KSR at the USPTO: sea change? Over at The Fire of Genius, Joe Miller of Lewis & Clark Law School has compiled a list of cases citing KSR. As of today, there are 2 Federal Circuit decisions (blogged about here and here), 2 district court decisions [Update (6/2) there is now a third], and a whopping 31 Board of Patent Appeals […] Continue Reading →
Federal Circuit addresses claim construction, on-sale and public use bars, and DJ jurisdiction In a decision Friday, the Federal Circuit vacated in part a district court's claim construction of a several terms as well as its decision to find no infringement of patents owned by Honeywell. The court did, however, affirm the district court's retention of jurisdiction over the several withdrawn claims and the decision that Honeywell's pre-critical […] Continue Reading →
Australia’s High Court weighs in on obviousness There is a good post over at the Patent Prospector about a decision by the High Court of Australia (the equivalent to the U.S. Supreme Court) regarding the issue of obviousness in patent law. One notable passage: as a basic premise, obviousness and inventiveness are antitheses and the question is always "is the step taken […] Continue Reading →
Fourth Circuit affirms refusal of copyright registration: insufficient creativity The Fourth Circuit yesterday affirmed the denial of copyright registration to an individual who had adapted United States Census maps for use on his website. The only changes to the maps were the addition of colors, changing the typeface of the state abbreviations, and a change in layout for some of the state indications. The […] Continue Reading →
“Aspirina” descriptive of analgesic goods; denial of registration affirmed In a decision today, the Federal Circuit affirmed a decision by the TTAB that the term "ASPIRINA" is descriptive of analgesics, and therefore not subject to trademark protection in the United States absent a showing of secondary meaning. While the evidence of record was conflicting as to whether ASPIRINA was descriptive, given the deferential standard […] Continue Reading →
Federal Circuit affirms damage award to Monsanto against farmer who saved seed In the latest in a series of appeals to the Federal Circuit, the court affirmed a jury's award of damages to Monsanto for infringement of patents relating to glyphosate resistant plants. The defendant, a farmer, had saved seeds from his crops from one growing season to the next in violation of the terms of the […] Continue Reading →
Chief Judge Michel weighs in on two aspects of the Patent Reform Act of 2007 In a letter to Senators Patrick Leahy and Orrin Hatch, Chief Judge Paul Michel of the Federal Circuit expresses concern with two provisions of the Patent Reform Act of 2007 (H.R. 1908 and S. 1145). The letter, dated May 3 (two weeks after the bills were introduced), addresses what Chief Judge Michel perceives to be […] Continue Reading →
Ninth Circuit: have another look at those two moose – denial of preliminary injunction vacated In a decision Tuesday, the Ninth Circuit vacated a district court's denial of a preliminary injunction to Abercrombie & Fitch over an alleged infringement of its "Moose" marks by Moose Creek, a competing clothing company. The Ninth Circuit found that the district court had misapplied several of the factors used in the Ninth Circuit to […] Continue Reading →
First Circuit: “M4” generic for certain carbine firearms, summary judgment affirmed The First Circuit on Friday held that, in the context of certain carbine firearms, the term "M4" was generic, and therefore not subject to trademark protection. The court found that notwithstanding a registration on the principal register, the evidence presented was such that the only reasonable inference was that M4 was generic in the minds […] Continue Reading →
Federal Circuit affirms inequitable conduct finding, Judge Newman not happy about it In a second opinion today, the Federal Circuit affirmed a district court's finding of inequitable conduct based on the nondisclosure of three pieces of information to the USPTO. The patentee had two similar pending applications at the USPTO, and in fact had cited the same prior art in both applications via information disclosure statements. In […] Continue Reading →