Manual IP News and Unitary Patent News edited by Arnold & Siedsma
 
Unified Patent Court News edited by Bristows
 
Kluwer Copyright Cases edited by IViR
 
Kluwer Patent Cases edited by Brinkhof
 
IP Law Daily - Selected US Cases edited by CCH
 
Volume 2017 - Issue 10
May 2017
 
 
 

News

 
Ratifications (1)
 
 
UK to ratify Hague Agreement
 
On 30 March 2017, the UK Government announced its intention to join the Hague Agreement Concerning the International Registration of Industrial Designs (the Hague System) by 31 March 2018 and to implement the Hague System by 6 April 2018.
 
Author(s): Kluwer IP Reporter
 
Source: Manual IP NewsDate: 15 May 2017
 
United Kingdom Full text
 
 
 
 
 
Patents/Utility Models (16)
 
 
Patent data from Australia, France and Saudi Arabia now on PATENTSCOPE
 
The World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) has added the national patent collections of Australia, France and Saudi Arabia to the PATENTSCOPE database, a free search service offered by the WIPO.
 
Author(s): Kluwer IP Reporter
 
Source: Manual IP NewsDate: 15 May 2017
 
Australia, France, Saudi Arabia Full text
 
 
 
 
 
Brazil issues new instructions on recording of agreements
 
The Brazilian Patent and Trademark Office (BR PTO) has recently published new instructions regarding the registration of international agreements involving industrial property, which is expected to ease the limitation imposed on the remittance of royalties abroad.
 
Author(s): Kluwer IP Reporter
 
Source: Manual IP NewsDate: 15 May 2017
 
Brazil Full text
 
 
 
 
 
Estonian draft UPC legislation in parliament
 
The Estonian government has submitted two bills to parliament to enable Estonia to participate in the Unified Patent Court and UP system and also in the UPC’s Nordic-Baltic regional division.

This has been reported by Bristows. ‘One bill is for Estonia to ratify the UPC Agreement and the Agreement on a Nordic-Baltic regional division of the UPC. Regarding the UPC Agreement, the bill’s explanatory memorandum states that there will be a proposal to the cabinet to submit to the Agreement’s provisional application (…)’.

The other bill amends national law, introducing provisions relating to the UP system.

For more information please click here.
 
Author(s): Kluwer IP Reporter
 
Source: Unitary Patent NewsDate: 15 May 2017
 
Estonia, European Union Full text
 
 
 
 
 
EPO, EAPO launch PPH pilot programme
 
On 27 April 2017, the European Patent Organization (EPO) and the Patent Office of Eurasia (EAPO) have agreed to launch a Patent Prosecution Highway (PPH) pilot programme.
 
Author(s): Kluwer IP Reporter
 
Source: Manual IP NewsDate: 15 May 2017
 
Eurasia, European Patent Organization Full text
 
 
 
 
 
‘Confusing call for action IP2I against patent assertion entities and trolls’
 
In its call for action against rising patent troll activity in Europe, the industry group IP2I should have distinguished between patent assertion entities (PAEs) and trolls, according to IAM Media.

‘For us, what differentiates a troll from any other kind of NPE [non-practicing entity] is its use of low quality patents to extract settlement payments that are less than the cost of fighting a case through the courts. (…) My experience is that those who do equate trolls with PAEs are seeking to create a debate that focuses not on patent quality, eligibility or infringement, but on the business model of the patent owner. They want people (…) to make moral judgements about those asserting rights, not on those who might be infringing them.’

For more information please click here.
 
Author(s): Kluwer IP Reporter
 
Source: IP Law Daily - Selected Trade Secret CasesDate: 15 May 2017
 
European Union Full text
 
 
 
 
 
Unified Patent Court now expected to open in early 2018
 
​The UK general election may delay the launch of the Unified Patent Court, but not more than a month or so.

