-
Read more: Curtin v. United Trademark Holdings, Inc.
A plaintiff must have a commercial interest to bring an opposition to the registration of a trademark for being descriptive or generic, merely being a consumer is not sufficient to confer standing.
-
Read more: EcoFactor, Inc. v. Google LLC (en banc)
A court plays a gatekeeping role to ensure that expert testimony on patent damages is only admissible if the testimony is based on sufficient factual evidence and reliable methodology. When relevant evidence is contrary to a critical fact on which the expert relied, the expert’s testimony is not admissible.
-
Read more: Regents of the University of California v. Broad Institute, Inc.
For conception, an idea must be in sufficiently final form such that only exercise of ordinary skill remains to reduce the idea to practice without extensive research or experimentation. Evidence of both the inventor’s experimentation and third-party experimentation should be considered to determine whether the idea was able to be reduced to practice using only…
-
Read more: In re Kostic
When considering whether a reissued patent broadens the scope of the original patent under 35 U.S.C. §251(d), the scope of the claims of the original patent are reviewed as written and without consideration of the subjective intent of the inventors.
-
Read more: Fintiv, Inc. v. PayPal Holdings, Inc.
Connecting terms in a claim such as “operable to” and “configured to” do not automatically suggest that a term is structural when determining whether a claim term is in means-plus-function format.
-
Read more: In re PT Medisafe Technologies
The Milwaukee test is used to determine if a color mark is generic. The Milwaukee test asks: (1) What is the genus of goods or services at issue? (2) Is the color sought to be registered, or retained on the register, understood by the relevant public primarily to refer to that genus of goods and…
-
Read more: Qualcomm Inc. v. Apple Inc.
Applicant admitted prior art cannot form the basis of a ground for petition in an IPR because it is not a prior art patent or printed publication. However, applicant admitted prior art can be considered during IPRs for certain uses, such as determining the general knowledge of a person of ordinary skill in the art.
-
Read more: Recentive Analytics, Inc. v. Fox Corp.
A patent that claims the application of machine learning to a new data environment without disclosing improvements to the applied machine learning models is directed to an abstract idea and is patent ineligible under Section 101.
Want updates when we have new case summaries? Enter your email below to subscribe!