On February 1, 2019, the Federal Circuit issued a decision in Mylan Pharmaceuticals Inc. et al. v. Research Corporation Technologies, Inc. (Federal Circuit docket no. 17-2088).  In this case, Research Corporation Technologies (RCT) argued that the appellants (Mylan, Breckenridge, and Alembic), who were joined to the IPR proceeding, lack standing to appeal the final written decision of the PTAB to the Federal Circuit.

On April 15, 2019, the Supreme Court heard oral arguments in Iancu v. Brunetti (Supreme Court docket no. 18-302).

On June 24, 2019, the U.S. Supreme Court issued a decision in Iancu v. Brunetti.  In its decision, the Court held that the Lanham Act’s prohibition on federal registration of “immoral or scandalous” trademarks violates the First Amendment.

Precision Patent®

The PTAB has continued to be active in designating decisions as precedential.​

Firm News

The U.S. Supreme Court will hear oral arguments this February in Return Mail, Inc. v. United States Postal Service (Supreme Court Docket No. 17-1594).  The Court will consider whether the U.S. government is a “person” who may petition to institute an AIA trial proceeding (inter partes review, post-grant review, or covered business method review) in the Patent Trial and Appeal Board of the United States Patent and Trademark Office, and whether a Section 1498(a) action against the U.S. government constitutes being “sued for infringement.”

On June 10, 2019, the U.S. Supreme Court issued a decision in Return Mail, Inc. v. United States Postal Service.  In its decision, the Court held that the government is not a “person” that may file a petition for an AIA trial.

The PTAB has designated two additional decisions as precedential.​

On July 1, 2019, the PTAB designated four decisions as informative.  The PTAB also published the second update to the Trial Practice Guide in July 2019.

Effective August 3, 2019, the USPTO will require trademark applicants, registrants, and parties to Trademark Trial and Appeal Board (TTAB) proceedings whose domicile is not located within the U.S. or its territories, including Canadian trademark filers, to be represented by an attorney who is licensed to practice law in the United States.

The U.S. Supreme Court recently issued two decisions in copyright cases.​

In re Forney Industries, Inc., 127 U.S.P.Q.2d 1787 (TTAB 2018); and February 15, 2019 Notice of Proposed Rulemaking.

On May 20, 2019, the U.S. Supreme Court issued a decision in Mission Product Holdings, Inc. v. Tempnology, LLC, a case arising in bankruptcy and involving the rejection of a trademark licensing agreement.

On January 22, 2019, the U.S. Supreme Court issued a decision in Helsinn Healthcare S.A. v. Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc. (U.S. Supreme Court docket no. 17-1229), a patent case involving the meaning of “on sale” in Section 102(a)(1) of the Patent Law as enacted in the America Invents Act (AIA) of 2011.

The USPTO has published revised subject matter eligibility guidelines for examination of claims under 35 U.S.C. 101, which went into effect on January 7, 2019.

The news provided on this website is intended to provide general information only and should not be construed as a legal opinion or as legal advice.  Fildes & Outland disclaims liability for any errors or omissions and readers should not take any action that relies upon the information contained in this website.  You should consult your own lawyer concerning your own situation and any specific legal questions.  This website does not establish any form of attorney-client relationship with Fildes & Outland or with any of its attorneys.

The USPTO has initiated a new pilot program for motions to amend in AIA trial proceedings before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board, effective on March 15, 2019.

The PTAB recently designated a handful of decisions as precedential.​

Fildes & Outland, P.C.