Legislators Propose Patent Eligibility Overhaul

By Zachary G. Schroeder,* Jacob C. Jones, and David G. Barker In April, we posted an article titled “Section 101 in 2019” summarizing the existing patent eligibility test, discussing recent Federal Circuit decisions, and providing practical strategies for practitioners to navigate the Section 101 landscape. That article highlighted the lack of certainty and predictability under existing law. Bipartisan lawmakers recently released a draft revision to Section 101 abrogating U.S. Supreme Court precedent that has denied patent eligibility where the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon. The bipartisan, bicameral draft bill was created following   Read More »

Posted in IP and Technology Litigation, Patent Litigation | Tagged , ,

Share this Article:

SCOTUS Resolves Circuit Split: Trademark License Rejection in Bankruptcy Does Not Terminate Licensee’s Usage Rights

By Emily R. Parker* and David G. Barker The U.S. Supreme Court recently held in Mission Product Holdings v. Tempnology that a trademark licensor cannot revoke the right of a licensee to use a trademark by terminating a license agreement in bankruptcy. Mission licensed a trademark from Tempnology, which terminated the license after filing bankruptcy in 2015. The First Circuit held that Tempnology permissibly rejected the agreement in bankruptcy and terminated Mission’s right to use the mark. Mission appealed because the First Circuit’s decision conflicted with the Seventh Circuit decision in Sunbeam Products v. Chicago American Manufacturing, which held that a   Read More »

Posted in IP and Technology Litigation, Trademark Litigation | Tagged , , , ,

Share this Article:

Supreme Court Hears Oral Argument on “Immoral or Scandalous” Trademark Prohibition

By: Anne M. Bolamperti and David G. Barker Earlier this week, the Supreme Court of the United States heard oral argument in Iancu v. Brunetti (see previous discussion here) regarding the constitutionality of the portion of Lanham Act, Section 2(a) (15 U.S.C. § 1052(a)) that prohibits the United States Patent and Trademark Office’s registration of trademarks comprising “immoral . . . or scandalous matter.”  Previously, in June 2017, the Court unanimously affirmed in Matal v. Tam that the same statute’s bar on disparaging marks was unconstitutional under the First Amendment. The PTO refused to register Erik Brunetti’s trademark application for   Read More »

Posted in IP and Technology Litigation, Trademark Litigation | Tagged

Share this Article:

Section 101 in 2019

Snell & Wilmer Lawyers presented their article, Section 101 in 2019, at the ABA Section of Intellectual Property Law’s Annual Meeting in Arlington, Virginia, as part of a program, “101 ‘301’: Advanced Subject Matter Eligibility.”  The article summarizes the existing patent eligibility test, discusses recent Federal Circuit decisions, and provides practical strategies for practitioners navigating the Section 101 landscape.

Posted in IP and Technology Litigation, Patent Litigation | Tagged , , , , , , ,

Share this Article:

SCOTUS to Consider USPTO’s Attorneys’ Fees Policy

By Tyler J. Fortner and David G. Barker On Monday, the Supreme Court of the United States granted certiorari in Iancu v. NantKwest to resolve a circuit split concerning “expenses” a patent applicant must pay when challenging the United States Patent and Trademark Office’s (“USPTO’s”) refusal to issue a patent.  Under 35 U.S.C. § 145, the USPTO requests attorneys’ fees as expenses when applicants seek review of a denied patent application in district court, regardless of whether the applicant wins or loses. The en banc Federal Circuit held here that applicants seeking review in district court are not required to   Read More »

Posted in IP and Technology Litigation | Tagged ,

Share this Article: