This morning the Federal Circuit released three precedential opinions, one nonprecedential opinion, and one erratum. The first precedential opinion affirms in part, vacates in part, and remands a judgment of the Court of Federal Claims in a veterans case. The second vacates and remands a judgment of the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board. The third affirms a judgment of the Central District of California in a patent case. The nonprecedential opinion affirms a judgment of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board. Here are the introductions to the opinions and a link to the erratum.
Mote v. United States (Precedential)
Eric Mote appeals the decision of the United States Court of Federal Claims (the “Claims Court”) denying his request for removal of a Letter of Admonishment (“LOA”) and a Non-Judicial Punishment (“NJP”) from his military records and back pay in the amount of the fine associated with the NJP. See Mote v. United States, 168 Fed. Cl. 488 (2023) (“Decision”). The court granted judgment on the administrative record in favor of the government upholding the decision of the Air Force Board for Correction of Military Records (“AFBCMR”) denying his requested relief. For the following reasons, we affirm in part, vacate in part, and remand.
Bureau National Interprofessional Du Cognac v. Cologne & Cognac Entertainment (Precedential)
Bureau National Interprofessionnel du Cognac, the interprofessional union of all growers, producers, and merchants of COGNAC spirits, and Institut National des Appellations d’Origine, an administrative agency within the French government (collectively, “Opposers”), are the entities responsible for controlling and protecting the certification mark COGNAC. Opposers filed an opposition to a trademark application for COLOGNE & COGNAC ENTERTAINMENT and corresponding design mark by Cologne & Cognac Entertainment (“Applicant”), a hip-hop record label. The United States Patent and Trademark Office (“PTO”) Trademark Trial and Appeal Board (“the Board”) dismissed the opposition to the challenged mark, holding that the mark, if used for hip-hop music and production services, was not likely to cause confusion under 15 U.S.C. § 1052(d) or dilution under 15 U.S.C. § 1125(c) to the COGNAC certification mark. Bureau Nat’l Interprofessionnel du Cognac v. Cologne & Cognac Entm’t, 2022 WL 3755301 (T.T.A.B. Aug. 25, 2022) (“Decision” or “Dissent,” as appropriate). For the following reasons, we vacate and remand.
Mobile Acuity Ltd. v. Blippar Ltd. (Precedential)
Mobile Acuity Ltd. (“Mobile Acuity”) appeals from a judgment entered by the United States District Court for the Central District of California (“Central District”) dismissing its patent infringement action for failure to state a claim on the basis that the asserted patents claim ineligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101. We affirm.
Koninklijke Phillips N.V. v. Quectel Wireless Solutions Co. (Nonprecedential)
Koninklijke Philips N.V. (Philips) appeals an inter partes review final written decision of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (Board) holding claims 1–13 and 27–33 of U.S. Patent No. 10,257,814 are unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103. We affirm.