Filewrapper

Allegedly false statements insufficient to warrant setting aside judgment under Rule 60(b)(3)

In a decision yesterday, the Federal Circuit affirmed a district court's decision denying a motion to set aside a judgment under Rule 60(b)(3) on charges of fraud. In an earlier litigation, a patent was invalidated under § 102(g) as previously invented by another. That decision was affirmed on appeal.More than a year later, new evidence […]

Continue Reading →

Fourth Circuit: Chewy Vuiton not likely to be confused with or dilute Louis Vuitton trademarks

The Fourth Circuit Tuesday affirmed a district court's grant of summary judgment of no trademark infringement or dilution. At issue were dog toys that parodied the trademarks and trade dress of Louis Vuitton. The Fourth Circuit agreed that the successful parody resulted in no trademark infringement. On the trademark dilution claim, the court rejected the […]

Continue Reading →

USPTO releases 2007 annual report, Patent Reform Act to be considered in January?

The USPTO has released its 2007 Performance and Accountability Report. Here are a few highlights: Average time for first office action (patent): 25.3 months Average total application pendency (patent): 31.9 months Percent of patent applications filed electronically: 49.3% Average time for first office action (trademark): 2.9 months Average total application pendency (trademark): 15.1 months Percent […]

Continue Reading →

Remand to state court resulting from declining supplemental jurisdiction unreviewable on appeal

Addressing an issue of first impression, the Federal Circuit today held that a district court's decision remanding a case to state court on the basis of declining supplemental jurisdiction was unreviewable. The court determined that this decision was within the class of remands described in 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c). Because of this, review was barred […]

Continue Reading →

USPTO posts comments to proposed rule changes regarding BPAI appeals and Markush claims

The USPTO has posted the comments received regarding the proposed rule changes regarding appeals at the BPAI, as well as those received regarding the proposed rules regarding claims with "alternative claim language," namely Markush groups. At first glance, the comments appear to be overwhelmingly negative. Of course, that likely won't stop them from being implemented, […]

Continue Reading →

Incorporation by reference did not incorporate necessary disclosure, priority chain broken

Today, the Federal Circuit held a patent was anticipated under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) by another patent earlier in the patent-in-suit's priority chain. The court held the district court erred in finding that the patent at issue was entitled to a priority date of the earlier-filed patent, leading to the district court's improper conclusion that […]

Continue Reading →

Ninth Circuit: PerfumeBay confusingly similar to eBay, but Perfume Bay is not

In a decision yesterday, the Ninth Circuit affirmed a district court's finding that the mark "Perfumebay" was likely to be confused with eBay, and affirmed an injunction barring the use of the domains perfumebay.com and perfume-bay.com (as of today, both these domains are still functional). The court also affirmed the finding that the use of […]

Continue Reading →

Application of doctrine of equivalents to range limitation in claim does not vitiate the limitation

In a decision Friday, the Federal Circuit affirmed a district court's claim construction, but reversed its rulings regarding the sufficiency of notice of infringement and the applicability of the doctrine of equivalents. Regarding sufficiency of notice under 35 U.S.C. 287(a), the court held that while the patentee did not mark its products, its notice of […]

Continue Reading →

Failure to discover title defect doesn’t make case exceptional; Rule 11 burden-shifting inapplicable

In a decision yesterday, the Federal Circuit addressed when a case may be considered "exceptional" under 35 U.S.C. § 285, and therefore potentially warrant an award of attorney fees. The plaintiff purchased rights to a patent "as is" from a company going through bankruptcy. However, it was later revealed that the company did not have […]

Continue Reading →

Analysis of order enjoining claim and continuation limit rules: almost 100% in Glaxo’s favor

All in all, the order granting Glaxo's motion for a preliminary injunction barring enforcement of the USPTO's new claim and continuation limit rules is about everything Glaxo (and patent prosecutors) could have hoped for. The court found that each of the four factors considered when deciding whether to grant an injunction favored Glaxo, although the […]

Continue Reading →

Stay in Touch

Receive the latest news and updates from us and our attorneys.

Sign Up