IP News
December 01, 2003
Highlights of the latest intellectual property news from around the country.
Whether to Cancel National Trademark Registrations in Favor of a CTM
December 01, 2003
Why maintain national trademark registrations in Europe? Your biggest client, the hypothetical Copsi-Cola, Inc., a U.S. beverage manufacturer, with a 95-year-old U.S. trademark registration for the popular POWERSWEET drink, a high-sugar soda, is attempting to expand its trademark rights in the European market and needs your advice. Copsi-Cola has also owned registrations in three of the 15 European Union ("EU") member countries for more than 50 years: France, Spain and Portugal. Copsi-Cola has begun market research in advance of selling its POWERSWEET drink in five more EU member countries, including the United Kingdom, Germany and the Benelux countries, and has asked you to file applications in the national trademark offices in those countries. Copsi-Cola also wants the option of using its mark in all EU member countries.
Is Used Better than New? Evaluating Trademark Use for Gray Goods, Diverted Goods and Altered Goods
December 01, 2003
Importers Inc. buys used HEAVY WEIGHT motorcycles in Japan and sells them in the United States. Heavy Weight Inc., the owner of the HEAVY WEIGHT trademark in the United States and Japan, seeks to enjoin their sale. Heavy Weight proves that the imported HEAVY WEIGHT motorcycles are materially different from their domestic counterparts because, among other things, they have smaller tires and a lower maximum speed. Although Importers Inc. includes a disclaimer at the point of sale, the court rules for Heavy Weight.
High Reversal Rate of Markman Decisions Weakens their Intended Value
December 01, 2003
In <i>Markman v. Westview Instruments, Inc.,</i> 517 U.S. 370 (1996), the Supreme Court held that patent claim construction is an issue of law to be decided exclusively by the court rather than the jury. As a result, district court judges now routinely conduct what is referred to as pretrial <i>Markman</i> hearings in order to resolve disputes about the meaning of words or phrases in patent claims. Prior to <i>Markman,</i> claim construction took place at trial and was decided by the judge or the jury with appropriate instructions from the court.
Federal Circuit Holds that Importing Data is Not Patent Infringement
December 01, 2003
It is no secret that more than a few biotech and pharmaceutical companies perform drug discovery offshore and then import the results. Holders of U.S. patents on drug discovery tools (such as molecular screening methods) have wondered for years whether data or drugs resulting from such activities constitute a "product made" under The Process Patent Amendments Act of 1988 (the "Act"). The Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit ("Federal Circuit") — in a setback to the U.S. drug discovery industry — has now held that they do not. <i>See Bayer AG v. Housey Pharm., Inc.,</i> 340 F.3d 1367 (Fed. Cir. 2003).
Federal Circuit Holds that Importing Data is Not Patent Infringement
November 01, 2003
It is no secret that more than a few biotech and pharmaceutical companies perform drug discovery offshore and then import the results. Holders of U.S. patents on drug discovery tools (such as molecular screening methods) have wondered for years whether data or drugs resulting from such activities constitute a "product made" under The Process Patent Amendments Act of 1988 (the "Act"). The Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit ("Federal Circuit") — in a setback to the U.S. drug discovery industry — has now held that they do not. <i>See Bayer AG v. Housey Pharm., Inc.,</i> 340 F.3d 1367 (Fed. Cir. 2003).
IP News
November 01, 2003
Highlights of the latest intellectual property news and cases from around the country.
Federal Circuit Decides <i>Festo</i> on Remand from Supreme Court
November 01, 2003
On September 26, 2003, the Federal Circuit decided <i>Festo Corp. v. Shoketsu Kinzoku Kogyo Kabushiki Co., Ltd.,</i> 344 F.3d 1359 (Fed. Cir. 2003), which was on remand from the Supreme Court. In its opinion, the Federal Circuit summarized the current law on prosecution history estoppel and shed some light on the applicability of the Supreme Court's criteria for rebutting the presumption of total surrender that results when a narrowing amendment is made for reasons substantially related to patentability. The Federal Circuit's decision appears to be directed toward a very limited exception to the total surrender presumption, and the minority opinions illustrate that there is tension within the Federal Circuit regarding the approach to barring equivalents.
