Here is a report on recent news and commentary related to the Federal Circuit and its cases. Today’s report highlights:
- a blog post discussing a pending trademark case involving a rejection of a trademark for being “deceptively misdescriptive”;
- an article highlighting how, in a patent case, “former CAFC Chief Judge, Paul Michel, . . . filed an amicus brief . . . asking the full [Federal Circuit] to resolve ‘unintentional confusion and conflict’ in the court’s obviousness jurisprudence”; and
- another article discussing “a challenge to the $185 million in legal fees a U.S. court awarded . . . in an Affordable Care Act class action that secured $3.7 billion for health insurers.”
Dennis crouch published a blog post for PatentlyO discussing In re Dolce Vita Footwear, “a pending trademark case involving the mark CLEAR that Dolce Vita uses on their shoes.” Crouch noted that the “USPTO did expect the CLEAR shoes to be transparent and so refused to register the trademark because it was deceptively misdescriptive.”
Eileen McDermott filed an article with IPWatchdog detailing how, “[o]n March 20, Zaxcom, Inc. . . .petitioned the [Federal Circuit] for rehearing en banc after the court found its original patent claims unpatentable as obvious.” McDermott noted that “former CAFC Chief Judge, Paul Michel, has filed an amicus brief supporting Zaxcom and asking the full CAFC to resolve ‘unintentional confusion and conflict’ in the court’s obviousness jurisprudence.”
Mike Scarcella authored an article for Reuters explaining how “Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan . . . clapped back against a challenge to the $185 million in legal fees a U.S. court awarded the law firm in an Affordable Care Act class action that secured $3.7 billion for health insurers.” Scarcella noted how “[t]he 900-lawyer business litigation firm said in a filing in the Washington, D.C.-based U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit that ‘a mountain of precedent’ justified the 5% fee award after more than four years of litigation.”