Airwair, the owner of the Dr. Martens brand, recently launched a series of lawsuits in the Northern District of California to enforce the trade dress of its “iconic boots and shoes.”  One lawsuit was filed in October against Wanted Shoes, and one more recently in February against the Steve Madden brand.

The PTAB issued a Final Written Decision finding that Biogen’s patent on treating Multiple Sclerosis (“MS”) with a certain dose amount was not obvious because the clinical efficacy exhibited by administering this dose amount was unexpected. Coalition for Affordable Drugs V LLC v. Biogen MA Inc., IPR 2015-01993, Paper 63 (P.T.A.B., March 21, 2017).

On March 13, 2017, the use of Novartis cell cycle inhibitor Kisqali® (ribociclib, LEE011) in combination with an aromatase inhibitor was approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration as a first-line treatment for postmenopausal women with hormone receptor (HR)-positive, human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2)-negative advanced or metastatic breast cancer.

After the Supreme Court case of Alice v. CLS Bank in 2014, the Patent Office has issued a series of examination guidelines and examples to guide examiners and patent practitioners in determining patent eligible subject matter. On December 15, 2016, the Patent Office issued its latest set of example inventions and corresponding patent claims, along with guidance on application of current §101 case law in determining subject matter eligibility of the claims.

The Patent Trial and Appeal Board issued concurrent final written decisions upholding the validity of all challenged claims of U.S. Patent No. 8,141,154 in Palo Alto Networks, Inc. v. Finjan. Inc. IPR2015-01979, Paper 62 (P.T.A.B., March 15, 2017) and IPR2016-00151, Paper 51 (P.T.A.B., March 15, 2017). 

Bevacizumab (Avastin®) is the subject of the widely watched “patent dance” dispute between Genentech and Amgen regarding Amgen’s proposed biosimilar.  Hospira, however, (now owned by Pfizer) has chosen a different path in challenging Genentech patents before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB).

The Federal Circuit reversed the PTAB’s final written decision holding that claims from Nidec Motor Corp.’s patent were anticipated in Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co. Ltd., Case No. 2016-1900 (Fed. Cir. Mar. 14, 2017).  

The Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“PTAB”) invoked its discretion under 35 U.S.C. § 325(d) to deny Toyota’s IPR petition against Adaptive Headlamp’s U.S. Patent No. 7,241,034 (“the ’034 patent”) in Toyota Motor Co. v. Adaptive Headlamp Technologies, Inc., IPR2016-01740, Paper 7 (P.T.A.B. March 10, 2017).

The Federal Circuit recently clarified what patents are subject to the Transitional Program for Covered Business Method Patents, or CBM review, in Secure Axcess, LLC v. PNC Bank National Association.

Much like the world of Underland created in Lewis Carroll’s book Alice Through the Looking Glass, the blurring between copyright and trademark rights can create a topsy-turvy universe.