Irwin IP Case Of The Week

In Sony v. Iancu, Fed. Cir. Finds Everybody Wrong

On May 22, 2019, a divided panel of the Federal Circuit Court of Appeals demonstrated the true meaning of de novo review, vacating a Final Written Decision (the “Decision”) issued upon Inter Partes Review by the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (the “Board”) invalidating certain claims of U.S. Patent No.

Bad Breakup Trademark Wakeup

On May 20, 2019, in Mission Product Holdings, Inc. v. Tempnology LLC, n/k/a Old Cold LLC, the Supreme Court settled a circuit split between the Seventh and First Circuits regarding what happens to a trademark licensee’s rights under a trademark license after that license is rejected by the licensor in

Amazon Debuts Pilot Program for Patent Infringement

Trying to deal with infringing goods on the internet has been a problem as long as the internet has been around and can be frustrating for patentees. Typically, the circumstances of online marketplaces have required patentees to file direct infringement suits against potential infringers, and only after a court has

Federal Circuit Rejects USPTO Patent Eligibility Guidance

On April 1, 2019, the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, in a nonprecedential decision Cleveland Clinic Foundation v. True Health Diagnostics, affirmed the invalidity of two patents regarding medical diagnostic tests for determining whether a patient was at risk for cardiovascular disease. This follows a previous 2017 decision

Keeping Up with the Standing of Licensees in Trademark Infringement Cases

This week, in Kroma Makeup EU, LLC v. Boldface Licensing & Branding, Inc., the Eleventh Circuit held that a Plaintiff trademark licensee lacked standing to enforce a trademark, even though the licensee had been granted an exclusive license to import, sell, and distribute products branded with the mark in Europe,

The Alice Pendulum Swings Back, Knocks Cisco Flat

On March 20, 2019, a divided panel of the Federal Circuit Court of Appeals held, among other things, that two network security patents asserted by SRI International, Inc. (“SRI”) against Cisco Systems, Inc. (“Cisco”) were not directed towards an abstract idea, thus affirming the District of Delaware’s denial of summary

Whimsical Fair Use Ruling Undermines Copyright Law

Places You’ll Boldly Go!”— a self-described “mashup” of the Dr. Seuss copyrighted publication “Oh, the Places You’ll Go!” and Star Trek—is fair use of the Dr. Seuss elements. Despite the Defendants admitting that they copied liberally from the copyrighted work, and admittedly not having a license for the Star Trek

Failure to Disclose Algorithm Fatal on Two Fronts

The Federal Circuit affirmed a decision finding that patents directed to virtual slot machines were invalid as improper means-plus-function claims and as being directed to an abstract idea.  Failure to disclose an algorithm performing the function recited in means-plus-function claim limitations can not only fail the requirement to disclose the

“Registration or Bust: Supreme Court Resolves Copyright Circuit Split “

The Supreme Court handed down a judgment resolving an ongoing circuit split and issued a rare black- letter rule, both relieving the uncertainty of the “copyright registration question” and sounding a death knell for those representing plaintiffs in copyright infringement cases based upon unregistered works.1 In an opinion written by

It’s All Fun and Games until Someone Falsifies CMI

On February 26, 2019, the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois entered judgment in favor of GC2 Incorporated (“GC2”), an Illinois developer of wagering games and associated artwork, in the amount of over $16 million against a number of wholly owned subsidiaries of International Game Technology

“Surviving a Challenge Under Alice v. CLS Bank May Preclude CBM Review”

The Federal Circuit vacated decisions of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (the “Board”) regarding four patents directed to a graphical user interface (“GUI”) on the basis that the patents are for “technological inventions” and thus not subject to covered business method (“CBM”) review.  According to the Leahy-Smith America Invents