Legal News

Today
Oral arguments for both Oil States Energy Services, LLC v. Greene's Energy Group, LLC, No. 16-712 and SAS Institute Inc. v. Matal, No. 16-969, have been set for November 27, 2017. Oil States challenges the AIA trial system at its most fundamental level — arguing that the Constitutional principles prohibits an administrative agency such as the USPTO from cancelling established property rights, such as those embodied by issued patents. In SAS, the focus is on a narrow but important element of IPRs – whether the Board is “required to issue a final written decision as to every claim challenged by the petitioner.” [...]
Mon, Oct 16, 2017
Source: Patently-O
In a rare opposition based on the ground of Section 2(e)(2) geographical descriptiveness, the Board rejected applicant's Section 2(f) claim of acquired distinctiveness based on five years of use, finding that applicant's use had not been continuous during that period. John Edward Guzman d/b/a Club Ed Surf School and Camp v. The New Santa Cruz Surf School, LLC, Opposition No. 91220843 (October 13, 2017) [not precedential] (Opinion by Judge Albert Zervas).Applicant New Santa Cruz sought to register the mark SANTA CRUZ SURF SCHOOL for surfing instruction and related website services [SURF SCHOOL disclaimed]. Applicant overcame the Section 2(e)(2) refusal [...]
Mon, Oct 16, 2017
Source: The TTABlog
Earlier
AppPendency
The chart below shows the pendency timing for issued US patents — looking particularly at the time from priority filing (including foreign priority claims) until issuance of the US patent. To smooth the chart a bit, I excluded the 0.2% of patents with the longest patent term — these were all > 20 year terms and had the tendency of substantially skewing the picture. The chart below shows the long tail skew for patents issued thus far in 2017. [...]
Sun, Oct 15, 2017
Source: Patently-O
In a 74-page opinion, the Board dismissed an opposition to the mark GREATER OMAHA & Design, shown below left, finding the mark not likely to cause confusion with the registered mark OMAHA STEAKS, both for meat. However, it sustained petitions to cancel registrations for the marks shown below center and right, finding the marks to be confusable with the registered marks OMAHA STEAKS and OMAHA STEAKS ANGUS, respectively. Omaha Steaks International, Inc. v. Greater Omaha Packing Co., Inc., Consolidated Opposition No. 91213527 and Cancellations Nos. 92059629 and 92059455 (September 30, 2017) [not precedential] (Opinion by Judge Jyll Taylor).GREATER OMAHA & [...]
Fri, Oct 13, 2017
Source: The TTABlog
Filed: October 13, 2017 as 2:2017at01063 Cause Of Action: Copyright Infringement [...]
Fri, Oct 13, 2017
Source: Recently Filed Cases in the Eastern District of California
Filed: October 13, 2017 as 2:2017at01064 Cause Of Action: Copyright Infringement [...]
Fri, Oct 13, 2017
Source: Recently Filed Cases in the Eastern District of California
DesignPatents15Year
If I were preparing to file a design patent around early May 2015, I might have held-off a bit on the filing to pass the May 13, 2015 threshold. Design patents stemming from applications filed on or after that date have a 15-year patent term (calculated from patent issuance) as opposed to a 14-year term for those filed prior to the threshold date. When I looked at the numbers, I was surprised to find that the extra year did not capture the hearts of design patent filers as I might have expected. (See Chart below.) Yes, filings on the 13th [...]
Thu, Oct 12, 2017
Source: Patently-O
by Dennis Crouch Prof. Hricik and I have both previously written about the Regeneron inequitable conduct decision. The following short summary comes from Hricik: [The] district court … held that people substantively involved in prosecution of the ‘018 Patent knew of but-for material references, which were not disclosed. Although the district court had intended to hold a separate trial on intent to deceive, instead it held that the patentee's discovery abuses (and other apparent misconduct) warranted an adverse inference of intent to deceive. The discovery abuses were related to the inequitable conduct issue. Accordingly, it held the patent [...]
Thu, Oct 12, 2017
Source: Patently-O
In this consolidated proceeding concerning the mark LEHMAN BROTHERS, Tiger Lily Ventures Ltd. moved to strike certain testimony and evidence submitted by Barclays Capital Inc. during the latter's case-in-chief, on both procedural and substantive grounds. The Board struck some of Barclays' evidence but refused to rule regarding the admissibility of two testimonial declarations, deferring that question until trial. Barclays Capital Inc. v. Tiger Lily Ventures Ltd., Oppositions Nos. 91219477, 91219478, and 91219549 (September 20, 2017) [precedential]. The Board found that Tiger Lily's procedural objections were timely, since they were promptly raised after the close of Barclays' initial testimony period, [...]
Thu, Oct 12, 2017
Source: The TTABlog
Owens Corning v. Fast Felt Corp (Fed. Cir. 2017) After being sued for infringing Fast Felt's U.S. Patent No. 8,137,757, Owens Corning retaliated with a petition for inter partes review. Although the PTO instituted the IPR, the PTAB eventually determined that the claims were not obvious — i.e., that “Owens Corning had failed to show obviousness of any of the challenged claims.” On appeal, the Federal Circuit has reversed — holding that under a proper BRI claim construction, that the claims are obvious. Representative Claim 1 is directed to a method of making roofing materials with reinforced nail tabs. [...]
