News

Here is a report on recent news and commentary related to the Federal Circuit and its cases. Today’s report highlights:

  • a blog post assessing whether Section 1052(c) of the Lanham Act is “a “First Amendment-free zone”;
  • an article analyzing Cellspin Soft’s challenge of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office’s denial of “Director review following a pair of inter partes review (IPR) proceedings”;
  • another article discussing the Federal Circuit’s affirmation of a Patent Trial and Appeal Board ruling “that certain claims were invalid as anticipated by an earlier priority application from the same family”; and
  • yet another article explaining how the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board determined that “[a] trademark registration applicant can’t register a mark for a business that is in the ‘nascent stage.'”

Samuel F. Ernst authored a guest post for PatentlyO discussing whether Section 1052(c) of the Lanham Act is “a “First Amendment-free zone.” Ernst concludes that “denying the benefits of national registration to marks constituting political speech under these circumstances constitutes an impermissible burden on free speech in violation of the First Amendment.”

Steve Brachmann filed an article with IPWatchdog reporting on how “patent owner Cellspin Soft filed a citation of supplemental authorities” with the Federal Circuit concerning the USPTO’s denial of “Director review following a pair of inter partes review (IPR) proceedings conducted at the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB).” Brachmann noted that “Cellspin Soft challeng[ed] the USPTO’s denial as invalid both under the Administrative Procedures Act (APA), as well as under the U.S. Supreme Court’s precedent in United States v. Arthrex (2021).”

Art Dykhuis published an article with The National Law Review highlighting how, in Indivior UK Ltd. v. Dr. Reddy’s Laboratories S.A., the Federal Circuit “affirmed a Patent Trial & Appeal Board (Board) ruling, based on a written description analysis, that certain claims were invalid as anticipated by an earlier priority application from the same family.” Dykhuis explained that, “ultimately, the Court agreed that there was no written description support for the claimed ranges and the claims were not entitled to the asserted priority date.”

Samantha Handler reported for Bloomberg Law explaining how the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board determined that “[a] trademark registration applicant can’t register a mark for a business that is in the ‘nascent stage.'” Handler emphasized the TTAB’s decision that “[s]ervices must exist for use in commerce.”