‘The UK general election called for 08 June 2017 may delay the UK's ratification of the UPC agreement but is not expected to delay the launch of the new court by more than a month or so.’

This has been reported by Simmons & Simmons. ‘The original timetable for ratification was based on the assumption that the UK legislation on privileges and immunities needed for the UK to ratify the UPC agreement would be ready to lay before Parliament shortly after Easter. Since the legislative process to approve this legislation requires at least 21 days, there will not now be enough time to do this before parliament is dissolved ahead of the election.’

For more information please click here.
 
Author(s): Kluwer IP Reporter
 
Source: Unitary Patent NewsDate: 15 May 2017
 
European Union Full text
 
 
 
 
 
Language regime Unitary Patent system is ‘monstrous’
 
The language system of the Unitary Patent system is very problematic. If Spain joined the system, it could lead to litigation in foreign courts and foreign languages for Spanish companies, even if an supposed infringement took place in Spain only.

IP expert Magnus Stiebe of the Spanish company Balder said this in a recent podcast interview with Gestiona Radio. According to Balder, translation costs can be high, and errors easily made under the language regime, which he qualified as ‘considerably monstrous’.

Stiebe pointed out Spain is not the only country to stay outside the system. Poland has decided not to join either, because of the negative economic impact of the UP. Spain should have done a better job in explaining that the language regime is disadvantageous for other member states as well, according to Balder.

For more information please click here.
 
Author(s): Kluwer IP Reporter
 
Source: Unitary Patent NewsDate: 15 May 2017
 
European Union, Spain Full text
 
 
 
 
 
Spain wanted ‘English only’ for Unitary Patent system
 
Spain proposed a Unitary Patent system in which English would be the only official language, instead of French and German as well. When this was rejected, it decided not to join the system,

According to the website El Economista, this was explained in an April 2017 meeting of the Economy Commission of parliament by Patricia García Escudero, general director of the Spanish IPO.

According to García Escudero, the linguistic discrimination wasn’t the only reason not to join the UP system, but Spain also thinks it leads to legal uncertainty and economic disadvantages for Spanish companies, especially SMEs.

For more information please click here.
 
Author(s): Kluwer IP Reporter
 
Source: Unitary Patent NewsDate: 15 May 2017
 
European Union, Spain Full text
 
 
 
 
 
Preparing for the UP system
 
Representatives should now be considering notifying clients of the changes of the Unified Patent system, and send them communications covering the options and issues impacting their cases.

This is argued in an IP Copy post, based on the recent CIPA webinar ‘Getting Practical with European Patents & the Unified Patent Court – Episode 1’.

The post gives an extensive overview of the UP system and its issues and hazards, for instance what will happen with pending European patent application, SPCs, making opt-outs.

For more information please click here.
 
Author(s): Kluwer IP Reporter
 
Source: Unitary Patent NewsDate: 15 May 2017
 
European Union Full text
 
 
 
 
 
A look at the Case Management System of the UPC
 
There are a number of issues with the opt-out procedure in the Content Management System of the UPC, which is available for beta testing.

IP Copy has come to that conclusion after trying the system. Shortly after publishing its observations however, it updated the article because there has been an update of the opt-out section.

For more information please click here.
 
Author(s): Kluwer IP Reporter
 
Source: Unified Patent Court NewsDate: 15 May 2017
 
European Union Full text
 
 
 
 
 
UPC beta Case Management System update
 
The beta version of the CMS of the Unified Patent Court has undergone a recent update to adapt the opt-out application process to the latest version of the Rules of Procedure.

According to a Bristows report, the changes include a ‘differentiation between registered representatives and individuals who are not registered representatives, as well as the declaration required by Rule 5(3)(e).’

For more information please click here.
 
Author(s): Kluwer IP Reporter
 
Source: Unified Patent Court NewsDate: 15 May 2017
 
European Union Full text
 
 
 
 
 
‘Court fees not that important in choice between UPC and national courts’
 
In comparison with the costs and recoverability of attorney’s fees, court fees are likely to be a smaller consideration in the choice between the UPC and national courts.

