IP Law Bulletin

Summary: Recently the United States Trademark Trial and Appeal Board (TTAB) considered the implications of competing filings that occurred on the same day. In particular, a trademark applicant filed an express abandonment of its trademark application, and, later that same day, a third party filed an opposition against the trademark application. While the TTAB agreed with the applicant and both dismissed the opposition without prejudice and allowed the application to be abandoned without prejudice, the timing of the filings played no role in reaching this decision. To the contrary, the TTAB stated that it “shall not take cognizance of fractions of a day” and assumed that the parties’ opposition and express abandonment filed on the same day were filed at the same instant. What impact did the decisions being “without prejudice” as opposed to “with prejudice” have on the parties though?

On July 30, 2015, Drew Hirshfeld was appointed to the position of Commissioner for Patents for the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO).  Mr. Hirshfeld reports directly to Michelle Lee, the Director of the USPTO, and according to the USPTO website, he “is responsible for managing and directing all aspects of this organization which affect administration of patent operations, examination policy, patent quality management, international patent cooperation, resources and planning, and budget administration.”

Summary: It is rare that legal decisions are reported on by “The Worldwide Leader in Sports,” but that is exactly what happened when the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia affirmed the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office Trademark Trial and Appeal Board’s decision to cancel six trademark registrations owned by Pro-Football, Inc., which does business as The Washington Redskins.  The marks were canceled on the basis that the marks “may disparage” a “substantial composite” of Native Americans.  However, does a ruling based on these grounds fly in the face of the First Amendment?  An upcoming decision by an en banc Federal Circuit may soon tell us when it determines whether an Asian-American band is allowed to register the trademark “THE SLANTS” for entertainment in the nature of live performances by a musical band.

Summary: In Kimble v. Marvel Enterprises, Inc. 576 U.S. __ (2015), the Supreme Court relied on stare decisis, declining to overrule its 1964 Brulotte v. Thys Co. decision and holding that a patent owner cannot charge royalties for the use of an invention after the patent expires. Justice Kagan’s June 22, 2015 opinion affirmed the appellate court’s decision and maintains the status quo for patent licensing practice. As before, licensors should steer clear of Brulotte’s ban on post expiration royalties. However, the parties can use other intellectual property that is likely to live well beyond an underlying patent (e.g., trademark, trade secret) and other financial tools (e.g., amortization, partnering) to reach a competitive, mutually beneficial, and enforceable license agreement that exists beyond the life of the underlying patent.

Summary: The USPTO announced a year-long program aimed at reducing the backlog of pending ex parte patent appeals. An ex parte patent appeal is an appeal to the Patent Trial and Appeal Board typically made by applicants after receiving a final rejection from an examiner and failing to reach agreement on the allowability of the patent application. Currently, the average time to receive a final decision on an ex parte appeal is between 2 to 3 years. Under the new program, an applicant/appellant can have one appeal finally decided within 6 months of entering the program if the applicant willingly withdraws a second appeal. The applicant can contemporaneously file an RCE for the withdrawn appeal to keep the subject matter of the application alive.

In Ariosa Diagnostics, Inc., et al. v. Sequenom, Inc. et al., Nos. 2014-1139 and 2014-1144 (Fed. Cir. June 12, 2015), the Federal Circuit affirmed a district court’s finding on summary judgment that certain method claims of Sequenom’s U.S. Patent No. 6,258,540 (the ’540 patent) are invalid as being directed to patent ineligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101, finding that using conventional methods of detecting a naturally occurring phenomenon did not transform the natural phenomenon into a patentable invention. Judge Reyna wrote the opinion for the panel which included Judges Linn and Wallach. Judge Linn concurred.

In Commil USA, LLC v. Cisco Systems, Inc. (No. 13-896, May 26, 2015), the United States Supreme Court held that a good faith belief in the invalidity of a patent is not a shield to liability for active inducement of infringement. In so holding, the Court eliminated a defense which the Federal Circuit established just two years ago. Justice Kennedy, writing for the majority in this 6-2 decision, however, made clear that the removal of this quiver from an alleged infringer’s arsenal of defenses is not an endorsement of patent trolls.

On April 13, 2015, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) announced the availability of the Center for Diseases and Radiological Health’s (CDRH) final guidance document entitled “Expedited Access for Premarket Approval and De Novo Medical Devices Intended for Unmet Medical Need for Life Threatening or Irreversibly Debilitating Diseases or Conditions.” This 44-page final guidance outlines the FDA’s new Expedited Access Pathway (EAP) program for select medical devices that demonstrate the potential to address life-threatening or irreversibly debilitating, unmet medical needs. The FDA stated that the EAP program will “… help patients have more timely access to these medical devices by expediting their development, assessment and review, while preserving FDA’s statutory standard for PMA approval (reasonable assurance of safety and effectiveness) and the statutory standards for granting de novo requests.”

Nutter’s series on building a brand began with the selection of a mark and the process of formally protecting it via trademark registration. At this point in the series, the mark is registered and ready for use and investment to elevate it into a brand. Moving from a mere “mark” to a lauded “brand” takes us into the realm of marketing, as most of what makes a mark into a brand is the result of marketing investment around the mark. However, there are still many legal considerations to keep in mind as you begin using your mark and building it into your brand.