The PTAB granted-in-part a patent owner’s motion to substitute claims based on evidence of secondary considerations of nonobviousness in Valeo North America, Inc. v. Schaeffler Technologies, AG & CO. KG, IPR2016-00502, Paper 37, (P.T.A.B. June 20, 2017).
Janssen Biotech Inc. and Celltrion Healthcare have taken the next step over Janssen’s blockbuster arthritis biologic medicine Remicade (infliximab) and Celltrion’s biosimilar, as required by the Biologics Price Competition and Innovation Act (BPCIA) “Patent Dance.” Janssen, although arguing it to be unnecessary under the BPCIA, has defensively filed a subsequent suit[1] in Massachusetts federal court against Celltrion in order to avoid the possibility of being barred from recovering lost profit damages and limited to merely royalties. The suit is presided over by Judge Wolf.
On June 19, 2017, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration approved the use of the fluoroquinolone antibiotic, Baxdela® (delafloxacin), for the treatment of acute bacterial skin and skin structure infections (ABSSSI). Approval of Baxdela®, which is effective against resistant organisms such as MRSA, will provide physicians another tool to combat growing antibiotic resistance.
In a precedential opinion, the Federal Circuit affirmed the determination by the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“PTAB”) in a covered business method review proceeding that the claims of U.S. Patent No. 6,950,807 for providing financing to a customer seeking to purchase a car were not patent eligible.
With the continuing uncertainties regarding application of the subject matter eligibility standard enumerated in 35 U.S.C. §101 by both courts and the U.S. Patent Office, organizations that have an interest in clarifying the law are making their views more widely known.[1] For example, the American Intellectual Property Law Association (AIPLA) recently introduced a proposal to amend 35 U.S.C. §101, “expressly overrul[ing] the current judicially-created framework.”
The Federal Circuit upheld an IPR final written decision by the PTAB holding that MindGeek’s claims were unpatentable in Skky, Inc. v. MindGeek, S.A.R.L., No. 2016-2018 (Fed. Cir. June 7, 2017).
The Supreme Court granted a petition for writ of certiorari to address whether inter partes review – an adversarial process used by the Patent Office to determine the validity of existing patents – is unconstitutional in Oil States Energy Services, LLC. v. Greene’s Energy Group, LLC., Case 16-712 (U.S. June 12, 2017).
On May 24, 2017, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approved the final label for Syndros™ (dronabinol) oral solution, a Schedule II (CII) controlled substance. Syndros™ was initially approved by the FDA on July 5, 2016 for use in treating anorexia associated with weight loss in patients with AIDS and for treating chemotherapy induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) associated with cancer chemotherapy in patients who fail to respond to conventional antiemetic treatments.
Over the last year, there have been some significant trademark and copyright cases in the fashion industry. Below are summaries of recent cases all brand owners should know and understand. These cases touch on important topics in trademark and copyright, including: copyrightability of surface decorations/designs on clothing or other useful articles, parody defense, punitive damages in trademark cases, tackling secondary meaning challenges in the ITC, and trademark registrability of edgy or offensive terms.
Does the use of Google AdWords amount to the advertising, promoting, marketing, or offering for sale of goods covered by a registered trademark? Tipsy Elves, LLC. vs. Ugly Christmas Sweater, Inc. is the latest in a string of cases to litigate this issue. Google AdWords is an advertising service offered by Google that allows a sponsor to pay to have their advertising material and website link appear more prominently as a result of a search for a particular keyword.
