Declaring that “[s]peech may not be banned on the ground that it expresses ideas that offend,” the U.S. Supreme Court in Matal v. Tam (No. 15-1293) held that Section 2(a) of the Lanham Act (15 U.S.C. § 1052(a)) is facially unconstitutional for violating the Free Speech Clause of the First Amendment. The salient section of […]
In a closely watched case in the biopharma space (Sandoz Inc. v. Amgen, Inc., No. 15–1039, June 12, 2017), the Supreme Court issued its first ever decision on how to interpret the biosimilar patent dispute provisions of the Biologics Price Competition and Innovation Act (BPCIA). Most importantly, the Court ruled that biosimilar applicants do not […]
The U.S. Supreme Court issued a significant decision today that largely answers the question of how much control a patent owner can wield over a patented product after it has been sold, holding that a patent owner’s decision to sell a product exhausts all of its patent rights in that product, regardless of any restrictions […]
In a long awaited decision having the potential to impact where patent suits are litigated, the Supreme Court issued its opinion in TC Heartland LLC v. Kraft Foods Group Brands LLC today. TC Heartland confirms that, for the purposes of the venue statute for patent infringement actions—28 U.S.C. § 1400(b)—“resides” is limited to the state […]
In a second Intellectual-Property-related decision in as many days, the U.S. Supreme Court issued a long-awaited ruling on March 22, 2017, in Star Athletica, L.L.C. v. Varsity Brands, Inc. et al. (No. 15-866), confirming that copyright protection extends to pictorial, graphic, and sculptural works regardless of whether they were created as freestanding art or as […]
The U.S. Supreme Court issued a decisive ruling today in SCA Hygiene Products Aktiebolag v. First Quality Baby Products, LLC (No. 15-927), eliminating the defense of laches in patent cases. This ruling continues the Supreme Court’s recent trend of overturning Federal Circuit precedent. Laches is an equitable defense in which a plaintiff is barred from […]
In a combined opinion for two cases, Halo Electronics, Inc. v. Pulse Electronics, Inc. (No. 14–1513) and Stryker Corp. v. Zimmer, Inc.(No. 14–1520), a unanimous Supreme Court rejected the two-part test for awarding enhanced damages under 35 U.S.C. § 284. The Federal Circuit had pronounced this test nearly a decade ago in In re Seagate […]
On June 20, 2016, the Supreme Court issued a long awaited opinion in Cuozzo Speed Technologies, LLC v. Lee, 579 U. S. ____ (2016). In its opinion, the Supreme Court squarely sided with the United States Patent and Trademark Office, approving of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board’s (“PTAB”) use of the broadest reasonable interpretation […]
In a recent decision, Azure Networks LLC v. CSR PLC (hereafter “Azure Networks”), the Federal Circuit held that the title owner of a patent may not be joined as a co-plaintiff in a patent infringement suit for purposes of standing if the title owner has transferred all substantial rights in the patent. 771 F.3d 1336 […]
The U.S. Supreme Court ruled on a substantive trademark matter for the first time in ten years, holding in Hana Financial, Inc. v. Hana Bank (No. 13-1211) that trademark tacking is a factual determination properly reserved for the jury (the fact finder). This ruling resolved a split in the Circuits regarding who properly decides trademark […]
