Earlier today, the US Supreme Court agreed to take up Jack Daniel’s Properties, Inc. v. VIP Products LLC on “whether humorous use of another’s trademark as one’s own on a commercial product is subject to the Lanham Act’s traditional likelihood-of-confusion analysis, or instead receives heightened First Amendment protection from trademark-infringement claims”. The defendant sells a “Bad Spaniels” squeaky dog toy.
On Friday, the US Supreme Court granted review in two IP cases:
Yesterday, the US Supreme Court upheld but limited the doctrine of assignor estoppel for patents in Minerva Surgical Inc. v. Hologic Inc.: “When an assignor warrants that a patent claim is valid, his later denial of validity breaches norms of equitable dealing. … [But an] example of non-contradiction is when an assignment occurs before an inventor can possibly make a warranty of validity as to specific patent claims.”
The US Supreme Court has found that the judges of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) were improperly appointed under the U.S. constitution but fixed the issue by making PTAB determinations reviewable by the director of the USPTO (see Arthrex).
In other Supreme Court news, earlier today, the United States Supreme Court granted cert in Arthrex considering the constitutionality of the appointment of USPTO’s PTAB judges and their subsequent decisions.
A couple of non-Canadian developments that may be of interest:
- a majority of the US Supreme Court allowed the registration for the trademark “Booking.com” in the face of arguments that it was generic: “According to the PTO, adding “.com” to a generic term—like adding “Company”—can convey no source-identifying meaning. That premise is faulty, for only one entity can occupy a particular Internet domain name at a time, so a “generic.com” term could convey to consumers an association with a particular website.”
- the UK Supreme Court in Regeneron Pharmaceuticals Inc v Kymab Ltd considered patent sufficiency: “The disclosure required of the patentee is such as will, coupled with the common general knowledge existing as at the priority date, be sufficient to enable the skilled person to make substantially all the types or embodiments of products within the scope of the claim.”
The United States Supreme Court issued its decision in Oil States Energy Services, LLC v. Greene’s Energy Group, LLC (link), where a majority found that the USPTO’s inter partes reviews (IPRs) were constitutional. In the proceeding, the petitioner had argued that actions to revoke a patent must be tried in an Article III court before a jury, rather than through an administrative procedure.
Today, the United States Supreme Court heard oral arguments in Oil States v. Greene’s Energy on the propriety of inter partes review (IPRs). One of the issues before the court was whether IPRs violate the U.S. constitution by extinguishing private property rights through a non-Article III forum without a jury.
Yesterday, the United States Supreme Court issued its decision in Matal v. Tam where the US Patent and Trademark Office had denied an application for “The Slants” under a Lanham Act provision prohibiting the registration of trademarks that may “disparage . . . or bring . . . into contemp[t] or disrepute” any “persons, living or dead.” The court held that the disparagement clause violates the First Amendment’s Free Speech Clause. (link)
The United States Supreme Court issued its decision in Impression Products, Inc. v. Lexmark International, Inc. on patent exhaustion reversing the en banc decision of the CAFC.
This case presents two questions about the scope of the patent exhaustion doctrine: First, whether a patentee that sells an item under an express restriction on the purchaser’s right to reuse or resell the product may enforce that restriction through an infringement lawsuit. And second, whether a patentee exhausts its patent rights by selling its product outside the United States, where American patent laws do not apply. We conclude that a patentee’s decision to sell a product exhausts all of its patent rights in that item, regardless of any restrictions the patentee purports to impose or the location of the sale.(link)