Archive:2024

1
Can Industrial Designs Be Protected by Copyright in the United Kingdom? The WaterRower is Not Protected by Copyright in the United Kingdom
2
Federal Circuit Clarifies the “Dispositive” Requirement of the Foreign Antisuit-Injunction Framework
3
UKIPO Issues Guidance on Design Applications for Products Consisting of Multiple Components
4
Be Very Mindful When it Comes to Social Media Trends and Trade Marks
5
Upcoming Patent and Design Fee Changes, Including Important Excess Claim Fee Modifications: Australia
6
7
Federal Circuit Clarifies Scope of Estoppel Provision and Provides Guidance on “Patentably Distinct” Claims
8
US$18.3 million Wearable Blanket Infringement Award Stands Despite Newly Announced Design Patent Standard
9
Historic 27th WIPO Treaty: WIPO Treaty on Intellectual Property, Genetic Resources and Associated Traditional Knowledge
10
No Point Crying Over Spilled “Not Milk” – Distinctiveness Issues For Trade Marks In The Plant-Based Food Industry

Can Industrial Designs Be Protected by Copyright in the United Kingdom? The WaterRower is Not Protected by Copyright in the United Kingdom

Earlier this week, the Intellectual Property Enterprise Court (IPEC) handed down the long-awaited decision in the WaterRower v Liking [2024] EWHC 2806 (IPEC) case. It is seen as a key judgement exploring the boundaries of copyright protection in the United Kingdom.

Read More

Federal Circuit Clarifies the “Dispositive” Requirement of the Foreign Antisuit-Injunction Framework

On 24 October 2024, the Federal Circuit issued a precedential decision in Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson v. Lenovo (U.S.), Inc.1 concluding that the threshold “dispositive” requirement of the foreign-antisuit-injunction framework can be met if a foreign antisuit injunction would resolve a foreign injunction, even if it would not resolve the entire foreign proceeding. The Federal Circuit also clarified that whether a party satisfies the good-faith-negotiating obligation of a fair, reasonable, and non-discriminatory (FRAND) commitment is dispositive of the party’s ability to pursue foreign injunctions.

Read More

UKIPO Issues Guidance on Design Applications for Products Consisting of Multiple Components

The UKIPO has published an updated Design Practice Note on design applications for products that consist of multiple components. The Practice Note clarifies what is acceptable in a single design application under UK design practice.

Read More

Be Very Mindful When it Comes to Social Media Trends and Trade Marks

“Brat summer”, “coquette aesthetic”, “strawberry milk makeup”: social media trends can achieve viral status essentially overnight. However, their popularity is frequently short-lived. As a result, brands will often quickly devise marketing strategies incorporating these trends and catchphrases as soon as possible to capitalise off the current popularity and appeal to consumers.

Read More

Upcoming Patent and Design Fee Changes, Including Important Excess Claim Fee Modifications: Australia

IP Australia has updated its practice for the calculation and processing of excess claim fees. Currently, excess claim fees are charged at acceptance, on the basis of the final claim set as accepted, regardless of the number of claims examined during examination. Therefore, the applicant can often have a large claim set examined but avoid excess claim fees by amending to reduce the claim set prior to acceptance.

Read More

Federal Circuit Confirms Application of the Pre-AIA on-Sale bar to AIA Patents

On August 12, 2024, the United States Federal Circuit held that the enactment of the America Invents Act did not constitute a foundational change in the on-sale bar provision under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(1), finding the sale of products made using a secret process triggers the on-sale bar under pre-AIA precedent.1 The Court therefore affirmed the International Trade Commission’s invalidation of Celanese’s patents because Celanese sold products made using the patented process more than one year before the effective filing dates.2

Read More

Federal Circuit Clarifies Scope of Estoppel Provision and Provides Guidance on “Patentably Distinct” Claims

On 26 July 2024, the Federal Circuit entered its decision in SoftView LLC, v. Apple Inc.1 holding that patent owner estoppel2 applies to newly presented and amended claims, but does not apply to issued claims. The Federal Circuit also confirmed that patent owner estoppel prevents a patent applicant from later obtaining a patent claim that is “not patentably distinct” from a finally refused or cancelled claim, but that patent owner estoppel does not apply to defending issued, unamended claims.

Read More

US$18.3 million Wearable Blanket Infringement Award Stands Despite Newly Announced Design Patent Standard

An Arizona federal judge denied Top Brand LLC’s motion for a new trial following an US$18.3 million jury award to Cozy Comfort Co. for infringement of two Cozy Comfort design patents and the “Comfy” trademarks used in connection with “The Comfy” hooded wearable blanket, which was featured on the television program “Shark Tank”.

Read More

Historic 27th WIPO Treaty: WIPO Treaty on Intellectual Property, Genetic Resources and Associated Traditional Knowledge

WIPO member states have adopted a new Treaty related to intellectual property, genetic resources and associated traditional knowledge, marking the 27th WIPO treaty, and the first in over a decade.

Read More

No Point Crying Over Spilled “Not Milk” – Distinctiveness Issues For Trade Marks In The Plant-Based Food Industry

The plant-based food industry is growing at a rapid pace, with popularity amongst consumers increasing because of its purported health and environmental benefits. However, a recent General Court decision in the EU highlights the difficulties brands face in obtaining trade mark protection for plant-based food if brands are not sufficiently distinctive (despite a tendency in the industry to develop brands which are a play on words of traditional food products).

Read More

Copyright © 2024, K&L Gates LLP. All Rights Reserved.