For the first time since 2009, the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board (TTAB) of the US Patent & Trademark Office (USPTO) has sustained an opposition on the grounds that the applicant committed fraud on the USPTO.
On September 10, 2014, JPT Group, owner of the iconic American fashion brand Bernardo, filed suit in the Southern District of Texas alleging that Old Navy infringed two of Bernardo’s design patents for sandals.
Fourth Circuit in McAirlands Inc. v. Kimberly-Clark Corp. recently held that ownership of a utility patent does not necessarily preclude a claim in trade dress.
On August 20, 2014, Judge Leonard P. Stark issued what appears to be the first order requiring a branded pharmaceutical company to delist a patent from the Food & Drug Administration’s (FDA) Orange Book.
The US Supreme Court recently agreed to consider a seemingly technical trademark question that could have a potentially big impact for brand owners. Specifically, the Supreme Court will consider whether a judge or the jury should decide if two trademarks are “legal equivalents”.
On August 18, 2014, the US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit issued an opinion sending website owners a clear warning that the onus is on them to put users on notice of the terms of use to which they wish to bind consumers.
In an IP-related story that seems ripped from the headlines of The Onion, a British photographer has claimed exclusive ownership of a Nat Geo-worthy image of a smiling crested black macaque that was shot with his camera during his 2011 trip to Indonesia. The twist? The monkey took the photo.
Currently, the federal circuits are split over the level of deference that should be afforded to findings made by the USPTO’s Trademark Trial & Appeal Board (TTAB) on likelihood of confusion, with the circuit courts applying at least five different standards.
On June 19, 2014, in Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank International, 573 U.S. ___2014, a unanimous Supreme Court held that systems and methods of exchanging financial obligations, implemented in hardware or software, did not qualify for patent protection.
On May 9, 2014, a federal appeals court reversed a California trial court’s determination that 37 API packages that are part of Oracle’s famous Java programming platform were not subject to copyright protection.
On May 2, 2014, the Eastern District of Virginia1 held that attorneys must inform the Court of any pending Inter Partes Review (IPR) regarding patents asserted in litigation. Failure to do so may violate the general duty of candor and good faith to the Court.
In a decision filed on May 8, 2014, the California Court of Appeals held that patentable ideas, if kept secret, can constitute information protectable by trade secret law.
Arent Fox Intellectual Property partner Pamela M. Deese is quoted by Bloomberg News in an article that illustrates the prospect of earning royalties from popular trademarked sports phrases.