Trade Mark Tacking A Factual Question For The Jury
Hana Financial, Inc v Hana Bank, United States Supreme Court, No 13-1211, 574 US __ (21 Jan 2015) Abstract The US Supreme Court confirms that trade mark tacking is a question of fact to be resolved by the fact-finder (typically the jury) rather than a question of law to be resolved by the court. Legal […]
ARE Patent Law Alert:
In Another Win For Firm’s IPR Team, PTAB Confirms its Authority to Deny Untimely Challenges to the Real Party in Interest
Amster, Rothstein & Ebenstein, LLP attorneys successfully defended against a challenge to the named real party in interest (“RPI”) in a series of inter partes review (“IPR”) proceedings brought by Petitioner First Quality Baby Products, LLC against Patent Owner Kimberly-Clark Worldwide, Inc.’s 8,747,379 B2: IPR2014-01021, -01023, and -01024. In its decision issued on July 16, 2015, […]
Claim Construction Is Ultimately A Question Of Law But May Involve Underlying Factual Questions
Teva Pharms USA, Inc v Sandoz, Inc, United States Supreme Court, No 13-854, 574 US __ (20 January 2015) Abstract The US Supreme Court reversed a previous determination by the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, holding that, while the construction of patent claims is a question of law for a judge to […]
In The Press: Technology Transfer Tactics Turns To Partner Charles R. Macedo For Insight On Trade Secret Protection.
Recent legislative and legal changes to patent protection paired with enhancements to trade secret protection have many technology transfer executives wondering if foregoing the high cost of patenting in favor of trade secret protection might be a better move in some cases. But while trade secrets may have a legitimate place in a TTO’s overall […]
ARE Patent Law Alert:
Federal Circuit Affirms Broadest Reasonable Interpretation Standard of Claim Construction During IPRs, With Limits
Microsoft Corp. v. Proxyconn, Inc., Nos. 2014-1542, -1543 (Fed. Cir. June 16, 2015) (“Microsoft”). On Tuesday, June 16, 2015, US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit issued a decision on an appeal of a final IPR decision by the Patent Trial and Appeals Board (“Board”). See Microsoft Corp. v. Proxyconn, Inc., Nos. 2014-1542, -1543 […]
Brief Of Amici Curiae, In Stephen Kimble And Robert Michael Grabb V. Marvel Interprises, Inc., (U.S. February. 04, 2015)
Click to download PDF: " Brief Of Amici Curiae, In Stephen Kimble And Robert Michael Grabb V. Marvel Interprises, Inc., (U.S. February. 04, 2015)
ARE Patent Law Alert:
Supreme Court Upholds Prior Precedent On Post-Expiration Royalty Payments
Kimble v. Marvel Entertainment, LLC, No. 13-720 (U.S. June 22, 2015) On June 22, 2015, the Supreme Court of the United States issued a decision in Kimble v. Marvel Entertainment, LLC, No. 13-720, slip op. (U.S. June 22, 2015), in which the Court declined to overrule its prior precedent in Brulotte v. Thys Co., 379 […]
ARE Patent Law Alert: U.S. Supreme Court Holds That Claim Construction Is A Question Of Law But Underlying Factual Questions Are Subject To Clear Error Review
On January 20, 2015, the U.S. Supreme Court in Teva Pharms. USA, Inc. v. Sandoz, Inc., No. 13-854, vacated and remanded the Federal Circuit’s judgment related to the meaning of the term “molecular weight” in the patent-at-issue. The Supreme Court upheld its previous holding in Markman v. Westview Instruments, Inc., 517 U.S. 370 (1996) that […]
ARE Patent Law Alert:
Williamson v. Citrix Online
(June 18, 2015) On June 16, 2015, the Federal Circuit Court of Appeals issued a substitute decision in Williamson v. Citrix Online LLC, 2013-1130, slip op. (June 16, 2015), in which the en banc Federal Circuit overruled prior precedent concerning means-plus-function claims. In particular, the court lowered the standard required to show, even in absence […]
In The Press: Federal Circuit to Review Laches Defense in Patent Case. Partner Ken George mentioned.
SAN FRANCISCO — Prodded by the U.S. Supreme Court, the Federal Circuit agreed Wednesday to reconsider its jurisprudence recognizing the defense of laches to aging patent claims. The court voted to review en banc its 1992 decision A.C. Aukerman v. Chaides Construction, which holds that unreasonable delay by a patent holder is a valid ground […]