Posts in US Supreme Court

In Vidal v. Elster, No. 22-704, the United States Supreme Court has heard argument and is expected to decide in the next several months whether Section 2(c) of the Lanham Act can prevent the federal registration of TRUMP TOO SMALL as a trademark for shirts and hats. Section 2(c) prohibits, inter alia, the registration of the name of a particular living individual without his consent. The issue in Elster is whether the First Amendment’s guarantee of free expression transcends Section 2(c)…. To the extent that Section 2(c) survives, in whole or in part, and apart from weighty constitutional concerns which the Court is expected to resolve, there are numerous other problems lurking in this old, dark and dusty subsection—which  are not particularly “small” at all—which only Congress can fix.

Relish Labs LLC and the Kroger Company (who own the “Home Chef” brand and mark) petitioned the U.S. Supreme Court this week, asking the Justices to review a decision by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit that held Home Chef had not proven consumers were likely to confuse their marks with Grubhub and Takeaway.com’s logo.

The U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) published guidelines for examiners today on the topic of enablement in light of the Supreme Court’s May 2023 decision in Amgen v. Sanofi. The Office’s view seems to largely mesh with what our guest authors concluded earlier today—Amgen isn’t getting rid of In re Wands and—at the USPTO at least—the decision has seemingly maintained the status quo.

Last term, the U.S. Supreme Court did something strange: the Court unanimously affirmed a circuit decision, which had unanimously affirmed a trial court decision. Little about the law seemed ripe for dispute or change, nevertheless, in Amgen v. Sanofi the Supreme Court spoke. Seven months later, innovators and patent practitioners are still scratching their heads. What impact, if any, does Amgen have? Is there a sign lower courts are interpreting Amgen as signaling a change in American patent law or did it merely ratify what already existed?

The U.S. Supreme Court today denied a petition asking the High Court to clarify patent eligibility jurisprudence under Section 101 since its 2014 ruling in Alice Corp. Pty Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int’l. Realtime Data, LLC asked the Court specifically to address the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit’s (CAFC’s) August 2023 decision holding 211 of its patent claims ineligible as abstract.

The U.S. Supreme Court today denied certiorari in Intel v. Vidal, a case that asked the Court to overturn a U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) ruling concerning the Patent Trial and Appeal Board’s (PTAB’s) so-called Fintiv framework. The CAFC’s March 2023 decision said appellate review of whether the PTAB’s discretionary denial rules for inter partes review (IPR) are “arbitrary and capricious” was precluded by Section 314(d) of the patent statute.

We are less than 24 hours out from 2024 and, after reflecting on what mattered in 2023 and other year-in-review recaps, it is now time once again to ponder what lies ahead. From exciting patent legislation to Supreme Court trademark and copyright cases that could have big implications, here is what the IPWatchdog community will be keeping on its radar in the new year. 

This year has seen a bonanza of significant trademark decisions, including several high- profile decisions from the Supreme Court. Courts ruled on issues ranging from First Amendment and parody considerations to the extraterritorial reach of U.S. trademark law, yet in most cases returned to basic principles of trademark law to resolve the open issues. Below is a selection of a few of those significant cases from the previous year.

In 2023, the U.S. Supreme Court decided four intellectual property cases. The cases touched all of the major fields of intellectual property—two cases interpreted the federal trademark act (Jack Daniel’s and Abitron), one case involved patent enablement (Amgen), and one case explicated the federal copyright statutes (Goldsmith). The decisions were split along party lines, with two cases finding in favor of intellectual property owners (Jack Daniel’s and Goldsmith) and two cases in favor of the accused infringers (Abitron and Amgen).

The U.S. Supreme Court yesterday denied a petition for writ of certiorari asking the Court to reconsider the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit’s (CAFC’s) June ruling that the petitioner said signals an expanding practice of reversing agency decisions in lieu of remand. In the CAFC’s decision, the court reversed a Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) judgment that affirmed patent claims in part due to the commercial success of MacNeil IP’s WeatherTech vehicle floor tray. The CAFC also affirmed a PTAB ruling that invalidated three claims of one of MacNeil’s patents in its battle with Yita LLC, a Seattle-based auto parts company.

The U.S. Supreme Court’s Alice decision alleges that “…merely requiring generic computer implementation fails to transform that abstract idea into a patent-eligible invention.” And the Patent Eligibility Restoration Act (PERA) of 2023 alleges that “adding a non-essential reference to a computer by merely stating, ‘do it on a computer’ shall not establish such eligibility.” Clearly, it is assumed that “merely” doing something on a computer or “merely” saying “do it on a computer” is not a desirable thing in the eyes of some; a computer supposedly invalidates the inventive effort and “merely” doing something on a computer is undeserving of even consideration of a patent.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit today invoked the Supreme Court’s decision in Jack Daniel’s Properties v. VIP Products to affirm a district court’s finding that MSCHF Product Studio, Inc.’s shoe, the Wavy Baby Sneaker, likely infringed Vans, Inc.’s Old Skool shoe. The Second Circuit ultimately affirmed the district court’s grant of a preliminary injunction and temporary restraining order for Vans. The Wavy Baby Sneaker is made by MSCHF, a Brooklyn-based art collective that “has recently focused its artistic expression on ‘sneakerhead culture.,’” according to the Second Circuit opinion. Upon release of the Wavy Baby Sneaker, MSCHF’s co-Chief Creative Officer said in a statement: “’The Wavy Baby concept started with a Vans Old Skool sneaker’ because no other shoe embodies the dichotomies between ‘niche and mass taste, functional and trendy, utilitarian and frivolous’ as perfectly as the Old Skool.”

It seems likely that Amgen Inc. v. Sanofi 598 U.S. 594 (2023) will be one of the most significant, if not the most significant Supreme Court patent decision of 2023. Its holding that a claim to a genus of antibodies must be enabled to the full scope of species within that genus was emphatic and—coming from our highest court—about as final as stare decisis can guarantee. Forty years ago, I was knee deep in U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) and court proceedings on behalf of laser pioneer, Gordon Gould. A 1983 decision in Gould’s favor by an appellate court effectively shut down efforts by the USPTO and laser manufacturers to derail Gould’s patent portfolio, ultimately leading to widespread licensing of Gould’s patents. But there was one point in that 1983 decision that might be viewed as inconsistent with Amgen’s holding.

On November 20, the U.S. Supreme Court denied a petition for writ of certiorari filed in Tata Consultancy Services Ltd. v. Epic Systems Corp. The denial leaves in place an appellate court decision awarding $280 million for unjust enrichment and punitive damages in a trade secret misappropriation case where the plaintiff suffered no economic harm and the defendant gained no actual benefit from the misappropriated information.

On Monday, the United States Supreme Court denied inventor Jeffrey Killian’s petition for a rehearing in his case asking the Court to provide clear guidance on – or else throw out – the Alice/Mayo test for patent eligibility. The Supreme Court denied Killian’s original petition in early October, but Killian filed a request for rehearing several weeks later. Killian first filed a petition for writ of certiorari to the Supreme Court in April, after the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) affirmed the Patent Trial and Appeal Board’s (PTAB)’s ruling rejecting claims of his U.S. Patent Application No. 14/450,042 under Section 101.