Although trademarks and copyrights most frequently come to mind when considering the types of intellectual property protection available for fashion items, design patents can also offer valuable protection.  A design patent is a form of legal protection directed to the ornamental appearance of an otherwise functional item.

After the United Kingdom voted to leave the European Union, dubbed “Brexit” by the press, many have called into question whether the UK would ratify the Unitary Patent System. The Unitary Patent System will create a Unitary Patent and a Unitary Patent Court (UPC) system to enforce patents across many European states.

The Federal Circuit recently found claims to a specialized graphical user interface (GUI) for trading financial securities eligible in Trading Technologies Int’l v. CQG, No. 2016-2016 (Fed. Cir. Jan. 18, 2017). The Federal Circuit’s opinion shows that claims directed toward a software GUI can be patent-eligible subject matter if the invention improves the speed and accuracy with which a user can perform a task—even if that task is part of a business process.

On January 13, 2017, the Supreme Court granted certiorari in Amgen v. Sandoz, 794. F.3d 1347 (Fed. Cir. 2015) and Sandoz v. Amgen, 773 F.3d 1274 (Fed. Cir. 2014), appealed from the Federal Circuit. The petitions involve the Federal Circuit’s interpretation of certain provisions of the Biologics Price Competition and Innovation Act of 2009 (BPCIA).

Every year, the FDA’s Center for Drug Evaluation and Research (CDER) approves new medications. Some medications are variations of existing products, such as generic formulations or new dosage forms of previously-approved products.

In Covidien LP v. University of Florida Research Foundation Incorporated, IPR2016-01274, -01275, -01276 (January 2017), the Patent Trial and Appeal Board held that Eleventh Amendment sovereign immunity applies to inter partes review (IPR) proceedings before the PTAB.

The Federal Circuit’s recent decision in Apple, Inc. v. Ameranth, Inc. highlights the potential impact of characterization of recited features as conventional, routine, generic, or known in the field without further discussion of an innovation that goes beyond these features.

On January 19, 2017, the Board issued a final written decision in World Bottling Cap, LLC v Crown Packaging Technology, Inc. (IPR2015-01651) finding the challenged claims were not unpatentably obvious over the references asserted in the IPR because the patent owner had submitted sufficient evidence of secondary considerations to demonstrate non-obviousness.

On January 5, 2017, Skechers U.S.A., Inc. filed a petition with the Patent Trial and Appeal Board to institute an Inter Partes Review (IPR2017-00607) (“current IPR petition”) of two design patents owned by Nike, Inc.: D696,853 and D707,032. The design patents claim an ornamental design for a “Shoe Upper.”

Anticipation by inherent disclosure requires that a single prior art reference necessarily includes the unstated limitation. The unpredictable nature of biological processes means that winning summary judgment of invalidity based on inherent anticipation is often difficult.