Lewis Roca Blog

Not all patent owners exploit their patents by making and selling products. Rather, some monetize their patents through licensing in which case the entities are referred to as “Non-Practicing Entities” or "NPEs." Some NPEs own strong and valid patents, and engage in commercially reasonable licensing activities.

The USPTO has twice announced extensions of certain trademark and patent deadlines in accordance with the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security Act (CARES Act). The most recent extensions will lapse on May 31, 2020, but the USPTO will continue to offer some relief.

The USPTO has announced extensions of certain patent and trademark deadlines in accordance with the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security Act (CARES Act). Under some conditions, discussed below, deadlines for filing certain patent and trademark related documents and paying certain required fees that would otherwise have been due between March 27 and May 31 may now be filed on or before June 1.

Working from home may mean working without convenient access to common office equipment such as printers and scanners.  As such, the situation lends itself to taking advantage of the USPTO’s acceptance of electronic “S-signatures” wherein documents can be signed without being printed.

When a company wants to protect the appearance or configuration of a product, trade dress intellectual property protection most immediately comes to mind. This is sensible. But, other types of protection, copyright and design patents, can each provide their own unique advantages.

The United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) now requires all foreign-domiciled trademark applicants and registrants to retain licensed counsel in the United States to prosecute trademark applications, file post-registration maintenance documents, file submissions in Madrid applications, or respond to Trademark Trial and Appeal Board (TTAB) proceedings.

By Kyle Kellar and Christopher Underwood Last week, the Federal Circuit, in Forum US v. Flow Valve[i], affirmed the lower court’s ruling invalidating a reissue patent because the broadened claims added in the reissue failed to satisfy the original patent requirement under 35 U.S.C. § 251. As a brief refresher, the original patent requirement requires that …

Continue reading "The Federal Circuit Clampsdown on Broadening Reissues – Or Does It?"

The post The Federal Circuit Clampsdown on Broadening Reissues – Or Does It? appeared first on The Intellectual Property Blog.

On November 9, 2018, in Arista Networks, Inc. v. Cisco Systems, Inc., the Federal Circuit held that assignor estoppel does not apply in inter partes review (IPR) proceedings. In this case, a former employee of Cisco Systems, Inc. (“Cisco”), who had assigned his invention as patented (U.S. Patent No. 7,340,597 – “the ‘597 patent”) to Cisco, …

In a recent opinion [DSS Technology Management. v. Apple Inc., (Fed. Cir. 3/23/2018)], the Federal Circuit iterated that the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“the Board”) must provide additional rationale beyond “ordinary creativity” and “common sense” for modifying a single reference for rendering a claim invalid. Reference to the “ordinary creativity” of the ordinary skilled …

In a most recent opinion, the Federal Circuit makes it clear that unless it chooses to exercise its waiver rights under 37 CFR 42.5(b), the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“the Board”), consistent with the PTO guidelines, is obligated to dismiss new arguments and evidence presented for the first time during the oral argument phase …

The experimental use exception, part of U.S. patent law for nearly two centuries, is becoming obsolete. Recent court decisions and changes under the America Invents Act (AIA)1 have raised doubts about the continued viability of the doctrine. Additionally, other legal provisions that offer protections similar to those of the experimental use doctrine and reduce the need …

When one party is found to have infringed the patent rights of another, the often-difficult task of calculating economic damages begins. As one step in this process, the time period during which damages have accrued must be determined. When damages begin to accrue is considered primarily in light of when the infringing party was made …

Supreme Court of the United States On November 27, 2017, the U.S. Supreme Court heard oral argument in Oil States Energy Services LLC v. Greene’s Energy Group, LLC, a case examining the constitutionality of inter partes review proceedings before the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“PTO”). Specifically, the case addresses the question “[w]hether inter …

On June 21, 2017, Sen. Christopher Coons (D-Del) introduced legislation that would limit patent validity challenges at the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (“PTO”), and strengthen patent owners’ rights in court. The bill is named the Support Technology & Research for Our Nation’s Growth and Economic Resilience Act, or the “STRONGER Patents Act of 2017,” …

Oil States Energy Services LLC v. Greene’s Energy Group, LLC 639 F.App’x 639 (Fed. Cir. 2016), cert. granted (June 12, 2017) (No. 16-712) Supreme Court of the United States The Supreme Court has granted certiorari in Oil States Energy Services LLC v. Greene’s Energy Group, LLC to examine the constitutionality of inter partes review proceedings …

The Biologics Price Competition and Innovation Act of 2009 (“BPCIA”), codified in 42 U.S.C. § 262, ushered in a new wave of patent litigation for large molecules, and a bounty of questions regarding the application and interpretation of the statue.  In Sandoz v. Amgen, –U.S.–, June 12, 2017, The Supreme Court weighed in for the …

Under the longstanding doctrine of patent exhaustion, a patentee’s rights are “exhausted” once an authorized sale has occurred.  For many years, however, some courts have recognized exceptions to the doctrine, such as when the parties agree to various post-sale restrictions in an arms-length transaction, or where the patented item was first sold outside of the […]

In a significant and long-waited ruling governing patent litigation, the Supreme Court today in TC Heartland v. Kraft Foods reversed long-standing lower court precedent that enabled patent owners, with relatively few restrictions, to sue corporate defendants in jurisdictions in which alleged infringement occurred.  Many corporations market and sell products directly or indirectly throughout the United […]

As illustrated by a recent Federal Circuit Decision, the Courts may already be following the recent recommendations of the American Bar Association Section of Intellectual Property Law (ABA), and the Intellectual Property Owner’s Association (IPO). A portion of the ABA March 25, 2017 recommendation states that with regard to Section 101, patent eligibility shall not […]

In Wasica Finance GmbH v. Continental Automotive Systems, Inc., No. 15-2078 (Fed. Cir. 2017), the patentee Wasica Finance discovered, among other things, the importance of using consistent terminology in the patent specification and claims. The patent-in-suit, now expired U.S. Patent No. 5,602,524, is directed to a system for monitoring tire pressure in vehicles. […]

On March 22, 2017, the United States Supreme Court issued a much-anticipated opinion in Star Athletica, LLC v. Varsity Brands, Inc.  At issue was whether the surface decorations on cheerleading uniforms are copyright eligible, even though the shape of the uniforms are useful articles, and not copyright eligible.

Applicant applied to register SNOW BY REPUBLIC for clothing.  The TTAB approved the registration this mark despite the existence of the following trademark registration for similar clothing items: SNÖ In reaching its decision, the TTAB discusses two interesting tenets of trademark law. FIRST.  A “crowded” field is often used to describe a situation where a […]