Howard J. Shire
&
Aryn A. Conrad
Federal Circuit: Cuban Company Has Standing to Request Trademark Cancellation<br>Supreme Court: High Court Agrees to Consider the Preclusive Effect of TTAB's Decisions<br>TTAB: TTAB Cancels Redskins Trademarks for Disparaging Native Americans
A. Antony Pfeffer
On June 19, 2014, the U.S. Supreme Court issued another in a line of cases dealing with the issue of the patentability of software inventions. Based on this opinion, one thing remains clear: The issue is far from definitively decided.
Features
J. Alexander Lawrence
In <i>ABC v. Aereo</i>, the U.S. Supreme Court reversed the Second Circuit's holding that Aereo did not directly infringe the copyright owners' public performance rights through the operation of the "Watch Now" function of its service.
Features
Kyle-Beth Hilfer
Pomegranate juice is the subject of an intense legal battle between POM Wonderful and Coca-Cola Co. In its Lanham Act challenge, POM alleges that Coke's juice product's name, label, marketing and advertising mislead consumers into thinking the product is mostly a pomegranate and blueberry juice when it in fact is mostly apple and grape juice.
Features
Andrew Pequignot
The Supreme Court in <i>Petrella v. Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer, Inc.</i>, recently resolved a split amongst the circuit courts in a 6-3 decision, holding that the equitable doctrine of laches could not be invoked to preclude a claim for damages within the statute of limitations for copyright cases.
Features
Darren Donnelly
In <i>Nautilus, Inc. v. Biosig Instruments, Inc.</i>, a unanimous Supreme Court held that the test for patent claim definiteness in 35 U.S.C. '112, '2 (2006) "require[s] that a patent's claims, viewed in light of the specification and prosecution history, inform those skilled in the art about the scope of the invention with reasonable certainty."
Jeffrey S. Ginsberg
&
Ian Moore
Patent Co-Owners Cannot Be Involuntarily Joined as Parties <br>IPR Procedural Right to Appeal Does Not Grant Art. III Standing<br>Federal Circuit: <i>Suprema v. ITC</i> to Be Reheard <i>En Banc</i> by the Federal Circuit
Features
Scott F. Llewellyn
&
Ryan Malloy
In Limelight Networks, Inc. v. Akamai Techs., Inc., the Supreme Court unanimously ruled that inducement of infringement under 35 U.S.C. '271(b) requires an act of direct infringement under '271(a) ' that is, one entity must perform all steps of a claimed method.
Features
Matthew Siegal, Irah H. Donner
Upon issuance, can a later-issued (but earlier-expiring) patent qualify as a double patenting reference against an already issued (but later-expiring) commonly owned patent of the same inventor? In Gilead Sciences, the Federal Circuit held that it could.
Features
Ed Komen
Bona fide intent was given new meaning by the TTAB. <i>Lincoln National Corporation v. Anderson,</i> exemplifies an apparent trend of the TTAB requiring greater proof of an applicant's "intent" as a jurisdictional prerequisite for filing an application or face a finding that the application is void <i>ab initio.</i> This is the paradigm of the "ticking time bomb" trademark nightmare with a very long fuse.
