On 20 March 2025, the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) designated as “Informative” the majority opinion in the Decision Denying Institution in IPR2024-00952, a decision originally entered on December 13, 2024.
Read MoreIn the recent decision of Lashify, Inc. v. International Trade Commission, the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit rejected the long-standing approach concerning the interpretation of the domestic-industry requirement under Section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930. The complainant, an American company importing eyelash extensions from international manufacturers, which alleged that certain other importers were infringing on its patents.
Read MoreOn 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 MoreOn 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 MoreOn 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 MoreAn 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 MoreOn 9 May 2024, the US Supreme Court (the Court) held that there is no three-year limit on monetary damages for timely filed copyright infringement claims. The 6–3 decision resolves a circuit split, opens the doors to larger potential damages awards for plaintiffs, is likely to lead to increased litigation over older infringements, and leaves open the question of whether the “discovery rule” applies to copyright infringement claims. Warner Chappell Music, Inc. v. Nealy, No. 22-1078, 601 U.S. – (2024).
Read MoreOn 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.
Read MoreLevi Strauss continues enforcement of its Tab trademark against other fashion companies. On May 7, 2024, just a couple months after filing suit against Brunello Cucinelli, Levi Strauss voluntarily dismissed its lawsuit. Levi’s filed suit against the Italian luxury fashion brand in the Northern District of California in January 2024 alleging infringement of Levi’s rectangular pocket tab trademark. Levi’s dismissed the suit after reaching a confidential settlement.
Read MoreOn 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
Read MoreCopyright © 2025, K&L Gates LLP. All Rights Reserved.