Newsletters

07.28.20

Thin Pad and Soft Pad Chairs Held Eligible for Trade Dress Protection

In Blumenthal Distrib. Inc. d/b/a Office Star v. Herman Miller, Inc., the U.S. Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit, held that the overall appearance of Herman Miller Inc.’s Eames chairs was eligible for trade dress protection because it was not functional.


07.14.20

Functional Chicken Feeder Design Held Not Eligible for Trade Dress Protection

In CTB Inc. v. Hog Slat, Inc., the U.S. Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit found that a chicken feeder design was not eligible for trade dress protection because it improved the way the feeders worked, and was therefore eligible only for patent protection because it was functional and not ornamental.


07.07.20

Conveyor Belt Fastener Design Held Not Eligible for Trade Dress Protection

In Flexible Steel Lacing Co. v. Conveyor Accessories Inc., the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that a conveyor belt fastener’s “beveled center scallop” design was not entitled to trade dress protection because it was utilitarian. 


06.30.20

Responses to Infringement Letters Can Reduce Risk of Willful Infringement

In Halo Electronics, Inc. v. Pulse Electronics, Inc.,the Supreme Court held that 35 U.S.C. Section 284 provides for enhanced damages in egregious cases.


06.23.20

Federal Reserve Banks Can Petition for Inter Partes Review

In Bozeman Fin. LLC v. Fed. Reserve Bank of Atlanta,  the Federal Circuit held federal reserve banks can challenge patents under the America Invents Act.


06.09.20

Method for Identifying Atrial Fibrillation and Flutter Held Patent Eligible

In Cardionet, LLC v. Infobionic, Inc., the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit held that a method for identifying atrial fibrillation and atrial flutter associated with stroke, congestive heart failure and cardiomyopathy was patent eligible.


06.02.20

Supreme Court: Patent Office Cannot Be Reimbursed for Attorney and Paralegal Salaries

In Peters v. NantKwest, Inc., the Supreme Court, in a unanimous decision written by Justice Sonia Sotomayor, held that the “all expenses of the proceedings” provision of a 35 U.S.C. § 145 civil appeal does not include the reimbursement of Patent Office attorney and paralegal ...


05.26.20

Supreme Court: States Generally Immune From Copyright Infringement

In Allen v. Cooper, the Supreme Court held that the copyright clause in the U.S. Constitution did not authorize Congress to abrogate states’ Eleventh Amendment immunity from copyright infringement.


05.19.20

Supreme Court: Inter Partes Review Time Bar Held Not Appealable

In Thryv, Inc. v. Click-to-Call Technologies, LP, the Supreme Court held that the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (Board) decision whether an inter partes review (IPR) petition was timely filed could not be appealed.


05.12.20

Supreme Court: State Official Annotations to Code Not Copyrightable

The Supreme Court ruled against Georgia in a copyright claim that the state filed against Public.Resource.Org Inc., for distributing the state annotated code.