Here is a report on recent news and commentary related to the Federal Circuit and its cases. Today’s report highlights:
- an article providing a midyear report on “the most notable trademark decisions so far this year”;
- an article about the effects of a recent precedential Federal Circuit opinion in a trademark case dealing with tacking;
- a blog post summarizing takeaways from a recent precedential Federal Circuit opinion in a patent case addressing enablement, written description, and anticipation; and
- a blog post discussing the America Invents Act of 2011 and how it has allegedly given the Chinese government “a lethal tool for snuffing out the business interests of competitive American firms.”
Adam Lidgett authored an article for Law360 providing a midyear report on “the most notable trademark decisions so far this year.” One case Lidgett highlights is Spireon, Inc. v. Flex Ltd., which he notes was “the latest in a progression of cases setting forth the circumstances under which third-party registrations may be considered in a contested proceeding.”
Scott D. Locke authored an article for Law.com about the effects of the recent precedential Federal Circuit opinion in Bertini v. Apple Inc., a trademark case dealing with tacking. He notes how, in this “case of first impression,” the Federal Circuit “held that there are strict limits on using the tacking doctrine to take advantage of an earlier use of a mark on different of goods or services.” He also illustrates how the case “created a two-prong analysis for tacking inquiries: (1) Are the earlier and later marks legally equivalents, i.e., do they create the same continuing commercial impression?; and (2) Is each good and service in the later application substantially identical to a good and service in an earlier registration i.e., if not the same are they within a natural evolution of offerings?”
Dennis Crouch wrote a blog post for PatentlyO summarizing takeaways from the recent precedential Federal Circuit opinion in United Therapeutics Corporation v. Liquidia Technologies, Inc., a patent case addressing enablement, written description, and anticipation. He remarks how this opinion “provides important guidance for drafting and prosecuting method claims, making clear that the specification does not need to address every possible disease subtype or non-responsive patient population to satisfy” statutory specification requirements “as long as those limitations are not captured in the claims.” He further mentioned how it “will be interesting . . . to see how this precedent sits along side the recent focus on ‘full scope’ disclosure.”
Josh Malone wrote a blog post for IPWatchdog discussing the America Invents Act of 2011 and how it has allegedly given the Chinese government “a lethal tool for snuffing out the business interests of competitive American firms.” He argues that, “[o]f the many ways that the Patent Trial and Appeal Board . . . works to the detriment of the U.S. innovation economy, one of the most nefarious is the Chinese government’s use of patent validity review to advance its national interests.”