Posts in IP News

Federal Circuit Nixes Appeal on Claims of Unfair Treatment by California Court in Pro Se Lawsuit Over Restrictions to Cancer Research

On July 20, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) issued a non-precedential decision in Siegler v. Sorrento Therapeutics, Inc. in which the appellate court affirmed a series of rulings on motions in a copyright and trade secret lawsuit filed in the Southern District of California. Although the Federal Circuit panel in the case “[understood] that Siegler feels unfairly treated as a result of the events she outlines, she was treated more than fairly by the district court,” said the CAFC, and the court did not err or abuse its discretion in reaching decisions to deny several motions for default judgment and reconsideration, as well as dismissing a pair of amended complaints filed by Siegler.

Second CAFC Judgeship Opens as O’Malley Retirement Announced

According to U.S. Courts and as reported by IPLaw360 earlier today, U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) Judge Kathleen O’Malley announced on July 27 that she will retire, leaving a vacancy on the court as of March 11, 2022. O’Malley’s announcement means that Biden will get a second nominee to the United States’ top IP court. Tiffany Cunningham was nominated by President Joe Biden earlier this year to succeed Judge Evan Wallach and recently was confirmed by the Senate.

Could a Surge in Trademark Applications Delay Your Food or Beverage Business Launch?

When launching a new restaurant or food or beverage company, your plate is likely full enough. To add to the pile, this last year was no stranger to delays and pivots for businesses. And we’ve been noticing one more delay that may impact your new venture. Last month, the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) posted a blog entry on its website addressing a development that trademark practitioners have been aware of for months: trademark applications have surged to unprecedented levels. This is causing a substantial delay in reviewing new trademark applications and other actions on the part of the USPTO. The impact of these delays on new restaurant and food businesses, among other industries, may be significant.

Updates to Olympic Charter Rule 40: Impact of Name, Image, Likeness Changes for Tokyo Games

“Name, Image, Likeness” rights, the term commonly used to designate rights covered under right of publicity law, has been a popular and trending term thus far in 2021, and a hotly debated topic in the world of sports. With the Supreme Court’s ruling in NCAA v. Alston, multiple states enacting Name, Image, Likeness statutes, and the recent decision by the NCAA to suspend all Name, Image, Likeness rules for incoming and current athletes, this year is promising to reshape the advertising and sponsorship landscape for current U.S. college athletes and recruits. However, the controversies surrounding this subsection of intellectual property (IP) Law are not new to sports, and they are not unique to college athletes. For years, Olympic athletes have fought against Name, Image, Likeness restrictions set forth in the Olympic Charter and imposed by the International Olympic Committee (IOC).

Federal Circuit: PTAB Failed to Provide Adequate Notice of Sua Sponte Claim Construction

In a precedential opinion authored by chief Judge Moore, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit today vacated and remanded six Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) final written decisions in inter partes review (IPR) proceedings filed by Intel that found Qualcomm’s patent claims 1–15, 17–25, and 27–33 of U.S. Patent No. 9,608,675 would have been obvious. While the CAFC agreed with the PTAB’s construction of one of the claims, which Qualcomm had challenged, it ultimately held that the Board violated Qualcomm’s procedural rights under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) for failing to provide the company “adequate notice of and opportunity to respond to its sua sponte claim construction.”

The Washington Football Team’s Trademark Journey: Over the Bumps and Full Speed Ahead

You’ve probably heard that the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) has refused to register the current name of the Washington NFL franchise – “The Washington Football Team”. This is just the latest road block in the long running saga of the Team’s name. But actually, on closer look, it’s more like a small bump, and here is why. After years of ultimately successful litigation, on July 13, 2020, the Washington NFL franchise finally succumbed to what had become not only a public, but a very damaging corporate sponsor, outcry to change the Team’s name and logo. The Team publicly announced on that day that it would use the name “Washington Football Team” until a new name and logo were selected.