Before Moore, Reyna, and Chen. Appeal from the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board.
Summary: The TTAB must consider Applicant’s evidence and argument as to an absence of actual confusion during the period of concurrent use of allegedly confusing marks.
On October 23, 2018, Rube P. Hoffman, a California textile manufacturer known for their Hawaiian prints and aloha shirts, filed a copyright infringement suit in the Central District of California against Zara USA, Inc., one of the world’s largest fast fashion retailers with over 2,000 stores worldwide. The copyright infringement claim is based on alleged similarities between two of the companies’ textile designs. In the complaint, Hoffman claims exclusive rights and ownership of U.S. copyright registrations over the two textile designs at issue, and further claims that they had never granted permission, license, or consent for Zara to use the designs. Hoffman also asserts claims for Unfair Competition under the Lanham Act and California law. Hoffman demands an end to any further production, distribution, or sale of the allegedly infringing designs; the delivery and destruction of all merchandise bearing the designs; damages; and legal fees.
On November 7, 2018 Louis Vuitton Malletier, S.A. filed a complaint in the Southern District of New York against i-Fe Apparel, Inc., Yongun Jung, and a number of presently unknown entities and individuals (“Defendants”). Louis Vuitton alleges trademark counterfeiting, trademark infringement, false designation of origin, and trademark dilution. Louis Vuitton asserts that the defendants are willfully and intentionally infringing on several of their marks within Class 25, by selling products made of inferior materials and having poor construction, at prices well below those of authentic Louis Vuitton products. In the complaint, Louis Vuitton also claims to have invested “millions of dollars and decades of time and effort” so that consumers will recognize Louis Vuitton marks throughout the world and associate the marks with high quality, luxury goods.
Before Dyk, Wallach, and Hughes. On remand from the Supreme Court.
Summary: Even though the issue of the jury’s award of lost profits was still pending, a party could not reopen the issue of a reasonable royalty award based on the subsequent invalidation of a subset of asserted patent claims because the reasonable royalty award was the subject of a stipulation of final judgment resolving all issues except for lost profits. When a lost profits award is based on multiple infringed claims and some of the claims are later found invalid, a new trial on lost profits may not necessarily be required if there is evidence that the technology covered by a remaining claim was required to perform the infringing activities.
Before Lourie, Chen, and Stoll. Appeal from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board.
Summary: A generic pharmaceutical company had standing to appeal the Board’s decision in an IPR that claims of a patent were not obvious even though it may be incapable of maintaining a parallel Hatch-Waxman suit because it demonstrated a controversy traceable to the patent and redressable by the Court.
Before Dyk, Taranto, Stoll. Appeal from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board.
Summary: The PTAB is not required to make any finding regarding a motivation to combine two references when it concludes that a claim is invalid under § 103 in view of a single prior art reference.
On January 4th, the USPTO announced revised guidance for subject matter eligibility (Section 101 Revised Guidance) and stated it would take effect when published on Monday, January 7, 2019.
On Monday, January 7, 2019, a revised guidance for subject matter eligibility (USPTO Section 101 Revised Guidance) will take effect at the USPTO. With the newly revised guidance, the USPTO aims to clarify and standardize the patent eligibility analysis under the Alice/Mayo framework.
Before Chen, Mayer, and Bryson. Appeal from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board.
Summary: Claims directed to the abstract idea of rules for playing a dice game are not transformed into patent eligible subject matter by the addition of printed matter.
On November 9, 2018, Cook Medical LLC filed a petition with the Patent Trial and Appeal Board requesting inter partes review (IPR) of U.S. Patent No. 6,306,141, assigned to Medtronic Vascular, Inc. The ‘141 Patent is entitled “Medical Devices Incorporating SIM Alloy Elements.” The ‘141 Patent states that it relates to “a medical device containing a shape memory alloy element.”
