Posts Tagged: "Apple"

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) today denied Charles Bertini’s petition for a writ of mandamus asking the court to order the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) to decide his trademark cancellation case against Apple, Inc. According to Bertini, the cancellation case has been in limbo at the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board (TTAB) for more than three years, “despite [the TTAB’s] policy and frequent public statements by top USPTO officials that it decides cases after trial in approximately ten weeks.” Furthermore, a Petition to the USPTO Director filed on May 4, 2023, has yet to be decided, “despite the fact that most Petitions to the Director are decided in approximately two months.”

Masimo’s legal team told the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) in a January 15 filing that the Exclusion Order Enforcement Branch (EOE) of U.S. Customs and Border Protection has cleared a redesigned version of the Apple watches that were banned by the International Trade Commission (ITC) in late October. The CBP’s decision has not been made public. According to the filing, the redesigned watches do not contain pulse oximetry technology, which was the subject of the ITC exclusion order. The decision, which has not been made public, removes any danger of irreparable harm alleged by Apple, according to the filing.

Yesterday, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) stayed the International Trade Commission’s (ITC’s) October 26 Limited Exclusion Order (LEO) against certain Apple Watches that the ITC found infringed on two Masimo patents that covered technology related to reading blood-oxygen levels. The CAFC does not appear to have published the order on its public website but it is widely available online.

Apple confirmed to media outlets on Monday that it will halt sales of certain Apple watches following the October International Trade Commission (ITC) ruling issuing a limited exclusion (LEO) order against the products. In its October ruling, the ITC found Apple violated section 337 by importing Apple Watches that infringed on two Masimo patents that covered technology related to reading blood-oxygen levels.

Office (USPTO) and Apple, Inc. file responses to his petition for writ of mandamus, the owner of the trademark APPLE JAZZ has filed a reply of his own charging that “the USPTO is not sincere and has never been sincere about deciding this case.” The latest briefs relate to a petition for writ of mandamus filed by Charles Bertini, owner of APPLE JAZZ, who has been embroiled in a fight with Apple over rights to the mark since 2016.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) this week ordered Apple, Inc. and the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) to respond to a petition for writ of mandamus filed by the owner of the APPLE JAZZ trademark, who has been embroiled in a fight with Apple, Inc. over rights to the mark since 2016. Charles Bertini, who owns APPLE JAZZ, petitioned the CAFC last week, asking the court to direct the USPTO to issue a final decision on its petition to cancel Apple’s mark, APPLE (Registration No. 4088195) for nonuse/ abandonment on the ground that Apple never used the mark in commerce for entertainment services listed in the Registration Certificate.

On Thursday, October 26, the U.S. International Trade Commission (ITC) issued a limited exclusion order (LEO) and cease and desist order against Apple, potentially barring the technology company from importing Apple Watches into the United States. The ITC found Apple violated section 337 by importing Apple Watches that infringed on two Masimo patents that covered technology related to reading blood-oxygen levels.

On October 10, the U.S. Supreme Court issued an order list showing it had denied the petition for writ of certiorari filed in Personalized Media Communication, LLC v. Apple Inc. In denying the appeal, SCOTUS leaves in place a divided Federal Circuit ruling that improperly expanded prosecution laches doctrine according to Personalized Media (PMC). The cert denial also passes on the question of whether prosecution laches remains a valid defense to patent infringement in light of the Supreme Court’s 2017 ruling in SCA Hygiene Products v. First Quality Baby Products.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) today issued two precedential opinions vacating and remanding decisions of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB). In the first, the court said the PTAB abused its discretion in finding that Netflix, Inc. failed to articulate a field of endeavor to establish analogous art, vacating the Board’s decision in part. In the second, the CAFC vacated the PTAB’s finding that Apple, Inc. had failed to prove Corephotonics’ patent claims unpatentable as obvious, holding that the evidence supported a different claim construction than that adopted by the Board in one decision, and because the Board’s decision in the second inter partes review (IPR) violated the Administrative Procedure Act (APA).

On August 18, the owner of the APPLE JAZZ trademark filed an opposition to Apple’s motion to amend its trademark application for the mark APPLE MUSIC with the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board (TTAB). In its motion, the tech giant asked the TTAB to allow the company to remove “live performance services, as well as related services,” from the application. In July, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) denied Apple’s request to rehear a decision that effectively canceled the tech company’s application to register the APPLE MUSIC mark.

Following years of infringement litigation over its patented wireless chip technologies, the California Institute of Technology (Caltech) has recently enjoyed a pair of settlement outcomes pointing to the strength of the research university’s patent holdings. The accused technologies in those cases overlap with other Caltech patent suits currently pending, which could presage further settlements recognizing the value of the university’s R&D activities.

On August 1, Apple filed a motion to amend its trademark application for the mark APPLE MUSIC with the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board (TTAB) following its recent loss at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC). Apple is asking the TTAB to allow it to remove “live performance services, as well as related services,” from the application in order to get around the CAFC’s ruling and since the Opposer, Charles Bertini, did not make the argument on which the ruling was based before the TTAB.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) today denied Apple’s June request that the court rehear a decision that effectively canceled the tech company’s application to register the trademark APPLE MUSIC. Apple had asked the court to rehear the case in order to direct the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board (TTAB) to narrow the services listed in the trademark application so that it could proceed to registration. The owner of the trademark for APPLE JAZZ, Charles Bertini, in April won his appeal to the CAFC from the TTAB, which had dismissed his opposition to Apple, Inc.’s application to register the mark APPLE MUSIC. The CAFC said the TTAB legally erred in allowing Apple to claim absolute priority for all of the services listed in its application based on a showing of priority for just one service.

A UK judge in May determined in a non-public judgment that has been widely reported on that Apple should pay Optis a total of $56.43 million plus interest for a worldwide FRAND license to Optis’s portfolio of 4G standard essential patents (SEPs). In the most recent development in the overall case, Apple yesterday reportedly lost its appeal in one of the four technical trials pending between the parties, meaning it could still be liable for fees related to infringement in the range of $7 billion.  

The U.S. Supreme Court denied the petitions for certiorari in a number of IP cases today, including three the U.S. Solicitor General had recommended rejecting. In Genius v. Google, ML Genius Holdings (Genius) attempted to sue Google for posting song lyrics from its website in Google search results. Genius’s petition asked the High Court to answer the question of whether the Copyright Act’s preemption clause allows a business “to invoke traditional state-law contract remedies to enforce a promise not to copy and use its content?”