FedCircuitBlog

As we previously reported, the Supreme Court in June issued its opinion in Vidal v. Elster, a trademark case that attracted eight amicus briefs. In this case, the Court reviewed the Federal Circuit’s conclusion 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. Notably, Justices Kavanaugh and Barrett both concurred in part and Justice Sotomayor concurred only in the judgment. This is our opinion summary.

This morning the Federal Circuit released one nonprecedential opinion and six nonprecedential orders. The opinion affirms a judgment from the Western District Court of Pennsylvania in a patent case. The first order reinstates an appeal and vacates a previous judgment while also affirming a decision from the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board. All the other orders are dismissals. Here is the introduction to the opinion and links to the orders.

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

• an article reporting on Judge Newman’s continued efforts “to regain her full judicial duties, even after the 97-year-old jurist’s federal lawsuit against her colleagues was dismissed”; and
• an article discussing how the Supreme Court’s opinion in Vidal v. Elster “carries significant implications for both trademark law and the First Amendment.”

Here is an update on recent activity at the Supreme Court in cases decided by the Federal Circuit. With respect to granted cases, last week the Supreme Court issued its opinion in Vidal v. Elster, a trademark case. With respect to petitions, one new petition was filed in a patent case, five new amicus briefs were filed in another patent case, and two pro se petitions were denied. Here are the details.

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.

Here is an update on recent activity at the Supreme Court in cases decided by the Federal Circuit. With respect to granted cases, we are still waiting on the Supreme Court to issue its opinion in one case. With respect to petitions, one new waiver of the right to respond was filed in a pro se case, and the Court denied the petitions in a pro se case and in a veterans case. Here are the details.

Here is an update on recent activity at the Supreme Court in cases decided by the Federal Circuit. With respect to granted cases, we are still waiting on the Supreme Court to issue opinion in one case. With respect to petitions, one new petition was filed with the Court in a patent case, one new waiver of the right to respond was filed in a pro se case, three new replies were filed in separate Merit Systems Protection Board cases all presenting the same question for review, and the Court denied two petitions in a pro se case and in a patent case. Here are the details.

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.”

Here is an update on recent activity at the Supreme Court in cases decided by the Federal Circuit. With respect to granted cases, the Supreme Court heard arguments last week in Vidal v. Elster, a trademark case and, yesterday, the Supreme Court heard arguments in Rudisill v. McDonough, a veterans case. With respect to petitions, one new petition was filed with the Court in a veterans case. Additionally, a reply brief was filed in a Tucker Act case and the Court denied a petition in a patent case. Here are the details.

This past Wednesday, the Supreme Court heard oral argument in Vidal v. Elster, a trademark case concerning the First Amendment. In this case, the Court is considering whether the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office’s “refusal to register a mark under Section 1052(c) [of the Lanham Act] violates the Free Speech Clause of the First Amendment when the mark contains criticism of a government official or public figure.” This is our argument recap.