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 how the “Federal Circuit sidestep[ed] [the] determination of generics’ skinny label as protection against induced [patent] infringement”;
- an article detailing how the “Federal Circuit h[eld] that a price ‘quotation’ can trigger [patent law’s] on-sale bar”; and
- another article analyzing how “Disney convince[d] [the] Fed. Circ. to reject [the] ‘Teen Tinker Bell’ trademark.”
Jason Y. Zhang authored a blog post for Finnegan Federal Circuit IP Blog discussing how the “Federal Circuit sidestep[ed] [the] determination of generics’ skinny label as protection against induced [patent] infringement.” Zhang noted how, “[i]n a per curiam order [in] GlaxoSmithKline LLC v. Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc., the Federal Circuit denied Teva’s petition for rehearing en banc of the panel decision, which found Teva’s induced infringement of GSK’s carvedilol patent based on its generic drug label.”
Lexology published an article highlighting how the “Federal Circuit h[eld] that a price ‘quotation’ can trigger an on-sale bar.” The article explained that, in Junker v. Medical Components, Inc., the Federal Circuit issued an order in which the court “held that a letter offering a quotation for product covered by the patent does constitute an offer for sale under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 102(b).”
Gina Kim filed an article with Law360 analyzing how “Disney convince[d] [the] Fed. Circ. to reject [the] ‘Teen Tinker Bell’ trademark.” Kim explained that the Federal Circuit recently “upheld the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board’s decision to allow Disney to stop United Trademark Holdings Inc. from registering ‘Teen Tink’ and ‘Teen Tinker Bell’ trademarks for its doll collections, finding that the marks would likely cause confusion among consumers.”