Steve Brachmann

This week on Other Barks & Bites: the Ninth Circuit reverses the dismissal of malpractice claims stemming from a pattern of missed case deadlines in a trademark infringement proceeding; the Eleventh Circuit becomes the latest regional circuit court to hold that keyword bidding itself cannot constitute trademark infringement; the Patent Trial and Appeal Board issues a precedential ruling clarifying the framework for examining patents based on obviousness-type double patenting concerns; and more.

On Tuesday, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit issued a published ruling reversing the U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona’s entry of permanent injunction for distiller Jack Daniel’s in the long-running trademark case involving VIP Products’ Bad Spaniels dog toy. This latest chapter in the decade-plus-long case remands the decision back to the district court with orders to enter judgment in favor of defendant VIP Products after finding that Jack Daniel’s did not meet its burden to show dilution by tarnishment.

Yesterday, the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) issued its latest study detailing the economic contributions of industries heavily reliant upon intellectual property rights, concluding that such IP-intensive industries contributed 44% of the United States’ entire gross domestic product (GDP) in 2024. Despite several key findings reflecting the rising value of IP rights to employee wages and job creation, the USPTO’s report noted significant trade deficits run by the United States relative to their foreign counterparts in commodity exports across several IP-intensive industries.

This week in Other Barks & Bites: the Seventh Circuit affirms the summary judgment dismissal of copyright and trade secret claims filed between coin-counting machine software competitors; The Chicago Tribune publishes an editorial urgently calling for the passage of the Protect College Sports Act; USPTO Deputy Commissioner of Patents Barry Schindler is promoted to the Acting Commissioner role by the agency; and more.

Yesterday, the UK Supreme Court issued a ruling in Tesla, Inc. v. InterDigital Patent Holdings, Inc. representing the latest development in UK jurisprudence surrounding fair, reasonable and non-discriminatory (FRAND) obligations on standard-essential patents (SEPs). Applying the reasoning of its landmark SEP decision in Unwired Planet, the UK Supreme Court revived Tesla’s claims that InterDigital’s SEPs to 5G vehicle communications technologies are not being offered on FRAND terms through Avanci’s patent pool and further upheld the jurisdiction of UK courts to decide global FRAND terms.