This is stated in a Simmons & Simmons report on costs and fees of the UPC.

For more information please click here.
 
Author(s): Kluwer IP Reporter
 
Source: Unified Patent Court NewsDate: 15 May 2017
 
European Union Full text
 
 
 
 
 
‘Start UP system may be delayed until 2019’
 
‘The UPC is very unlikely to come into effect in early 2018 and the earliest is probably a year later in 2019 – around the same time that the UK completes its Brexit negotiations and steps out of the EU.’

This is argued in an article of ITProPortal, which explains it would have been difficult to take the UK out of the UPC if the system had launched at the start of 2018. Due to the UK general elections, delaying the start of the UP system, this has changed, according to ITProPortal. ‘The likelihood that the UK will be part of the UPC in the future is looking increasingly small’.

For more information please click here.
 
Author(s): Kluwer IP Reporter
 
Source: Unitary Patent NewsDate: 15 May 2017
 
European Union Full text
 
 
 
 
 
Finland revises patent fees
 
Finland’s Ministry of Economic Affairs and Employment has approved the Finnish Patent and Registration Office’s (PRH) proposal for revisions to patent fees.
 
Author(s): Kluwer IP Reporter
 
Source: Manual IP NewsDate: 15 May 2017
 
Finland Full text
 
 
 
 
 
Japan, Taiwan extend PPH pilot programme
 
The Japan Patent Office (JPO) and the Taiwan Intellectual Property Office (TIPO) have agreed to extend the existing Patent Prosecution Highway (PPH) pilot programme between the two offices for a further period of three years, and the PPH pilot will now expire on 30 April 20120, unless extended by both the offices.
 
Author(s): Kluwer IP Reporter
 
Source: Manual IP NewsDate: 15 May 2017
 
Japan, Taiwan Full text
 
 
 
 
 
Patent directed to encoding and decoding image data not patent-eligible
 
On 28 April 2017, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC), in RecogniCorp, LLC v. Nintendo Co., Ltd., ruled that RecogniCorp’s patent claims were directed to the abstract idea of encoding and decoding image data and that they do not contain an inventive concept and therefore are not patent-eligible.
 
Author(s): Kluwer IP Reporter
 
Source: Manual IP NewsDate: 15 May 2017
 
United States of America Full text
 
 
 
 
 
Trademarks (2)
 
 
Finland revises trademark fees
 
Finland’s Ministry of Economic Affairs and Employment has approved the Finnish Patent and Registration Office’s (PRH) proposal to revise trademark fees.
 
Author(s): Kluwer IP Reporter
 
Source: Manual IP NewsDate: 15 May 2017
 
Finland Full text
 
 
 
 
 
WIPO issues guidelines on Nice Classification
 
The World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) recently issued guidelines regarding the International Classification of Goods and Services for the Purposes of the Registration of Marks (Nice Classification) under the Madrid System.
 
Author(s): Kluwer IP Reporter
 
Source: Manual IP NewsDate: 15 May 2017
 
International Conventions, World Intellectual Property Organization Full text
 
 
 
 
 
Industrial Models and Designs (3)
 
 
Philippines integrates registered designs data into DesignView
 
On 26 April 2017, the Intellectual Property Office of the Philippines (IPOPHL) has integrated its registered designs data into DesignView search tool, raising the number of intellectual property offices to join DesignView to 54.
 
Author(s): Kluwer IP Reporter
 
Source: Manual IP NewsDate: 15 May 2017
 
Philippines Full text
 
 
 
 
 
Singapore to amend designs law
 
With a view to keep abreast of the changes in the industry, the Ministry of Law in Singapore has announced changes to the Registered Designs Act.
 
