On September 10, 2014, JPT Group, owner of the iconic American fashion brand Bernardo, filed suit in the Southern District of Texas alleging that Old Navy infringed two of Bernardo’s design patents for sandals.
Fourth Circuit in McAirlands Inc. v. Kimberly-Clark Corp. recently held that ownership of a utility patent does not necessarily preclude a claim in trade dress.
On August 20, 2014, Judge Leonard P. Stark issued what appears to be the first order requiring a branded pharmaceutical company to delist a patent from the Food & Drug Administration’s (FDA) Orange Book.
The US Supreme Court recently agreed to consider a seemingly technical trademark question that could have a potentially big impact for brand owners. Specifically, the Supreme Court will consider whether a judge or the jury should decide if two trademarks are “legal equivalents”.
On August 18, 2014, the US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit issued an opinion sending website owners a clear warning that the onus is on them to put users on notice of the terms of use to which they wish to bind consumers.
In an IP-related story that seems ripped from the headlines of The Onion, a British photographer has claimed exclusive ownership of a Nat Geo-worthy image of a smiling crested black macaque that was shot with his camera during his 2011 trip to Indonesia. The twist? The monkey took the photo.
Currently, the federal circuits are split over the level of deference that should be afforded to findings made by the USPTO’s Trademark Trial & Appeal Board (TTAB) on likelihood of confusion, with the circuit courts applying at least five different standards.
On June 19, 2014, in Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank International, 573 U.S. ___2014, a unanimous Supreme Court held that systems and methods of exchanging financial obligations, implemented in hardware or software, did not qualify for patent protection.
On May 9, 2014, a federal appeals court reversed a California trial court’s determination that 37 API packages that are part of Oracle’s famous Java programming platform were not subject to copyright protection.
On May 2, 2014, the Eastern District of Virginia1 held that attorneys must inform the Court of any pending Inter Partes Review (IPR) regarding patents asserted in litigation. Failure to do so may violate the general duty of candor and good faith to the Court.
In a decision filed on May 8, 2014, the California Court of Appeals held that patentable ideas, if kept secret, can constitute information protectable by trade secret law.
Arent Fox Intellectual Property partner Pamela M. Deese is quoted by Bloomberg News in an article that illustrates the prospect of earning royalties from popular trademarked sports phrases.
The Supreme Court held that “factual allegations must be enough to raise a right to relief above the speculative level,” and “labels and conclusions or a formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action will not do.”
A federal judge in the Eastern District of Virginia recently ruled that Reynolds had not abandoned its federal trademark registrations for its distinctive packaging designs, despite making several alterations to its packaging since obtaining the registrations in 1977.
Frederick E. Bouchat has once again alleged copyright infringement against the Baltimore Ravens and the National Football League (NFL) over the Ravens’ “Flying B Logo” from the mid-1990s.
The Supreme Court recently announced that it would hear a lawsuit brought by major television broadcasters against a service that streams the broadcasters’ video content over the internet without permission.
The US District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia recently awarded the United States Patent and Trademark Office (PTO) $36,320.49 in legal expenses, including its attorneys’ fees, in a case brought by an applicant appealing the PTO’s refusal to register a mark on the basis.