Litigation – IP Law Watch

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

Jul 30 2024

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.

UK Supreme Court Judgment Finds Directors may not be Liable for IP Infringement Without Knowledge of Essential Facts

May 30 2024

Earlier this month in Lifestyle Equities CV and another v Ahmed and another the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom held that the company directors of Hornby Street Limited, siblings Kashif and Bushra Ahmed, were not jointly liable with their company for trade mark infringement.

Federal Circuit Relaxes Standard for Design Patent Obviousness Challenges

May 23 2024

On 21 May 2024, the Federal Circuit overturned the Rosen-Durling test used to assess non-obviousness of design patents. In LKQ Corporation v. GM Global Technology Operations LLC, the Court en banc ruled the same conditions for patentability that apply to utility patents apply to design patents, specifically holding the obviousness rationale articulated in KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398 (2007), will now apply to design patents. LKQ Corp. v. GM Glob. Tech. Operations LLC, No. 2021-2348, 2024 WL 2280728, at 1 (Fed. Cir. May 21, 2024) (en banc).

USPTO Considering Changes to Enforceability of Patents Subject to a Terminal Disclaimer

May 15 2024

On 10 May 2024, the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) published a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking aimed at changing the current practices surrounding terminal disclaimers. The proposed change could have substantial effects on the enforceability of patents that are subject to a terminal disclaimer.

Federal Circuit Finds Declaratory Judgment Jurisdiction Over Patent Owner Through Amazon APEX Agreement

May 03 2024

On 2 May 2024, the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (the Federal Circuit) entered its decision in SnapRays, dba SnapPower v. Lighting Defense Group,¹ holding the submission of an Amazon Patent Evaluation Express (APEX) Agreement against infringing third-party product listings is a “purposefully directed extra-judicial patent enforcement activit[y]” subjecting the patent owner to personal jurisdiction in the alleged infringer’s home state.²

Burger Wars: The Big Beef Between McDonald’s and Hungry Jack’s–McD Asia Pacific LLC v. Hungry Jack’s Pty Ltd [2023] FCA 1412

Dec 01 2023

In McD Asia Pacific LLC v. Hungry Jack’s Pty Ltd [2023] FCA 1412, fast-food giant McDonald’s and Australian dinner-time rival Hungry Jack’s faced off in the Federal Court of Australia over their burger names BIG MAC vs BIG JACK and MEGA MAC vs MEGA JACK.

Artificial Sweeter Decision Sours Halal Authority: Halal Certification Authority Pty Limited v Flujo Sanguineo Holdings Pty Limited [2023] FCAFC 175

Nov 28 2023

The Halal Certification Authority Pty Ltd (HCA) is a for-profit company that provides certification services to third parties. It is the owner of the following trade mark registered for issuing halal certification to businesses and individuals for goods and services if religious and technical requirements are met:

Just Because the Court can, Doesn’t Mean it will: The Difficulty in Seeking to Avoid an Injunction Following a Finding of Copyright Infringement in the UK

Jul 07 2023

As reported previously in our blog post here, earlier this year the High Court of England and Wales found in Lidl’s favour regarding allegations of trade mark infringement, passing off and copyright infringement by Tesco. However, Tesco has suffered a further loss following a supplementary hearing focused on what the most appropriate form of relief was for copyright infringement (although it was agreed by the parties that Lidl was entitled to an injunction in light of findings of trade mark infringement and passing off).

Honey, I Lost the Trade Mark: MANUKA HONEY Declared not Exclusive to New Zealand

Jun 01 2023

An attempt to trade mark the term MANUKA HONEY in New Zealand has come to a sticky end. Assistant Commissioner of Trade Marks Natasha Alley found that the term MANUKA HONEY was descriptive of the goods it claimed and MHAS had “fallen short of establishing the necessary distinctiveness, both inherent and acquired”.¹

The One That Got Away: Popstar Katy Perry Outperformed by Australian Dark Horse in Longstanding David and Goliath Trade Mark Dispute in Australia

May 08 2023

In the recent Australian Federal Court decision of Taylor v Killer Queen, LLC (No 5) [2023] FCA 364, Justice Markovic aptly explained “a tale of two women, two teenage dreams and one name” and held that international popstar Katy Perry infringed Australian clothing designer Katie Taylor’s registered trade mark for KATIE PERRY by selling clothing merchandise in Australia branded with her Katy Perry stage name.

Category:Litigation