FedCircuitBlog

Last week, the Federal Circuit heard oral argument in Bureau National Interprofessionnel Du Cognac v. Cologne & Cognac Entertainment, a trademark case that attracted an amicus brief. In this case, the Federal Circuit is reviewing a judgment of the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board. As explained by the appellants, Bureau National Interprofessionnel Du Cognac and Institut National Des Appellations D’Origine, “[i]n a two-to-one split decision, the Board held registrable a mark prominently incorporating without permission the certification mark COGNAC, holding that the mark (combining the phrase COLOGNE & COGNAC ENTERTAINMENT and a design featuring, inter alia, a bottle of COGNAC), if used for hip-hop music and production services, was not likely to cause confusion or dilution.” Judges Lourie, Clevenger, and Hughes heard the argument. This is our argument recap.

This morning the Federal Circuit released two nonprecedential orders. Both orders are dismissals. Here are the links to the orders.

Late last month the Federal Circuit issued its opinion in LKQ Corporation v. GM Global Technology Operations LLC, a design patent case that attracted eighteen amicus briefs. In this case, the en banc court reviewed the continuing vitality of the so-called Rosen-Durling test to asses nonobviousness of design patents. In an opinion authored by Judge Stoll, the en banc court overruled the cases using that test and adopted in its place a new approach for assessing nonobviousness of design patents. Notably, Judge Lourie filed a concurring opinion. This is our opinion summary.

Last week, the Federal Circuit heard oral argument in Freund v. McDonough, a veterans case that attracted an amicus brief. In this case, the Federal Circuit will review a judgment of the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims, which dismissed the case as moot and denied Freund’s request for class certification. Judges Dyk, Hughes, and Stoll heard the argument. This is our argument recap.

Today the Supreme Court reversed the Federal Circuit’s holding in Vidal v. Elster, a trademark case. The Federal Circuit had concluded that the Lanham Act’s prohibition on registering marks that consist of or comprise a name identifying a particular living individual without that person’s consent violates the First Amendment. The Supreme Court disagreed. In an opinion authored by Justice Thomas, the Court decided that history and tradition establish that the provision in question does not violate the First Amendment. Here is the introduction and conclusion of majority opinion. Next week we plan to post a full opinion summary.

This morning the Federal Circuit released two nonprecedential opinions. The first opinion dismisses an appeal from the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims. The second opinion affirms a judgment of the Merit Systems Protection Board, which dismissed claims for lack of jurisdiction. Here are the introductions to the opinions.

Here is an update on recent en banc activity at the Federal Circuit. Highlights include denials of petitions in two related cases. Both raised questions related to claim construction. Here are the details.

This morning the Federal Circuit released one nonprecedential opinion and one nonprecedential order. The nonprecedential opinion affirms a judgment of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board. The order dismisses and appeal from the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims as moot. Here is the introduction to the opinion and link to the order.

This morning the Federal Circuit released two nonprecedential opinions and seven nonprecedential orders. The first opinion affirms a judgment of the Merit Systems Protection Board, and the second opinion affirms in part, reverses in part, and remands a patent and trade secret case appealed from the District of Rhode Island. Three of the orders are dismissals and four are Rule 36 summary affirmances. Here are the introductions to the opinions and links to the dismissals and summary affirmances.

Here is a report on recent news and commentary related to the Federal Circuit and its cases. Today’s report highlights:

• an article analyzing “four Federal Circuit decisions reversing or vacating the underlying rulings” in patent cases and “the lessons learned from those decisions”; and
• a webinar discussing whether the patent eligibility doctrine is “in need of reform.”