Newsletters

08.25.20

Supreme Court: Generic Word Combined With ‘.com’ Held Trademark Eligible

In U.S. Patent & Trademark Office v. Booking.com B.V., the Supreme Court held, in an 8-1 decision, that a generic word combined with the top-level domain “.com” can be a federally protectable trademark if it has secondary meaning to consumers.


08.18.20

Patent Held Invalid—Specification Disclaimer Prevented Claim to Earlier Priority Date

In Akeva L.L.C., v. Nike, Inc., the Federal Circuit held that a disclaimer in a specification that excluded a particular embodiment prevented later claims in the continuation patents from claiming the excluded embodiment, thereby breaking the priority chain.


07.30.20

5Pointz Owner Seeks SCOTUS Review of VARA

G&M Realty (G&M), the owner of the famous New York City graffiti space known as 5Pointz, asked the Supreme Court to strike down as unconstitutional the Visual Artists Rights Act (VARA), a federal copyright law that provides limited protection for artists against destruction or mutilation of ...


07.28.20

Thin Pad and Soft Pad Chairs Held Eligible for Trade Dress Protection

In Blumenthal Distrib. Inc. d/b/a Office Star v. Herman Miller, Inc., the U.S. Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit, held that the overall appearance of Herman Miller Inc.’s Eames chairs was eligible for trade dress protection because it was not functional.


07.14.20

Functional Chicken Feeder Design Held Not Eligible for Trade Dress Protection

In CTB Inc. v. Hog Slat, Inc., the U.S. Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit found that a chicken feeder design was not eligible for trade dress protection because it improved the way the feeders worked, and was therefore eligible only for patent protection because it was functional and not ornamental.


07.07.20

Conveyor Belt Fastener Design Held Not Eligible for Trade Dress Protection

In Flexible Steel Lacing Co. v. Conveyor Accessories Inc., the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that a conveyor belt fastener’s “beveled center scallop” design was not entitled to trade dress protection because it was utilitarian. 


06.30.20

Responses to Infringement Letters Can Reduce Risk of Willful Infringement

In Halo Electronics, Inc. v. Pulse Electronics, Inc.,the Supreme Court held that 35 U.S.C. Section 284 provides for enhanced damages in egregious cases.


06.23.20

Federal Reserve Banks Can Petition for Inter Partes Review

In Bozeman Fin. LLC v. Fed. Reserve Bank of Atlanta,  the Federal Circuit held federal reserve banks can challenge patents under the America Invents Act.


06.09.20

Method for Identifying Atrial Fibrillation and Flutter Held Patent Eligible

In Cardionet, LLC v. Infobionic, Inc., the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit held that a method for identifying atrial fibrillation and atrial flutter associated with stroke, congestive heart failure and cardiomyopathy was patent eligible.


06.02.20

Supreme Court: Patent Office Cannot Be Reimbursed for Attorney and Paralegal Salaries

In Peters v. NantKwest, Inc., the Supreme Court, in a unanimous decision written by Justice Sonia Sotomayor, held that the “all expenses of the proceedings” provision of a 35 U.S.C. § 145 civil appeal does not include the reimbursement of Patent Office attorney and paralegal ...