May 2025 | Page 3 of 5

Month: May 2025

No Green Light to Register Color Mark for Medical Gloves

by Eleanor B. Atkins | May 8, 2025 | Trademarks

Addressing for the first time the test for determining whether a color mark is generic, the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit adopted the Trademark Trial & Appeal Board’s Milwaukee test as the appropriate standard, affirming the Board’s determination that a dark green color mark used on medical examination gloves was generic. In re PT Medisafe Technologies, Case No. 2023-1573 (Fed. Cir. Apr. 29, 2025) (Prost, Clevenger, Stark, JJ.)

PT Medisafe filed an application to register a dark green color mark for use in connection with medical examination gloves:

The US Patent & Trademark Office (PTO) examining attorney refused registration, alleging that the mark was not inherently distinctive and therefore required a showing of acquired distinctiveness. In response, Medisafe submitted evidence in support of acquired distinctiveness, including a declaration from a Medisafe vice president, promotional literature, and examples of competitive goods. The examining attorney was not swayed, issuing another office action stating that the mark had not acquired distinctiveness and was generic. Medisafe submitted additional evidence in support of acquired distinctiveness, including additional declarations, but the examining attorney ultimately issued a final office action refusing registration.

On appeal, the Board applied a two-step test to determine whether the applied-for color mark was generic:

What is the genus of the goods or services at issue?
Is the color “so common within the relevant genus that consumers would primarily associate it with the genus rather than as indicating a unique source of goods [or services] within the genus?”

This test, which was first articulated in the Board’s 2019 decision in Milwaukee Electric Tool v. Freud America, is a “slight variation” of the standard test for genericness set forth in the Federal Circuit’s 1986 decision in H. Marvin Ginn v. International Ass’n of Fire Chiefs, modified for use specifically with color marks.

The Board found that the appropriate genus was “all chloroprene medical examination gloves” and the relevant public included “all such people or businesses who do or may purchase chloroprene medical examination gloves.” The Board likewise agreed with the examining attorney that the color mark was generic because “it is so common in the chloroprene medical examination glove industry that it cannot identify a single source.”

The Board cited 25 examples of third parties using the same or a similar dark green color on medical examination gloves. Medisafe claimed that 15 of those 25 examples were Medisafe gloves, but the Board nonetheless affirmed the refusal, noting that “Medisafe made no such claim as to the other 10,” and “all 25 screenshots [are] probative of genericness because the relevant consumer – even including unspecified ‘authorized resellers’ – could be exposed to . . . gloves that appear under a large number of third-party marks without identifying [Medisafe] as the source or manufacturer.” Medisafe appealed to the Federal Circuit.

Medisafe argued that the Board applied the wrong standard in determining that [...]

Continue Reading

“Payment Handler”: A Nonce Term Without Instructions

by Jodi Benassi | May 8, 2025 | Patents

The US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirmed a district court’s ruling that a software term was a “nonce” term that invoked 35 U.S.C. § 112, sixth paragraph (i.e., a means-plus-function claim element). The Court further found that the patent specification did not recite sufficient corresponding structure, rendering the claim element indefinite. Fintiv, Inc. v. PayPal Holdings, Inc., Case No. 23-2312 (Fed. Cir. Apr. 30, 2025) (Prost, Taranto, Stark JJ.)

Fintiv sued PayPal for infringing four patents related to cloud-based transaction systems, also known as “mobile wallet platforms,” “mobile financial services platforms,” or “electronic payment systems.” During claim construction, the district court ruled that the terms “payment handler” and “payment handler service” were indefinite. The court concluded that both terms were means-plus-function limitations governed by § 112, sixth paragraph. Although the claims did not use the word “means,” the district court found that PayPal had demonstrated that the terms were drafted in a format consistent with traditional means-plus-function language, effectively substituting “payment handler” for the word “means.” The court also found that the patent specifications failed to disclose corresponding structure capable of performing the claimed functions. As a result, the court held the claims invalid for indefiniteness and entered final judgment. Fintiv appealed.

Fintiv argued that the district court erred in concluding that the payment handler terms invoked § 112(f) and that the specifications failed to disclose the structure for the claimed functions. The Federal Circuit disagreed.

The Federal Circuit analyzed the “payment-handler” terms, which did not explicitly use the word “means.” Under § 112(f), there is a rebuttable presumption that a claim term does not invoke means-plus-function treatment unless the challenger can show that the term is a nonce term that lacks “sufficiently definite structure” or only recites a function without providing enough structure to perform that function. Fintiv contended that the payment handler terms, both individually and collectively, identified the required structure. However, the Court found that PayPal had successfully rebutted the presumption since the payment handler terms recited functions without reciting sufficient structure to perform those functions. The Court agreed with the district court that the term “handler” did not convey sufficient structure to a person of ordinary skill in the art.