Author(s): Kluwer IP Reporter
 
Source: Manual IP NewsDate: 15 May 2017
 
Singapore Full text
 
 
 
 
 
South Korea revises designs law
 
On 21 March 2017, the South Korean government has published amendments to the Design Protection Act and the new law will come into effect on 22 September 2017.
 
Author(s): Kluwer IP Reporter
 
Source: Manual IP NewsDate: 15 May 2017
 
South Korea Full text
 
 
 
 

Cases

 
Copyright (1)
 
 
Sweden: J.L. v. M.A., Supreme Court of Sweden, T 1963-15, 21 February 2017
 
The Supreme Court provided guidance on how to assess whether a work should be considered to be an adaptation, within the meaning of Section 4, paragraph 1 of the Swedish Copyright Act, or a new and independent work within the meaning of Section 4, paragraph 2 of the Swedish Copyright Act, especially in borderline cases.

After carrying out an overall assessment of a painting that was based on a photograph, the Court found that the photograph had been changed to such an extent that the painting had a different purpose from the photograph.   Consequently it was a new and independent work for the purposes of the Swedish Copyright Act.
 
Author(s): Johan Norderyd, Lindahl
 
Source: Kluwer Copyright CasesDate: 15 May 2017
 
Sweden Full text Full text as PDF
 
 
 
 
 
Patent (16)
 
 
Spain: Safety intravenous catheters war in Spain, Court of Appeal of Barcelona, No. 253/2016, 24 November 2016
 
On 24 November 2016, the Court of Appeal of Barcelona (Section 15) handed down a judgment in which it confirmed that "the interpretation of the scope of protection of a patent for the purposes of analysing its validity cannot be different from when its infringement is analysed". The Judges also highlighted the relevance of the Decisions of the Board of Appeals of the European Patent Office, recognised as "a major technical authority", for national Courts and Tribunals.

By means of this judgment, the Court of Appeal of Barcelona dismissed the appeal lodged by the Defendant and confirmed the judgment handed down by Commercial Court No. 4 of Barcelona on 1 October 2014, which had declared patent EP '487 to be valid and infringed by the Defendant.
 
Author(s): Miquel Montana, Clifford Chance, Barcelona
 
Source: Kluwer Patent CasesDate: 15 May 2017
 
Spain Full text Full text as PDF
 
 
 
 
 
USA: Halo Electronics, Inc. v. Pulse Electronics, Inc, Supreme Court of the United States, Nos. 14-1513, 13 June 2016
 
A unanimous Supreme Court has rejected the Federal Circuit’s Seagate test for determining whether to award enhanced damages under Section 284 of the Patent Act as "unduly rigid" and impermissibly encumbering district courts’ discretion. While there is no precise rule or formula for awarding enhanced damages under Section 284, "they are not to be meted out in a typical infringement case, but are instead designed as a sanction for egregious infringement behavior," the Court explained (Halo Electronics, Inc. v. Pulse Electronics, Inc., together with Stryker Corp. v. Zimmer, Inc., June 13, 2016, Roberts, J.). The majority opinion was written by Chief Justice Roberts. Justice Breyer, joined by Justices Kennedy and Alito, filed a concurring opinion.
 
Author(s): Cheryl Beise, CCH
 
Source: IP Law Daily - Selected US CasesDate: 15 May 2017
 
United States of America Full text Full text as PDF
 
 
 
 
 
USA: Nichia Corporation v. Everlight Electronics Co., LTD, United States Court of Appeals, Federal Circuit, Nos. 2016-1585, 28 April 2017
 
Everlight Electronics Co., Ltd. was unable to show that a Texas district court erred in finding that it infringed Nichia Corp.’s light-emitting diode (LED) patents or that the patents were invalid, according to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. The appellate court also declined to overturn the lower court’s denial of an injunction against Everlight (Nichia Corporation v. Everlight Electronics Co., LTD., April 28, 2017, Stoll, K.).
 
