This case examines the application of trademark functionality doctrine in the medical device industry, specifically addressing whether the pink color of ceramic hip components can be protected as a trademark. The case provides important guidance on how courts evaluate functionality claims and the intersection between patent and trademark protection for product features.Continue Reading Ceramtec GMBH v. Coorstek Biocermanics LLC

In Allergan USA, Inc. v. MSN Laboratories Private Ltd., No. 2024-1061 (Fed. Cir. August 13, 2024), the Federal Circuit reversed the District Court of Delaware’s invalidity determination of certain claims of U.S. Patent No. 7,741,356 (“the ’356 patent”) for obviousness-type double patenting. The Federal Circuit also reversed the district court’s invalidity determination of certain claims of U.S. Patent Nos. 11,007,179 (“the ’179 patent”), 11,090,291 (“the ’291 patent”), 11,160,792 (“the ’792 patent”), and 11,311,516 (“the ’516 patent”) for lack of written description.Continue Reading Federal Circuit Emphasizes Role of Filing Dates, Reversing Obviousness-Type Double Patenting Invalidation

As previously reported (here and here), some Delaware courts have recently declined to “blue pencil,” i.e., modify and narrow overbroad restrictive covenants. Instead, they have stricken in their entirety covenants deemed overbroad and declined to enforce them. On December 10, 2024, in Sunder Energy, LLC v. Tyler Jackson, et al., the Delaware Supreme Court affirmed that Delaware courts have the discretion to decline to blue pencil overbroad restrictive covenants, even if the defendant’s conduct would violate a more narrowly circumscribed covenant. Continue Reading Delaware Supreme Court Refuses to Enforce Noncompete Against Company Founder Who Joined Competitor

This case addresses the application of issue preclusion in relation to the validity of three patents. In particular, this case focuses on the implications of decisions made during the dismissal of pending litigations and examines whether these decisions render judgments final, justifying the application of issue preclusion to invalidate concurrently asserted patents.Continue Reading Koss Corporation v. Bose Corporation

Miller Mendel Inc. filed a lawsuit against the City of Anna, Texas (“the City”), in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, alleging infringement of Claims 1, 5, and 15 of U.S. Patent No. 10,043,188 (the “’188 patent”). The ’188 patent primarily pertains to a software system designed to manage pre-employment background investigation processes. Specifically, Claim 1 exemplifies a computerized method that involves: (1) receiving data related to an applicant; (2) storing new applicant information; (3) transmitting an applicant hyperlink; (4) receiving an electronic response from the applicant; (5) determining a reference class; (6) selecting a reference set; (7) transmitting a reference hyperlink; (8) receiving an electronic response from the reference; (9) storing the electronic response from the reference; and (10) generating a recommended reference list.Continue Reading Another Example of Ineligible Software Patent Claims

In Copan Italia S.p.A. et al. v. Puritan Medical Products Company LLC et al., the Federal Circuit addressed the issue of whether the Federal Circuit had jurisdiction to handle an appeal based on arguments under the Pandemic Readiness and Emergency Preparedness (“PREP”) Act.Continue Reading Federal Circuit Lacked Jurisdiction to Address Appeal Based on Arguments Under The PREP Act

Inline Plastics Corp. (“Inline”) filed a lawsuit against Lacerta Group, LLC (“Lacerta”), alleging infringement of several patents related to tamper-resistant containers and methods of making such containers using thermoformed plastic. The district court granted Inline summary judgment of infringement on a subset of claims, but the jury found that the remaining asserted claims were not infringed and that all the asserted claims (including those already held infringed) were invalid. The parties then filed posttrial motions, including Inline’s motion for judgment as a matter of law and Lacerta’s motion for attorneys’ fees under 35 U.S.C. § 285, both of which were denied. Inline appealed on the grounds that it was entitled to judgment as a matter of law of no invalidity and that an error in the jury instructions with respect to the law of obviousness requires a new trial. Lacerta cross-appealed, challenging the district court’s denial of attorneys’ fees and the without prejudice dismissal of certain patent claims Inline voluntarily withdrew during trial. Continue Reading Inline for a New Trial

Following the Seventh Circuit’s recent decision in Motorola Solutions Inc. v. Hytera Communications Corp. Ltd., the United States may become a destination venue for resolution of global trade secret disputes. The Seventh Circuit held that U.S. trade secret law applies extraterritorially—reaching the theft of trade secrets outside the United States—so long as “an act in furtherance” of the offense was committed in the United States. The court held, for example, that marketing products in the United States qualified as an “act in furtherance” if the products were made using stolen trade secrets. Once an “act in furtherance” is identified, damages can be based on a company’s global sales. Motorola, for example, resulted in an award of $135.8 million in compensatory damages based on Hytera’s worldwide sales. Similar to the global impact of U.S. antitrust and anti-bribery laws, the Seventh Circuit’s decision highlights the critical importance to companies of considering U.S. trade secret laws. For example, if a company suffers the theft of its trade secrets anywhere in the world, it should consider the United States as a possible venue for bringing a legal claim. Conversely, companies should take measures to train employees and ensure compliance with U.S. trade secret laws even if the employees are located outside of the United States.Continue Reading Companies Should Take Notice of the Extraterritorial Reach of U.S. Trade Secret Law

In the rapidly changing world of innovation and intellectual property protection, understanding the landscape of existing patents is not merely beneficial – it’s a necessity. Patent searches stand as a fundamental step in the intellectual property lifecycle, providing a critical tool for inventors, companies, and legal professionals. This article delves into the significance of conducting thorough patent searches, considerations for timing these searches, and the methodologies employed. We also will explore the benefits and drawbacks of conducting searches internally at law firms versus outsourcing to specialized search firms, aiming to spark a discussion on the strategic use of patent searches.Continue Reading Clearing the Path Forward: The Critical Role of Patent Searches

After ten years of litigation, the Federal Circuit found that the district court conducted an improper collateral estoppel analysis and upheld ParkerVision’s position on each of the appealed issues.[1]Continue Reading Different Evidentiary Burdens in IPR Proceedings and District Court Means No Collateral Estoppel Effect on Related Patent Claims