Valentino Rockstud OA, Valentino Response Valentino filed three trademark applications (US App. Ser. Nos. 88/672,186; 88/672/019 and 88/672225) directed to different aspects of their Rockstud® shoes. Specifically, Valentino claimed that the pyramid shaped metallic studs, as applied to the t-strap and collar of a shoe, had acquired distinctiveness over the previous 5 years of commercial […]
Thaler v Iancu, filed 8/6/2020 In his complaint, Stephen Thaler states that the rejection of two patent applications naming DABUS as inventor and Thaler as Applicant “create a novel substantive requirement for patentability that is contrary to existing law and at odds with the policy underlying the patent system.”
USPTO_aapa_guidance_memo Director Iancu issued a memo setting forth the USPTO’s interpretation of 35 USC 311(b) as it pertains to statements by the Applicant regarding prior art. In particular, Director Iancu states that “the basis” of every IPR must be “prior art consisting of patents or printed publications.” Since admissions by Applicant regarding what is in […]
Blackbird v Fitbit Background Blackbird Tech owns US patent number 6,434,212 directed to a device that counts an individual’s steps. Based on the length and rate of those steps, the device provides information such as distance traveled and speed. Fitbit and Wahoo Fitness each sought an inter partes review of claims 2,5 and 6. PTAB […]
Alacritech v Intel Background Alacritech is the applicant of US patent number 8,131,880 (the ‘880 patent”) directed to apparatus for transferring packets to a host computer system. In particular, the claims of the ‘880 patent recite an apparatus that offloads certain network related processing tasks from a host computer’s CPU to an “intelligent network interface […]
Illumina v Ariosa rehearing “Method of preparation” claims survive §101 challenge at the Federal Circuit
IBSA v Teva Though IBSA provided direct and indirect evidence that one of ordinary skill in the art would understand the term to be a synonym of “semi-liquid,” the Federal Circuit discounted it. The Court instead found support in a prosecution history where the term was not directly at issue. Background IBSA is the assignee […]
tiffany-co-v-costco-wholesale-corp, August 17, 2020 Background In November 2012, a Costco customer alerted Tiffany that she had seen engagement rings that appeared to be advertised as Tiffany Rings at a Costco store in Huntington Beach, CA. Tiffany sent investigators to the store that observed two rings with signage nearby reading “639911/PLATINUM TIFFANY…” and “605880/PLATINUM TIFFANY…” Tiffany […]
Senator Tillis urges USPTO to implement changes to identification of hypothetical examples in patent applications, as well as to improve transparency in ownership information. Tillis-ltr-re-USPTO-admin-proposals1 So sad.
But only if you register them first. So says Fischer-v-Forrest (Nos. 18-2955-cv, 18-2959-cv, August 4, 2020, 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals) Background Fischer, the plaintiff-appellant, had invented a honey harvesting product called Bee-Quick.com, and registered a copyright for his website, including a brochure, on February 7, 2011. Defendants-appellees, Sandra and Stephen Forrest and their mail […]