One case we are following that is being argued next week is In re FCA US LLC. This case presents the question of whether the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board erred in holding a mark was likely to cause confusion given that in a separate proceeding a district court determined confusion was unlikely.
One case being argued next week involves Keith Manufacturing Co. (“Keith”) and Larry Butterfield (“Butterfield”). This case presents the issue of whether a “stipulated dismissal with prejudice functions as a ‘judgment’ under Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(a), allowing the defendant to move for an award of attorney’s fees.”
Another case being argued next week involves Intellectual Ventures I LLC (“IV”) and EMC Corp. (“EMC”). This case present the issue of whether, during an inter partes review (“IPR”), the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“PTAB”) may premise its obviousness finding on expert testimony that represents gap-filling.
Another interesting case being argued next week involves Fraunhofer-Gesellschaft (“Fraunhofer”) and Sirius XM Radio Inc. (“SXM”). This case presents the question of whether the term “irrevocable” in a patent license precludes any forfeiture of the licensed rights.
A pharmaceutical patent case being argued next week involves Sanofi-Aventis Deutschland (“Sanofi”) and Mylan Pharmaceuticals Inc. (“Mylan”). This case presents two related issues on the subject of the law of obviousness: (1) whether “obviousness may be shown even when the prior art did not ‘expressly articulate’ or even implicitly ‘suggest’” a modification to the prior art, and (2) whether “the teachings of the challenged patents-in-suit, rather than the prior art,” are sufficient to show that a person of skill in the art (“POSITA”) “would have had a reason to modify the prior art.”