Here is a report on recent news and commentary related to the Federal Circuit and its cases. Today’s report highlights:
- an article discussing Law360’s “picks for the top trademark rulings of 2021”;
- another article detailing the Federal Circuit’s reversal of a Trademark Trial and Appeal Board priority determination;
- another article explaining a Federal Circuit decision “[a]ddressing obviousness in the context of method of treatment claims using particular drug dosages”; and
- another article assessing “homes, cars & IP: the valuation method intriguing patent lawyers.”
Tiffany Hu reported on Law360’s “picks for the top trademark rulings of 2021.” Hu emphasized that, “[w]ith the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board finding an attorney’s reckless disregard for the truth was enough to prove fraud and the Eighth Circuit wading into the ongoing debate over the doctrine of initial interest confusion, the past year has been full of important decisions shaping trademark law.”
Eric Guam filed an article with Lexology discussing how the Federal Circuit, in Brittex Financial, Inc. v. Dollar Financial Group, Inc., “reversed the TTAB’s priority determination, which was the sole basis for its denial of Brittex’s petition to cancel two trademark registrations owned by Dollar Financial.” Guam noted that “[t]he Federal Circuit found that a straightforward application of Section 2(d) [of the Lanham Act] to the undisputed facts supports Brittex’s argument for its priority.”
Mandy H. Kim published an article with The National Law Review explaining how, in Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc. v. Corcept Therapeutics, Inc., the Federal Circuit “affirmed a Patent Trial & Appeal Board (Board) final written decision holding that Teva failed to prove obviousness because it failed to show a reasonable expectation of success.” Kim discussed ow the Federal Circuit’s decision “[a]ddress[ed] obviousness in the context of method of treatment claims using particular drug dosages.”
Matthew Bultman authored an article for Bloomberg Law entitled “homes, cars & IP: the valuation method intriguing patent lawyers.” Bultman explained that “[a recent] jury verdict has sparked patent attorneys’ interest in hedonic regression, which can be used to isolate a specific product feature and estimate its value.” Moreover, Bultman emphasized, the “[e]conomics model [has been] appearing more often in patent cases.”