FedCircuitBlog

Here is a report on recent news and commentary related to the Federal Circuit and its cases. In Romag Fasteners, Inc. v. Fossil, Inc., the Supreme Court vacated a judgment of the Federal Circuit, holding unanimously that trademark owners do not have to show an infringer’s willfulness as a precondition to a profits award. In an April report, Adjusting to Alice, the USPTO claims that the guidance it provided after the Alice decision decreased the unpredictability of patent examination. On Law.com, Scott Graham suggests that the Federal Circuit could soon reconsider its decision in Arista Networks v. Cisco Systems.

Today the Supreme Court issued its decision in Romag Fasteners, Inc. v. Fossil, Inc., ruling that trademark owners need not prove willfulness to disgorge infringers’ profits. Justice Gorsuch authored the opinion for the Court, which vacated and remanded a contrary decision by the Federal Circuit. Justice Gorsuch’s opinion was joined by every member of the Court except Justice Sotomayor. Here are the details.

Here is a report on recent news and commentary related to the Federal Circuit and its cases. Today’s report includes highlights of amicus briefs filed in Google LLC v. Oracle America, Inc., a report on oral arguments heard before the Supreme Court in Romag Fasteners, Inc. v. Fossil, Inc., and a comment on the Supreme Court’s recent denial of certiorari in five petitions related to patent eligibility.

On Tuesday, the Supreme Court heard oral argument in Romag Fasteners, Inc. v. Fossil, Inc. As we noted in our argument preview, in this case the Court is considering whether, to recover a trademark infringer’s profit, a trademark owner must prove that the infringer infringed willfully. Here is our argument recap.

To recover a trademark infringer’s profit, must a trademark owner prove that the infringer acted willfully? On Tuesday the Supreme Court will hear oral argument in Romag Fasteners, Inc. v. Fossil, Inc., a case in which the Federal Circuit held that willfulness is a prerequisite to disgorgement of profits in trademark cases. Here is our argument preview.

Here is an update on recent activity at the Supreme Court in cases decided by the Federal Circuit. Highlights include the reply brief on the merits in Romag Fasteners, Inc. v. Fossil, Inc., four new petitions (two in patent cases and two in veterans cases), two responses to petitions (both related to patent eligibility), three reply briefs in support of petitions (in one patent case and two veterans cases), and supplemental briefs and a letter to the court in five cases as a result of the government’s amicus briefs related to patent eligibility in Hikma Pharmaceuticals USA Inc. v. Vanda Pharmaceuticals Inc. and HP Inc. v. Berkheimer. Here are the details.

Here is an update on recent activity at the Supreme Court in cases decided by the Federal Circuit. In granted cases, various briefs were filed in Romag Fasteners, Inc. v. Fossil, Inc. and Thryv, Inc. v. Click-to-Call Technologies, LP. In addition, one new pro se petition was filed, along with two new amicus briefs in other cases. Here are the details.

Here is an update on recent activity at the Supreme Court in cases decided by the Federal Circuit. In granted cases, the Court issued orders on motions for divided arguments and received two reply briefs. In petitions cases, the Court granted a petition, denied two petitions, and received a new petition and several briefs.

Here is a report on recent news and commentary related to the Federal Circuit and its cases. Today’s report highlights news related to the Federal Circuit’s October hearings, a comment on a petition pending before the Supreme Court, a note on a recent amicus brief filed at the Supreme Court, and a discussion of a recent Federal Circuit opinion on the necessity of adequate notice of changes in patent infringement theories.

Here is an update on recent activity at the Supreme Court in cases decided by the Federal Circuit. Of the six pending merits cases, there was not much activity, with the exception of one case where multiple amicus briefs were filed. Two new petitions were also filed—one in a patent case, and one in a government contract case—as well as two responses in opposition to petitions and two amicus briefs in favor of petitions.