Here is a report on recent news and commentary related to the Federal Circuit and its cases. Today’s report highlights:
- a blog post providing an analysis of the oral arguments in Vidal v. Elster, which “involved a provision in the federal Lanham Act that directs the Patent and Trademark Office . . . to refuse to register any mark that identifies ‘a particular living individual'”;
- an article discussing “an opinion dealing largely with how much a patent owner can rely on information and belief-based allegations rather than facts”; and
- an article calling a district court opinion “a decision based on ignorance of patent law that must be overturned.”
Ronald Mann wrote a blog post for SCOTUSblog providing an analysis of the oral arguments in Vidal v. Elster, which “involved a provision in the federal Lanham Act that directs the Patent and Trademark Office . . . to refuse to register any mark that identifies ‘a particular living individual.'” According to Mann, the Justices “offered a variety of different approaches,” but he noted how “none of the approaches suggested any interest in forcing the PTO to register the mark.” See our own argument recap here.
Dani Kass authored an article for Law360 discussing “an opinion dealing largely with how much a patent owner can rely on information and belief-based allegations rather than facts.” Kass writes that Judge Bryson said a plaintiff “made sufficient allegations to press forward with an infringement suit . . . even if much of the complaint is premised on ‘information and belief’ statements.”
Gene Quinn wrote an article for IPWatchdog calling a district court opinion “a decision based on ignorance of patent law that must be overturned.” According to Quinn, the district court erroneously found that, “because Sonos could have filed . . . claims in [a] continuation earlier, that created a laches defense.” Quinn suggests that, “[i]f the Federal Circuit allows these rulings to stand, it will not only upend patent practice, but it would require the USPTO to do something they are currently not allowed to do, which is limit the filing of continuation applications.”