Falsely Claiming Patent Protection May Violate the Lanham Act
CROCS, INC. v. EFFERVESCENT, INC.
Before Reyna, Cunningham and Albright. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Colorado.
Summary: A claim that an unpatented product feature is “patented,” “proprietary,” or “exclusive” may violate Section 43(a)(1)(B) of the Lanham Act.
Hard to Stomach: Things You Say to Prosecute a Patent Can and Will Be Used Against You
AZURITY PHARMACEUTICALS, INC. v. ALKEM LABORATORIES LTD. Before Murphy, Moore, and Chen. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Delaware. Summary: Arguments and amendments made during...
A Terminal Disclaimer Is Not an Escape Hatch
IN RE CELLECT, LLC
Before Lourie, Dyk, and Reyna. Appeal from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board.
Summary: Obviousness-type double patenting analyses for patents with Patent Term Adjustments are based on the adjusted expiration date of the patent.
