In Storer v. Clark, the Court of Appeals explored whether a provisional application had sufficiently enabled interference subject matter. In order to prove enablement it must be shown that “one skilled in the art, having read the specification, could practice the invention without ‘undue experimentation.’” ALZA Corp. v. Andrx Pharm., LLC, 603 F.3d 935, 940 […]
Continue Reading →On June 21, 2017, U.S. Senators Chris Coons (D-DE), Tom Cotton (R-AR), Dick Durbin (D-IL), and Mazie Hirono (D-HI) introduced the STRONGER Patents Act of 2017 with the goal of strengthening the U.S. patent system by making it easier and cheaper for patent holders to enforce their patents. STRONGER (Support Technology and Research for Our […]
Continue Reading →A month ago, we reported to you that a US Supreme Court decision reversed prior law and said that once a patented item is sold, the patent holder can no longer sue the legitimate purchaser of the patented product. Up until that decision, the Federal Circuit had held a patent owner could sell some but […]
Continue Reading →On June 23, 2017, the Federal Circuit released a decision allowing the USPTO to recover attorneys’ fees under 35 U.S.C. § 145. According to § 145: “[a]n applicant dissatisfied with the decision of the [PTAB] . . . may, unless appeal has been taken to the United States Court of Appeals for the […]
Continue Reading →Kiss lead singer, Gene Simmons, recently filed a trademark application with the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) to register the famous rock ‘n’ roll “horns” hand gesture as a trademark. Simmons filed the application June 9th to register “a hand gesture with the index and small fingers extended upward and the thumb extended […]
Continue Reading →Simon Tam chose to name his band “The Slants” with the intent to reclaim the term and erase the denigrating connotations associated with it. However, he was confronted with the denial of his trademark application based on the disparagement clause of the Lanham Act. This raised an interesting issue of whether the disparagement clause violates […]
Continue Reading →On June 12, 2017, the Supreme Court released a decision in Sandoz Inc. v. Amgen Inc., which involved a case emerging out of the Biologics Price Competition and Innovation Act. The Biologics Price Competition and Innovation Act of 2009 (BPCIA) provides an abbreviated pathway for biosimilar products of already licensed biological products (reference products) […]
Continue Reading →You have worked with an MVS attorney to get your invention covered by a patent application, and the application has been filed. Great! Have you ever wondered what happens to the application at the US Patent Office? Part of it depends on if you have filed a provisional application or a utility application. If you […]
Continue Reading →Most of the time when we think of trademarks, we think of words, slogans, and logos. But trademarks can be more than that. Some companies have been able to obtain trademarks for colors. For example, Tiffany and Co. has registrations for its Tiffany Blue, an example of which is Reg. No. 2,359,351. Similarly, 3M has a […]
Continue Reading →The Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (“CAFC”) vacated a decision by the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board (the “Board”) denying a petition by Joseph Phelps Vineyards, LLC for cancellation of a trademark held by Fairmont Holdings, LLC. The CAFC held that the Board used an incorrect standard when analyzing the ‘fame’ factor for […]
Continue Reading →Receive the latest news and updates from us and our attorneys.
Sign Up