Author(s): Jody Coultas, CCH
 
Source: IP Law Daily - Selected US CasesDate: 15 May 2017
 
United States of America Full text Full text as PDF
 
 
 
 
 
USA: RecogniCorp, LLC v. Nintendo Co., Ltd, United States Court of Appeals, Federal Circuit, No. 2016-1499, 28 April 2017
 
An invention directed to a method for creating, encoding, and decoding composite facial images was ineligible for patent protection because it was directed to the abstract idea of encoding and decoding image data and did not contain an inventive concept rendering it patentable, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit has held. In an infringement suit brought by the patent owner against Nintendo, Nintendo was entitled to judgment on the pleadings. A decision of the federal district court in Seattle was affirmed (RecogniCorp, LLC v. Nintendo Co., Ltd., April 28, 2017, Reyna, J.).
 
Author(s): Thomas Long, CCH
 
Source: IP Law Daily - Selected US CasesDate: 15 May 2017
 
United States of America Full text Full text as PDF
 
 
 
 
 
USA: Helsinn Healthcare S.A. v. Teva Pharaceuticals USA, Inc, United States Court of Appeals, Federal Circuit, Nos. 2016-1284, 01 May 2017
 
Four Helsinn Healthcare patents directed to formulations for treating chemotherapy-induced nausea were invalid for violating the on-sale bar because they were subject to a contract for sale and were ready for patenting prior to the critical date, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit has held. The America Invents Act did not alter the statutory meaning of “on sale” under 35 U.S.C. §102 by adding the phrase “otherwise available to the public,” and the district court erred by holding otherwise. The district court also erred by applying too stringent a standard in determining whether the claimed invention was “ready for patenting” before the critical date (Helsinn Healthcare S.A. v. Teva Pharaceuticals USA, Inc., May 1, 2017, Dyk, T.).
 
Author(s): Cheryl Beise, CCH
 
Source: IP Law Daily - Selected US CasesDate: 15 May 2017
 
United States of America Full text Full text as PDF
 
 
 
 
 
USA: EMC Corporation v. Clouding Corp, United States Court of Appeals, Federal Circuit, No. 2016-1999, 01 May 2017
 
The Patent Trial and Appeal Board erred in its inter partes review of a patent assigned to Cloud Corp., according to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. The appellate court found that the Board made two errors that caused it to not address the principal issue of whether the claims asserted during the review were invalid as obvious in light of prior art, and vacated and remanded the case back to the Board to determine whether the combination of the prior art would suggest to a person of ordinary skill in the art “saving a state of the computer system” (EMC Corporation v. Clouding Corp. , May 1, 2017, Prost, S.).
 
Author(s): Jody Coultas, CCH
 
Source: IP Law Daily - Selected US CasesDate: 15 May 2017
 
United States of America Full text Full text as PDF
 
 
 
 
 
USA: NantKwest, Inc. v. Lee, United States Court of Appeals, Federal Circuit, No. 2015-2095, 03 May 2017
 
A patent application’s claims for the use of a specific type of immune cells to treat cancer were invalid as obvious, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit has held in a split decision. The court affirmed a district court’s decision that the USPTO properly rejected the claims. A person of ordinary skill would have been motivated to combine prior art references to arrive at the treatment method of the rejected application, which involved the use of certain "natural killer" immune cells to destroy cancer cells. The district court’s use of an incorrect construction of the term "cancer" was harmless error. A dissenting judge argued that the owner of the application had presented evidence raising a genuine factual issue as to whether a skilled artisan would reasonably expect to succeed in combining one prior art reference’s in vitro experimental results with another reference’s in vivo therapeutic methods (NantKwest, Inc. v. Lee, May 3, 2017, Dyk, T.).
 
