Firm News

Supreme Court Rules Government Not A ‘Person’ For PTAB Proceedings

»»Under the 2012 America Invents Act (“AIA”), Congress created three new post-issuances avenues for a “person” to challenge patents before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) in IPR’s, PGR’s, and CBM’s. With this ruling, the Supreme Court has deemed that the Federal Government is not a “person” for these purposes and thus is ineligible […]

Federal Circuit Rules No State Sovereign Immunity For PTAB Proceedings

»»Expanding on its precedential ruling against the use of tribal sovereign immunity at the Patent and Trial Appeal Board (“PTAB”) from last summer in Saint Regis Mohawk Tribe v. Mylan Pharmaceuticals Inc., the Federal Circuit ruled that there is no sovereign immunity for states in proceedings at the PTAB either. The decision was based on […]

2019 Design Day: Caselaw Highlights

»»Last week was the United States Patent and Trademark Office’s annual Design Day where they hosted speakers on the last year in design patent practice. The following cases from the Federal Circuit, the Patent Trial and Appeal Board, and District Courts were highlighted throughout the day for their impact on design patent practice. For more […]

PTAB Designates a Flurry of Opinions As Precedential In Wake of Boalick Appointment

»»Since his official appointment to his post as Chief Judge of the PTAB, Boalick has wasted no time in making his mark. Beginning the very day his permanent appointment became official last month, the PTAB has issued a number of precedential opinions. Most notably, the new Precedential Opinion Panel or POP (created in September’s updates […]

Scott Boalick Appointed as Chief Judge of PTAB

»»Scott Boalick has officially begun his permanent term as Chief Judge of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board. After having served in an interim role since September, the USPTO made his appointment official last month. Boalick started at the PTAB in 2007 and has since acted as an administrative patent judge, a vice chief judge, […]

Fast Food Empires Put Their Weight Behind Trademarks

»»Fast food companies have been actively asserting their trademarks, recently highlighted by noteworthy activity by both McDonald’s and In-N-Out. McDonald’s aggressive defense of its trademarks hit a snag recently as the EUIPO canceled their trademark for “Big Mac” for failing to provide sufficient evidence of use. In their argument, McDonald’s relied mainly on affidavits from […]

Iancu Testifies Before Senate Judiciary Subcommittee on IP

»»On March 13, 2019, Andrei Iancu, Under Secretary of Commerce for Intellectual Property and Director of the United States Patent and Trademark Office, testified before the U.S. Senate’s Committee on the Judiciary’s subcommittee on Intellectual Property to discuss the USPTO and the current state of patent and trademark law in the United States. In their […]

Supreme Court Curbs Copyright Owners With Pair of Copyright Rulings

»»Two recent Supreme Court decisions may have far reaching consequences for those looking to assert (or avoid) copyright infringement claims. Registration Requirement On March 4, 2019, the Court ruled on Fourth Estate Public Benefit Corp. v., where it held that Copyright Infringement was only available after a copyright is registered at the Copyright Office. […]

Supreme Court Grants Cert To Iancu On USPTO Attorney’s Fees For District Court Review

»»The Supreme Court has granted cert to Iancu in Iancu v. NantKwest, Inc. to resolve the question of whether all expenses incurred by the USPTO must be paid for by the applicant in a district court action under 35 U.S.C. 145 regardless of the outcome. §145 allows for de novo review of an adverse PTAB […]

Click-To-Call Decision Distinguished by PTAB as it Faces Appeal to Supreme Court

»»Earlier this month, Dex Media (the remaining appellee) filed a Petition for Writ of Certiorari over the Federal Circuit’s application of the one-year time-bar in Oracle Corp. v. Click-to-Call Technologies LP. According to the Federal Circuit, the one-year limit to file an IPR after being served with a complaint under 315(b) of the America Invents […]