Wed, Oct 11, 2017
Source: Patently-O
Guest post by Corey Salsberg, Vice President, Global Head IP Affairs, Novartis The patent system depends on information to achieve its goal of promoting progress. Published information defines the prior art. Patents must disclose sufficient information to describe an invention and enable others to practice it. And applications containing this information are published after 18 months, even if no patent issues. Comparing patents to other intellectual property rights that also promote innovation—trade secrets, most notably—the system's role in disseminating information is one of its most distinguishing features. But “information is not knowledge,” as Einstein (and Frank Zappa) said. [...]
Wed, Oct 11, 2017
Source: Patently-O
Steve Brachmann: PTAB Due Process Violations Raised In Brief To Federal Circuit Joe Mullin: New Patent-Holder Grabs Nokia Patents, Sues Over Apple iPhones Michael Hinrichsen & Anthony Sabatelli: Patent Exhaustion And Pharmaceuticals Jo Dale Carothers: Federal Circuit Clarifies Venue Requirements For Patent Cases Florian Mueller: DoJ Backs Apple, Says Supreme Court Should Deny Samsung's Most Recent Cert Petition Upcoming Events The Power Of The PTAB: The New Authority In Patent Law Get a Job doing Patent Law Schwegman Lundberg & Woessner AuerbachSchrot Perkins Coie Mintz Levin Gazdzinski & Associates [...]
Wed, Oct 11, 2017
Source: Patently-O
Juan Valentin (center) with students during Engineering Week
Blog about the USPTO from the Department of Commerce Ed. note: This post is part of the Spotlight on Commerce series highlighting contributions of Department of Commerce employees during Hispanic Heritage Month. Guest blog post by Juan Valentin, Education Program Advisor, U.S. Patent and Trademark Office If you had told me ten years ago that in October of 2017 I would be traveling across the United States educating children and adults alike on how important intellectual property (IP) protection is for the development of our youth and nation, I would have laughed you out of the [...]
Wed, Oct 11, 2017
Source: USPTO Blog
Yours truly, the TTABlogger, will be heading down to our Nation's Capital for the 2017 Annual Meeting of the American Intellectual Property Law Association (AIPLA) in Washington, D.C. (Register here). The "Year In Review" will be presented on Saturday morning, October 21st. My topic? Wait for it .............. TTAB Developments! (Brochure here).Read comments and post your comment here.Text Copyright John L. Welch 2017. [...]
Wed, Oct 11, 2017
Source: The TTABlog
It has been said that one can predict the outcome of a Section 2(d) appeal 95% of the time just by looking at the marks and the goods or services. Presented for your contemplation are three recent TTAB decisions in Section 2(d) appeals. One was reversed. What do you think? [Answer in first comment].In re Nikon Corporation, Serial No. 86828751 ((October 6, 2017) [not precedential] [Section 2(d) refusal to register the mark MMD (in standard characters) for “laser scanners for industrial inspection and for geometrical measurement, and not for use with land surveying equipment; software for collection and interpretation of [...]
Wed, Oct 11, 2017
Source: The TTABlog
CurrentState
Assessing the Need for Legislative Reform of Patent Eligibility in the Mayo/Alice Era: Final Report of the Berkeley Center for Law & Technology Section 101 Workshop [Read the Full Report] By Jeffrey A. Lefstin, Peter S. Menell, and David O. Taylor Over the past five years, the Supreme Court has embarked upon a drastic and far-reaching experiment in patent eligibility standards. Since the founding era, the nation's patent statutes have afforded patent protection to technological innovations and practical applications of scientific discoveries. However, the Supreme Court's 2012 decision in Mayo Collaborative Services v. Prometheus Laboratories imposed a new limitation on the scope [...]
Tue, Oct 10, 2017
Source: Patently-O
I really enjoy Patent Attorney Mike Clifford's high quality YouTube channel modustrialmaker – highlighting his “modern industrial DIY projects.” The channel now has more than 30,000 subscribers and 1 million views. YouTube Channel Clifford at MBHB The video below shows his latest work – a white concrete table with a live-edge maple inlay. After watching the video, I do feel enabled to make and use the same without undue experimentation. Great work! [...]
Tue, Oct 10, 2017
Source: Patently-O
The USPTO refused registration of the applied-for mark PERSON, finding it merely descriptive of wearable computers, wearable electronic devices, smart watches, and other goods. The examining attorney maintained that the term "describes a significant feature of these goods for wear on the human body, distinguishing them from a wearable device for, for example a dog or horse." How do you think this appeal came out? In re Caleb Suresh Motupalli, Serial No. 86573858 (October 2, 2017) [not precedential] (Opinion by Judge Thomas W. Wellington).The examining attorney's evidence of mere descriptiveness was minimal. She submitted two examples of third-party use [...]
Tue, Oct 10, 2017
Source: The TTABlog
Prof. Ken Port along with Lucas Hjelle and Molly Rose Littman have an interesting new draft article titled: Patent Jobs and the Myth of the Employment Hypothesis. Although it is not as easy as it used to be, the article explains that: [F]or one easily identifiable group, the legal job market is strong and growing: job prospects for Mechanical, Electrical, Chemical, and Computer Engineers (hereinafter, “MECC Engineers”) are quite positive. However, despite these positive job prospects, the number of MECC Engineers coming to law school is at near-record lows. The decrease in the number of MECC Engineers enrolled in law schools [...]
Mon, Oct 09, 2017
Source: Patently-O
Filed: October 9, 2017 as 2:2017at01040 Defendant: El Dorado [...]
Mon, Oct 09, 2017
Source: Recently Filed Cases in the Eastern District of California