USPTO Patent and Trademark Fee Increases
The United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) has announced increased patent and trademark fees effective 19 and 18 January 2025, respectively.
Read MoreYou’re Gonna Hear Me Roar: Katy Perry Wins Appeal Against Local Australian Fashion Designer
In the long-running trade mark dispute between international popstar Katy Perry and Australian fashion designer Katie Taylor, the Full Federal Court has overturned the first instance decision of Taylor v Killer Queen, LLC (No 5) [2023] FCA 364 and ordered that Taylor’s trade mark be cancelled.
Read MoreSkyKick v Sky: A Debrief of the Latest Developments
The UK Supreme Court recently handed down its judgment in the long-running SkyKick v Sky trade mark battle. The court considered the key issue of ‘bad faith’ applied to the over-claiming practice and its implications for trade mark infringement matters.
Read MoreCan 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 MoreFederal 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 MoreUKIPO 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 MoreBe 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 MoreUpcoming 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 MoreFederal 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 MoreFederal 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