Intellectual Property Archives

Jun 6, 2019

Will the Supreme Court Abrogate Sovereign Immunity for a State’s Infringement of Intellectual Property Rights?

In 1990, Congress passed the Copyright Remedy Clarification Act (“CRCA”), and in 1992 passed the Trademark Remedy Clarification Act (“TRCA”) and the Patent and Plant Variety Protection Remedy Clarification Act (“PCA”), all of which provided that states, state instrumentalities, and state employees acting in their official capacity, are not immune under the Eleventh Amendment, or other doctrine of sovereign immunity, from suit in federal court for copyright, trademark, and patent infringement. In 1997, the Supreme Court held that Congress’ legislative power did not constitutionally authorize it to abrogate state sovereign immunity for patent infringement under the PCA. Consistently since 1997,… Read more

May 30, 2019

Supreme Court Rules that Bankruptcy Does Not Revoke a Trademark License

On May 20, 2019, in deciding Mission Product Holdings, Inc. v. Tempnology, LLC, No. 17-1657, the U.S. Supreme Court settled a circuit split regarding an unresolved legal issue in trademark licensing, determining whether a licensee can continue to use a licensed mark once the licensor files for bankruptcy. Tempnology, LLC (“Tempnology”) manufactured clothing and accessories designed to stay cool during physical activity and marketed these products under the trademark “Coolcore.” In 2012, Tempnology entered into a license agreement with Mission Product Holdings, Inc. (“Mission”), granting Mission an exclusive license to distribute certain Coolcore products in the United States and a… Read more

May 2, 2019

Fourth Circuit Fixes Fair Use

On April 26, the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals reversed a controversial ruling that caused significant concerns for visual artists. Brammer v. Violent Hues Productions, LLC, No. 18-1763 (4th Cir. Apr. 26, 2019). The lower court ruled that a festival promoter’s unlicensed use of a copyrighted photograph on its website in connection with advertising the festival was permitted as “fair use.” More information concerning the trial court’s ruling is contained in our earlier article, Is Fair Use Still Fair, available here. After analyzing the statutory fair use factors, the lower court found that they weighed in favor of permitting the… Read more

Apr 11, 2019

Brunetti and the Tests of Tam

On Monday, April 15, 2019 arguments in the Brunetti case [Iancu v. Brunetti, No. 18-302] will be heard at the United States Supreme Court. Erik Brunetti seeks to register the mark FUCT for clothing. Brunetti’s application was rejected for registration by the United States Patent and Trademark Office on the basis that it violates the Lanham Act, 15. U.S.C. 1052(a) which prohibits the registration of marks comprised of “immoral” or “scandalous” matter. The arguments by the government and Brunetti are sure to echo some of the arguments made in the so-called SLANTS case, Matal v. Tam, 137 S. Ct. 1744… Read more

Apr 11, 2019

Federal Circuit Declines to Give Deference to the USPTO

More patents directed to diagnostic methods were found to be invalid as directed to the ineligible subject matter in Cleveland Clinic Foundation v. True Health Diagnostics, LLC, Case No. 2018-1218 (Fed. Cir. April 1, 2018). The Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit applied the “Alice two-step” test and found the claims in U.S. Patent Nos. 9,575,065 and 9,581,597 invalid under § 101. This holding may come as a surprise to some because Cleveland Clinic argued, among other things, that the claims at issue mirrored Example 29-Claim 1 in the USPTO guidance published on May 4, 2016 (“referred to as… Read more

Apr 4, 2019

Avoid Truthful But Misleading Advertising

Street Advertising - Misleading Advertising

Avoid truthful but misleading advertising. Be careful what you say, especially about your competitors. As expected, competitors are sensitive to any negative allegations made about their products or services, since it may likely have an effect on the business’s sales and reputation. Some competitors may even file a lawsuit to enjoin the use of such statements, even if the statements are technically true. On March 21, 2019, MillerCoors, LLC (“MillerCoors”), which sells Miller Lite and Coors Light, filed a complaint against Anheuser-Busch Companies, LLC (“AB”), which sells Bud Light, after the Bud Light commercials shown during Super Bowl LIII and… Read more

Mar 7, 2019

Using Inventorship Challenges to Facilitate the Resolution of Misappropriation of Trade Secrets Claims

Coda Development S.R.O., v Goodyear Tire & Rubber Company (Fed. Cir. 2019), presents an interesting case: the use of an inventorship challenge to facilitate the resolution of an alleged misappropriation of trade secrets following unsuccessful negotiations. Coda sought inventorship correction in several patents filed by Goodyear involving self-inflating tire (“SIT”) technology, including US No. 8,042,586 (“ ‘586”), and compensation for the misappropriation of SIT trade secrets. The District Court (N.D. Ohio) dismissed Coda’s complaint for failing to state a claim upon which relief could be granted and denied Plaintiffs’ leave to amend the complaint. Plaintiffs appealed both the dismissal and… Read more

Feb 21, 2019

Legal Update: On-Sale Bar Applies to Secret Sales

On January 22, 2019, the Supreme Court held that amendments by the America Invents Act (AIA) to the U.S. Patent Act did not exclude secret sales from the on-bar sale doctrine, meaning such sales that occur before a patent’s filing can lead to its invalidation. The issue was whether the amendment that added the phrase “or otherwise available to the public” changed the meaning of “on sale”, such that the claimed invention of the sale itself had to be publicly disclosed in order for the sale to be an invalidating prior art event. (Read the original article on this topic.)… Read more

Feb 20, 2019

Establishing Proper Venue in Patent Cases

Patent Cases: Is Computer Equipment Proper Venue?

Can Computer Equipment Serve as a “Regular and Established Place of Business” in Patent Cases? On February 5, 2019, the Federal Circuit denied rehearing en banc in In Re Google LLC, 2018-152 (Fed. Cir. Feb. 5, 2019), leaving unsettled the question of whether the presence of computer servers satisfies the “regular and established place of business” requirement for establishing proper venue in patent cases. The Federal Circuit’s decision stems from patent litigation initiated by SEVEN Networks, LLC against Google in U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas. SEVEN Networks, LLC v. Google LLC, 2:17-cv-442-JRG (E.D. Tex.). In that… Read more