The Trademark Lawyer, August 2017: Requirement of Use in the USA
Max Vern from Amster, Rothstein & Ebenstein LLP explores the practical aspects of Use Requirements in American trademark practice.
In The Press: IPWATCHDOG Turns to Partner Charles R. Macedo for his Insights on SCOTUS decision in Sandoz v. Amgen over Biosimlar Drugs
Industry Reaction to SCOTUS decision in Sandoz v. Amgen By Gene Quinn Charles R. Macedo Amster Rothstein & Ebenstein LLP In Sandoz v. Amgen, the Supreme Court addressed the “plain language” of a “carefully crafted and detailed enforcement scheme” relating to “biologic” drugs. Under this complex statute that was enacted as part of ObamaCare as […]
Patent Law Alert:
Federal Circuit Clarifies “Regular And Established Business†For Venue Purposes in In re Cray Inc.
On September 21, 2017, the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit issued its decision in In re Cray Inc. The Federal Circuit granted a writ of mandamus and vacated an order of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas (“District Court”) denying a motion to transfer. In doing […]
In The Press:IPWATCHDOG turns to Partner Charles R. Macedo for his insights on the resignation of Michelle Lee as USPTO Director
Industry Reaction to the Resignation of USPTO Director Michelle Lee By Gene QuinnCharles Macedo Amster Rothstein & Ebenstein LLP Michelle Lee was in charge of the US Patent and Trademark Office during tumultuous times. She inherited the Office after the departure of a very popular and successful administrator and his protégé. She was charged with numerous […]
Patent Law Alert:
SUPREME COURT REVERSES FEDERAL CIRCUIT’S PRECEDENT ON PATENT EXHAUSTION
Journal of Intellectual Property Law & Practice, Volume 12, Issue 11, 1 November 2017, Pages 884–885 Impression Products Inc. v Lexmark International Inc., No. 15–1189, 581 US ___ (2017), Supreme Court of the United States, 30 May 2017 The US Supreme Court held that ‘a patentee’s decision to sell a product exhausts all of its patent […]
Brief for Amicus Curiae NYIPLA In Support of Respondent, Impression Products, Inc. v. Lexmark International, Inc. (U.S. Feb. 22, 2017)
Click to download pdf: Brief for Amicus Curiae NYIPLA In Support of Respondent, Impression Products, Inc. v. Lexmark International, Inc. (U.S. Feb. 22, 2017)
Trademark Law Alert:
SUPREME COURT HOLDS THAT THE DISPARAGEMENT CLAUSE OF THE LANHAM ACT IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL
The U.S. Supreme Court issued a decision in Matal v. Tam, 582 U.S. __ (“Tam”) addressing the “disparagement” clause of the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1052(a). (Justice Gorsuch took no part in the consideration of the case. Slip op. at 26.) The disparagement clause of the Lanham Act provides that: “No trademark by which […]
In The Press:Patently-O reports on Petition for Certiorari to the U.S. Supreme Court filed by Charles R. Macedo and Sandra Hudak of Amster, Rothstein & Ebenstein LLP on behalf of Broadband iTV, Inc.
See article here: https://patentlyo.com/patent/2017/04/supreme-challenging-eligibility.html Click to download pdf – Broadband iTV Inc. v. Hawaiian Telcom Inc. et al. – Petition for a Writ of Certiorari
Patent Law Alert:
SUPREME COURT CLARIFIES THE RULES FOR BIOSIMILARS
(June 12, 2017) In Sandoz v. Amgen, 582 U. S. ___ (2017), the Supreme Court addressed the “plain language” of a “carefully crafted and detailed enforcement scheme” relating to “biologic” drugs. Under this complex statute that was enacted as part of ObamaCare as an effort to get generic biosimilar and interchangeable biologic drugs on the market quicker […]
Broadband iTV Inc. v. Hawaiian Telcom Inc. et al. – Petition for a Writ of Certiorari
Click to download pdf – Broadband iTV Inc. v. Hawaiian Telcom Inc. et al. – Petition for a Writ of Certiorari