Author(s): Thomas Long, CCH
 
Source: IP Law Daily - Selected US CasesDate: 15 May 2017
 
United States of America Full text Full text as PDF
 
 
 
 
 
USA: Progressive Distribution Services, Inc. v. United Parcel Service, Inc, United States Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit, No. 16-1830, 03 May 2017
 
The federal district court in Grand Rapids, Michigan, did not err in ruling on summary judgment that United Parcel Service’s use of "UPS Order Link" for an online merchant shipping application did not infringe the prior registered mark "OrderLink," used by Michigan logistics company Progressive Distribution Services ("Progressive") in connection with order fulfillment services, the U.S. Court of Appeals in Cincinnati has held in a 2-1 panel decision. The record established that the most relevant likelihood of confusion factors—including the similarity of marks and the strength of the plaintiff’s mark—favored UPS. The district court was not obliged to accord any deference to a USPTO examining attorney’s nonbinding preliminary determination that, if registered, UPS’s "UPS Order Link" mark would likely cause confusion with the Progressive’s mark. In response to Circuit Judge Guy’s partially dissenting opinion, the majority emphasized that it has "never distinguished between reverse or forward confusion claims in analyzing the strength of the mark factor" (Progressive Distribution Services, Inc. v. United Parcel Service, Inc., May 3, 2017, Clay, E.).
 
Author(s): Cheryl Beise, CCH
 
Source: IP Law Daily - Selected US CasesDate: 15 May 2017
 
United States of America Full text Full text as PDF
 
 
 
 
 
USA: In re Affinity Labs of Texas, LLC, United States Court of Appeals, Federal Circuit, Nos. 2016-1092, 05 May 2017
 
The Patent Trial and Appeal Board did not err in rejecting several claims of Affinity Labs of Texas’s patent for connecting a portable media player to another device, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit has held. After a Texas jury found that two claims of the patent-in-suit were valid and infringed by Volkswagen during the pendency of consolidated reexamination proceedings, the USPTO properly severed the Volkswagen inter partes reexamination proceeding and correctly terminated that reexamination as to only the two claims at issue in the litigation. The final decision in the Volkswagen litigation, however, had no preclusive effect on the remaining consolidated reexamination, and the Board was not estopped from reexamining all challenged claims (In re Affinity Labs of Texas, LLC, May 5, 2017, Chen, R.).
 
Author(s): Cheryl Beise, CCH
 
Source: IP Law Daily - Selected US CasesDate: 15 May 2017
 
United States of America Full text Full text as PDF
 
 
 
 
 
USA: In re Affinity Labs of Texas, LLC, United States Court of Appeals, Federal Circuit, No. 2016-1173, 05 May 2017
 
The estoppel provision of the pre-America Invents Act (AIA) version of 35 U.S.C. §317(b) did not prohibit the USPTO from maintaining the reexamination of a patent’s claims relating to an audio download method, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit has ruled. The district court’s dismissal without prejudice of Apple’s invalidity counterclaims did not meet the required condition for terminating the reexamination under the Section 317(b) estoppel provision, which requires the entry of a "final decision" that the party has not sustained its burden of proving the invalidity of any patent claim in suit. Further, the Board’s construction of the dual download feature as unpatentable was consistent with the broadest reasonable interpretation, the court ruled in affirming the Board’s decision (In re Affinity Labs of Texas, LLC, May 5, 2017, Chen, R.).
 
Author(s): NewGen - US IP Law Daily NG
 
Source: IP Law Daily - Selected US CasesDate: 15 May 2017
 
Reporter for:
 
United States of America Full text Full text as PDF
 
 
 
 
 
USA: Braintree Laboratories, Inc. v. Breckenridge Pharmaceutical, Inc, United States Court of Appeals, Federal Circuit, No. 2016-1731, 05 May 2017
 
A New York federal district court erred in holding that Breckenridge Pharmaceutical, Inc. did not directly infringe or induce infringement of the asserted claims of Braintree Laboratories, Inc.’s bowel prep kit, according to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. The district court’s finding that Breckenridge’s generic drug application label could not induce infringement of the patent was based on an erroneous reading of a prior Federal Circuit holding regarding the patent-in-suit (Braintree Laboratories, Inc. v. Breckenridge Pharmaceutical, Inc., May 5, 2017, Moore, K.).
 
