On October 16, 2017, the Federal Circuit affirmed the district court’s ruling that the claims in Secured Mail Solutions LLC, v. Universal Wilde, Inc. (“Secured Mail”) were directed to patent-ineligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101. This ruling provides another data point as to what level of concreteness and specificity courts should consider when analyzing patent-eligibility questions under § 101.
The Saint Regis Mohawk Tribe’s recent motion to terminate pending IPRs on patents purported to cover Allergan’s Restasis® product has spurred two parties to seek authorization from the PTAB to file amicus briefs.
Music festivals, film festivals, food festivals….festivals are popular venues for entertainment and each festival strives to offer the consumer a unique experience. Of course, at most festivals, clothes must be (or should be) worn, and festival-goers are a ready market for apparel retailers. However, retailers should be aware of one aspect of trademark law that can put a damper on the festivity: claims of false association, sponsorship, endorsement, or license.
On October 19, 2017 Hush Hush Sound Inc, Michael David, and Tyler Blake (collectively “Plaintiffs”) also known as the Electronic dance music duo “Classixx” filed suit in the District Court for the Central District of California against well-known fast fashion retailer H&M for trademark infringement.
On October 17, 2017, the PTAB issued a final written decision in an IPR holding all claims unpatentable after the Federal Circuit vacated and remanded the PTAB’s previous final written decision. The PTAB reversed their original patentability determination after the Federal Circuit decided all but one of the questions at issue on appeal. EMC Corp. v. Clouding Corp., IPR2014-01309, Paper 36 (P.T.A.B. Oct. 17, 2017).
On October 3, 2017, a federal court in Miami, FL awarded TM Brands $1,500,000 pursuant to a stipulated agreement reached during trial.
On September 25, 2017, a federal court in San Jose, CA awarded the Defendants Google, YouTube, and On2 Technologies $820,321.41 in attorney’s fees.
A pair of ongoing USPTO initiatives, Patents for Humanity and Patents 4 Patients, offer incentives that certain biotechnology patent applications may be eligible for. Patents for Humanity is open to patents and applications that address humanitarian challenges, and recognizes the winners with publicity and expedited examination or appeal of any application in which the winner has an ownership interest. Patents 4 Patients, also known as the Cancer Immunotherapy Pilot Program, offers expedited examination to patent applications that pertain to cancer immunotherapy.
On October 24, 2017, the PTAB designated as “informative” the following three decisions that discretionarily denied institution of IPR petitions under 35 U.S.C. § 325(d). Section 325(d) provides that “the Director may take into account whether, and reject the petition or request because, the same or substantially the same prior art or arguments previously were presented to the Office.” The “informative” designation indicates that the decisions are not binding on other panels, but provide the PTAB’s general consensus and guidance regarding discretionary denials under § 325(d).
In an effort to lay the groundwork for generic entry and reduced drug prices, the non-profit group Initiative for Medicines, Access and Knowledge, Inc. (I-MAK), with the support of the Laura and John Arnold foundation, has petitioned the PTAB seeking Inter Partes Review of Gilead’s U.S. Patent Nos. 7,429,572 & 7,964,580, which purport to encompass sofosbuvir, one of the active components of anti-Hepatitis C drugs Sovaldi®, Harvoni®, and Epclusa®.
