (GSK) patent and reinstated the jury’s $235 million patent infringement damages verdict. GlaxoSmithKline LLC v. Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc., No. 2018-1976 (Fed. Cir. Aug. 5, 2021) at 4.
Last week, Ohio Governor Mike DeWine signed an executive order allowing collegiate athletes to benefit from their name, image, and likeness in Ohio. Governor DeWine’s executive order came only a few days after Ohio’s promising name/image/likeness (NIL) bill stalled in the House of Representatives.
As part of our dedication to helping our clients stay up-to-date on the ever-changing landscape as it relates to the COVID-19 pandemic, we’ve compiled the following highlights of changes to patent, trademark, and copyright operations around the world.
Prosecuting a patent application at the U.S. Patent & Trademark Office (USPTO) often involves numerous exchanges with a patent examiner in which an applicant is provided an opportunity to discuss and distinguish examined claims and claim terms in view of cited prior art.
Yesterday, in a 5-4 decision the United States Supreme Court held, in Minerva Surgical, Inc. v. Hologic, Inc. (No. 20-440) (J. Kagan) that, while “well grounded in centuries-old fairness principles,” the doctrine of assignor estoppel has its limits.
Today, the United States Supreme Court held, in United States v. Arthrex, Inc. (No. 19-1434), that the scope of authority that has been exercised by Administrative Patent Judges (APJs) who conduct and decide adversarial cases before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) of the United States Patent and Trademark Office (PTO) violates the Appointments Clause of the Constitution.
One risk patent holders assume in sending demand or cease and desist letters to potential infringers is that the recipient may respond by filing a declaratory judgment action, and thus initiate suit in a local and/or advantageous forum for the infringer.