Author(s): Jody Coultas, CCH
 
Source: IP Law Daily - Selected US CasesDate: 15 May 2017
 
United States of America Full text Full text as PDF
 
 
 
 
 
USA: FastShip, LLC v. U.S, United States Court of Appeals, Federal Circuit, No. 12-484C, 05 May 2017
 
Two patents pertaining to large combat vessels with a semi-planing monohull design and propelled by waterjets were not invalid due to obviousness or lack of enablement, and were literally infringed by the U.S. government, the U.S. Court of Federal Claims has held. After a 10-day trial, the court determined that the government directly infringed on the asserted claims of the patents and awarded almost $6.5 million in royalties, plus interest, to patent owner FastShip, LLC (FastShip, LLC v. U.S., May 5, 2017, Lettow, C.).
 
Author(s): Linda O'Brien, CCH
 
Source: IP Law Daily - Selected US CasesDate: 15 May 2017
 
United States of America Full text Full text as PDF
 
 
 
 
 
USA: Intellectual Ventures II LLC v. Ericsson Inc, United States Court of Appeals, Federal Circuit, Nos. 2016-1739, 08 May 2017
 
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit has affirmed a decision of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) in inter partes review proceedings, in which the Board determined that certain claims of two wireless communication systems bandwidth selection patents held by Intellectual Ventures II, LLC ("IV") were invalid as obvious over the prior art. The PTAB also correctly construed two key claim terms (Intellectual Ventures II LLC v. Ericsson Inc., May 8, 2017, Reyna, J.).
 
Author(s): Linda O'Brien, CCH
 
Source: IP Law Daily - Selected US CasesDate: 15 May 2017
 
United States of America Full text Full text as PDF
 
 
 
 
 
USA: In re Poniatowski, United States Court of Appeals, Federal Circuit, No. 2017-1346, 09 May 2017
 
The Patent Trial and Appeal Board’s rejection of a majority of claims of a patent application disclosing an apparatus for engaging in wireless commercial transactions has been affirmed by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. Substantial evidence supported the Board’s finding that the claimed invention would have been obvious in view of four prior art references (In re Poniatowski, May 9, 2017, per curiam).
 
Author(s): Cheryl Beise, CCH
 
Source: IP Law Daily - Selected US CasesDate: 15 May 2017
 
United States of America Full text Full text as PDF
 
 
 
 
 
USA: Atlas IP, LLC v. Commonwealth Edison Co, United States Court of Appeals, Federal Circuit, No. 2016-2203, 09 May 2017
 
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit has held that it lacked jurisdiction to review a district court’s decision awarding attorney fees and costs under 35 U.S.C. §285 to Commonwealth Edison for its successful defense of a patent infringement suit brought by Atlas IP, LLC, regarding a patent related to "Smart Meters." Due to a procedural complication, there was neither a final order awarding fees nor a notice of appeal from such an order. The court declined Atlas’s request that it exercise pendent appellate jurisdiction over the issue of attorneys’ fees. The court’s review of the merits—after which it affirmed the district court’s dismissal of Atlas’s infringement suit, without detailed discussion—was not affected by the existence of any later fee award, the court said (Atlas IP, LLC v. Commonwealth Edison Co., May 9, 2017, O’Malley, K.).
 
