Apple – 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.

Federal Circuit Rules AAPA in Challenged Patent Does Not Qualify as Prior Art Under 35 U.S.C § 311(b) but Signals AAPA Can Play Role in §103 Analysis

Feb 03 2022

On 1 February 2022, the Federal Circuit released its decision in Qualcomm v. Apple¹ providing guidance on the treatment of Applicant Admitted Prior Art (AAPA) under 35 U.S.C § 311(b) in Inter Partes Review (IPR) proceedings. In doing so, the Federal Circuit vacated two IPR decisions² of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) where the PTAB had found several claims of U.S. Patent No. 8,063,674 (“the ’674 patent”) unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103. In doing so, the Federal Circuit remanded the case to allow the PTAB to address the specific issue of whether the AAPA cited by Apple improperly formed the “basis” of Apple’s § 103 challenge or was simply ancillary.

Just One More Thing For Swatch and Apple to Fight About

Apr 15 2021

Since the launch of the Apple Watch in 2015, Swatch, a well-known Swiss watch manufacturer, has been involved in a number of trade mark disputes against Apple regarding their overlapping product markets.

These disputes have concerned the marks ‘I-WATCH’ and ‘I-SWATCH’, ‘TICK DIFFERENT’ and ‘THINK DIFFERENT’ and, more recently, the mark ‘ONE MORE THING’.

EU case recap: A dispute over registration of the mark “Dricloud” (Massive Bionics, SL vs Apple Inc.)

Dec 11 2017

On 14 July 2017, the EU General Court issued a ruling in case T-223/16 between Massive Bionics SL and Apple Inc. and the EUIPO concerning the registration. In the end, the General Court also found that the Board of Appeal had rightly found that the marks are similar. The matter was based on the following trademark:

On 9 April 2013, Massive Bionics SL submitted an application for the registration of the trademark in classes 35, 42 and 44, against which registration Apple Inc. filed an opposition based on:

the word mark “iCloud” and the following word-figurative and figurative marks:
– the international word mark “iCloud”, designated in Cyprus in classes 9, 35, 38, 42 and 45
– the following EU figurative trademarks registered in classes 9, 35, 38, 41 and 42:

The Opposition Division of the EUIPO dismissed the opposition in its entirety, and Apple Inc. appealed. The Board of Appeal amended the decision of the Opposition Division of the EUIPO within the scope of all services from class 35 and certain services from class 42.

Apple Denied App Store Trade Mark in Australia

Dec 05 2014

It has been a bumper week for IP decisions in Australia. Earlier, we reported on the Coke v Pepsi and Cantarella decisions. Now, in a third major judgment, the Federal Court of Australia (Federal Court) has refused registration of Apple’s trade mark application for APP STORE in Australia.

Apple Inc. v Registrar of Trade Marks [2014] FCA 1304 was an appeal from a decision by the Registrar of Trade Marks (Registrar). The Registrar found that the trade mark APP STORE was ‘purely’, ‘directly’ or ‘inherently’ descriptive, as it would be well understood by modern digital-savvy consumers to refer to a ‘store’ that sells or provides ‘apps’. Read More

Tag:Apple