Further to the note earlier today (attached below), this morning the Court denied petitions for certiorari in ePlus and Arthrex. TopTenCases2016Feb29 Regards Hal
In Samsung v. Apple, the Supreme Court is scheduled to vote this Friday whether to grant certiorari in a design patent infringement case where the first Question Presented asks: “Where ...
As the April 1st certiorari deadline approaches in Sequenom, Inc. v. Ariosa Diagnostics, Inc., Supreme Court No. 15A871, the underlying facts seemingly compel industry amici support to make sure that the ...
The USPTO refused registration of the mark MUTT for beers, finding the mark likely to cause confusion with the registered mark LAZY MUTT for beer. On appeal, applicant argued that ...
Section 101 patent-eligibility for biotechnology and pharmaceuticals stands at a critical junction: At some point in April 2016 amici briefs in support of the petition forcertiorari in the Sequenom case ...
Today in Apple, Inc. v. Samsung Electronics, Inc., __ F.3d __ (Fed. Cir. 2016)(Dyk, J.), in a case involving claims of infringement by each party against the other and where ...
The USPTO refused to register the mark HAMMER for "“Skateboarding clothing, headwear and footwear, namely, beanies; belts; footwear; hats; jackets and socks; pants; shirts; sweatshirts; t-shirts," finding the mark likely ...
Last week in The Ohio Willow Wood Co. v. Alps South, LLC, __ F.3d __ (Fed. Cir. Feb. 19, 2016)(Bryson, J.), the panel affirmed an inequitable ruling based upon a ...
In a June 23, 2015 ruling [TTABlogged here] the TTAB refused to vacate its 2013 precedential decision that dismissed an opposition to registration of the mark HOUNDSTOOTH MAFIA, in the ...
Responsive to the publication of the original SEQUENOM WHITE PAPER, several colleagues have pointed to uncertainties in the patent law with the idea thatcertiorari should be granted in such cases ...