Author(s): Thomas Long, CCH
 
Source: IP Law Daily - Selected US CasesDate: 15 May 2017
 
United States of America Full text Full text as PDF
 
 
 
 
 
USA: Nestle USA, Inc. v. Steuben Foods, Inc, United States Court of Appeals, Federal Circuit, No. 2016-1750, 09 May 2017
 
The Patent Trial and Appeal Board erroneously construed the term "aseptic" in an inter partes review (IPR) of a patent for a method of aseptically bottling sterilized food, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit has held. The Board erred in construing the term as incorporating "any applicable United States FDA standard" rather than only FDA regulations governing "aseptic packaging." The court vacated and remanded a Board decision finding that three claims of the patent were not obvious in light of prior art (Nestle USA, Inc. v. Steuben Foods, Inc., May 9, 2017, Hughes, T.).
 
Author(s): Thomas Long, CCH
 
Source: IP Law Daily - Selected US CasesDate: 15 May 2017
 
United States of America Full text Full text as PDF
 
 
 
 
 
Trademark (2)
 
 
USA: Crye Precision LLC v. Duro Textiles, LLC, United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit, No. 16-1333-cv, 03 May 2017
 
The U.S. Court of Appeals in New York City has determined that a federal district court did not err in ruling on summary judgment that a camouflage pattern fabric created by Duro Textiles, LLC did not infringe the trade dress of another camouflage pattern Duro previously manufactured as a licensee for Crye Precision LLC and Lineweight LLC (collectively "Crye") because, even if the patterns could be considered similar, the only purchasers of Duro’s products—the U.S. government and authorized contractors in the supply chain for the U.S. Army—were not confused about the source of the fabrics. The district court also correctly determined that the noncompete clause in the parties’ license agreement prohibiting Duro from manufacturing any camouflage pattern similar to Crye’s MULTICAM pattern was unenforceable because it was unreasonably overbroad. The appeals court affirmed dismissal of Crye’s claims for trade dress infringement under the Lanham Act, and unfair competition and breach of contract under New York law (Crye Precision LLC v. Duro Textiles, LLC, May 3, 2017, per curiam).
 
Author(s): Cheryl Beise, CCH
 
Source: IP Law Daily - Selected US CasesDate: 15 May 2017
 
United States of America Full text Full text as PDF
 
 
 
 
 
USA: Grayson O Company v. Agadir International LLC, United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit, No. 15-2552, 05 May 2017
 
The federal district court in Charlotte, North Carolina, did not err in finding thatGrayson O Company’s registered mark "F 450" for a line of hair care products was not infringed by Agadir International’s hair care products sold under the mark HAIR SHIELD 450°, the U.S. Court of Appeals in Richmond, Virginia, has held. despite the similar facilities, advertising, and quality of the parties’ products, Grayson O’s mark was weak and differed in appearance from Agadir’s mark and Grayson O offered no meaningful evidence of actual consumer confusion or Agadir’s intent to infringe (Grayson O Company v. Agadir International LLC, May 5, 2017, Motz, D.).
 
Author(s): Cheryl Beise, CCH
 
Source: IP Law Daily - Selected US CasesDate: 15 May 2017
 
United States of America Full text Full text as PDF
 
 
 
 

Upcoming events

 
Upcoming events (2)
 
 
UP and UPC Conference on 6 July 2017 in Munich
 
A conference on the Unitary Patent system will be held on 6 July 2017 in Munich.

EPO president Benoit Battistelli and principal director for Unitary Patent, European and International Legal Affairs Margot Fröhlinger are among the speakers.

For more information please click here.
 
Author(s): Kluwer IP Reporter
 
Source: Unitary Patent NewsDate: 15 May 2017
 
European Union, Germany Full text
 
 
 
 
 
Unitary Patent 'bootcamp' 22 June 2017 in The Hague
 
A bootcamp for in-house patent attorneys on steps that need to be taken for the start of the Unified Patent Court will be held on 22 June 2017 in The Hague.

For more information please click here.

 
 
Author(s): Kluwer IP Reporter
 
Source: Unitary Patent NewsDate: 15 May 2017
 
European Union, Netherlands Full text
 
 
 
 
 
 
If you do not want to receive this email anymore, please click here to unsubscribe