News

The United States Patent & Trademark Office published a new examination guide titled, "Examination of Specimens for Use in Commerce: Digitally Created or Altered and Mockup Specimens."

The US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit on July 10, 2019, held that General Electric Co.‘s position as a patent owner’s competitor was insufficient to establish standing to appeal a Patent Trial and Appeal Board decision.

The US Patent and Trademark Office on July 10, 2019, designated as precedential Focal Therapeutics, Inc. v. SenoRx, Inc., Case IPR2014-00116 (PTAB July 21, 2014) (Paper 19).

The IP Practice in China Committee delegation kicked of this year's trip with a dinner with Dennis Duncan, the USPTO IP Attache based in Beijing, who provided a briefing of current developments in China.

The US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit on July 5, 2019, held that the Patent Trial & Appeal Board must reexamine Global IP Holdings LLC’s bid to broaden the scope of its patent.

A split US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, on July 3, 2019, refused to revisit their February decision to invalidate a patent licensed to Quest Diagnostics Inc.’s Athena unit for a way to diagnose a severe neurological disorder.

The US Patent and Trademark Office on June 3, 2019, published an examination guide explaining how the USPTO will examine trademark applications following the Supreme Court’s recent decision in Iancu v. Brunetti.

The US Patent and Trademark Office on July 2, 2019, issued final rules requiring foreign-domiciled trademark applicants, registrants, and parties to Trademark Trial and Appeal Board proceedings to be represented by an attorney who is licensed to practice law in the United States.

The June 2019 update of the USPTO’s Trademark Trial and Appeal Board Manual of Procedure (TBMP) is now available on the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board webpage under "Policies and procedures.

On June 25, 2019, the Federal Circuit held that a trial court wrongly dismissed Cellspin Soft, Inc.’s (Cellspin), patent infringement lawsuits after determining that the four disputed patents were invalid and covered an abstract idea.

The US Supreme Court on June 24, 2019, agreed to review a case that will decide whether states can preserve the copyrights to official annotations of their laws if they hire a private company to compile and sell them.

On June 24, 2019, the Supreme Court upheld the Federal Circuit's decision in In re Brunetti, 877 F.3d 1330 (Fed. Cir. 2017), ruling that the Lanham Act provision which bars the registration of “immoral[ ] or scandalous” trademarks violates the First Amendment. Iancu v. Brunetti, No. 18-302, 6/24/2019.

The EU General Court in Luxembourg on June 19, 2019, limited the reach of sportswear giant Adidas’s iconic trademark.

The Federal Circuit on June 17, 2019, held that patent holders who introduce new claims during the prosecution of a patent must ensure those claims meet the requirements in the original patent.

The American Intellectual Property Law Association on June 14, 2019, filed an amicus brief in 1-800 Contacts v. Federal Trade Commission.

On April 29 – May 3, 2019, the IPP Far East Committee dispatched a delegation to visit Taiwan and Singapore. The trip delegation was headed up by Patrick Coyne, AIPLA’s Second Vice President, and Tiep Nguyen, the Far East Committee Chair.

The US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit on June 14, 2019, held that 11th Amendment Sovereign Immunity does not protect patents owned by individual states from being cancelled via inter partes review (IPR).

AIPLA attended meetings of the Industry IP5, IP5 Heads of Offices, and the Industry Trilateral in Incheon, Korea June 10-13, 2019.

The US Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit on June 12, 2019, affirmed a $2 million win for Bodum USA Inc., makers of the Chambord French press coffeemaker, in a trade dress infringement case.

The US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit on June 13, 2019, vacated and remanded a Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) decision which had invalidated Power Integrations’ Patent No. 6,212,079 (the ’079 patent) because the inter partes review (IPR) was time-barred under § 315(b).