Having determined that the payment handler terms invoked § 112(f), the Federal Circuit sought to identify the corresponding structure described in the specifications for performing the payment handler function but found none. The Court concluded that “without an algorithm to achieve these functionalities – and, more generally, given the specifications’ failure to disclose adequate corresponding structure – we hold the payment-handler terms indefinite.”

Damages on Default Judgment Not Barred by Absence of Precise Amount in Complaint

by Amit Kumar Saha, PhD | May 8, 2025 | Trademarks

The US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reversed and remanded a district court decision, allowing collection of actual damages in a default judgment where the complaint only sought damages “in an amount to be determined at trial.” AirDoctor, LLC v. Xiamen Qichuang Trade Co., Ltd., Case No. 24-215 (9th Cir. Apr. 11, 2025) (Friedland, J.) (Berzon, Kennelly JJ., concurring) (per curiam).

AirDoctor produces and sells air purification products, including branded filters designed specifically for its machines. In 2022, AirDoctor discovered that Xiamen Qichuang Trade had sold tens of thousands of unauthorized replacement filters that were marketed as compatible with AirDoctor products. These filters were allegedly labeled with AirDoctor’s registered trademarks, including AIRDOCTOR and ULTRAHEPA, without permission. AirDoctor asserted that these actions constituted trademark infringement, false advertising, and unfair competition under the Lanham Act and related state laws.

AirDoctor filed a complaint seeking injunctive relief and monetary damages “in an amount to be determined at trial.” Xiamen did not respond or appear in the litigation, and the court entered a default judgment against it. AirDoctor subsequently moved for approximately $2.5 million in actual damages, calculated based on the number of infringing units sold, along with $50,000 in attorneys’ fees and costs. The district court entered a default judgment in Air Doctor’s favor but declined to award damages or attorneys’ fees. The court reasoned that Fed. R. Civ. Pro 54(c) barred monetary relief in default judgments unless the complaint demanded a specific sum. Since AirDoctor’s complaint did not include a precise dollar amount, the court concluded that granting the requested monetary relief would exceed what was demanded in the pleadings and thus violate Rule 54(c). AirDoctor appealed.

The issue before the Ninth Circuit was whether the district court erred in interpreting Rule 54(c) to prohibit an award of actual damages in a default judgment where the complaint requested “damages in an amount to be determined at trial” but did not specify a fixed damages amount. Xiamen did not appear on appeal either.

The Ninth Circuit reversed, concluding that Rule 54(c) does not require a complaint to state a specific sum of damages for a court to award actual damages after a default judgment. The Court emphasized that the rule’s purpose is to prevent awards that are fundamentally different in kind or amount from those for which the defendant had been put on notice by the complaint, not to deny recovery when the type of relief was clearly identified, even if the amount was not. The Court noted that AirDoctor had clearly requested actual damages in its complaint and had indicated that the precise amount would be determined later, which was sufficient to give Xiamen fair notice of the relief sought. Relying on its 1974 decision in Henry v. Sneiders, the Court reaffirmed that actual damages may be awarded in default cases even if the complaint does not state a dollar figure, as long as the damages are of the same kind as those demanded.

The Ninth Circuit clarified that Rule [...]

Continue Reading

Tell Us Your Secret: Case Dismissed for Failure to Identify Trade Secrets

by Connor M. Larson | May 1, 2025 | Trade Secrets

The US Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit affirmed a district court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of the defendants for the plaintiff’s failure to identify the trade secrets at issue with sufficient particularity. Double Eagle Alloys, Inc. v. Hooper, Case No. 24-5089 (10th Cir Apr. 22, 2025) (Bacharach, Seymour, Phillips, JJ.)

Double Eagle and Ace Alloys are direct competitors and distributors of specialty metals for companies in the oil and gas industry. After working for Double Eagle for decades, including five years as an inside sales manager, Michael Hooper left to join Ace. As he departed, Hooper took with him 2,660 digital files downloaded from his Double Eagle computer to an external storage device. After discovering the download, Double Eagle sued Hooper and Ace for trade secret misappropriation and civil conspiracy. The parties cross moved for summary judgment.

Double Eagle argued that the files Hooper downloaded contained financial, technical, and business information that qualified as trade secrets. Double Eagle categorized the files as pump-shaft-quality (PSQ) specifications, pricing, and customer drawings. Ace argued that the alleged trade secrets were not protectable since Double Eagle shared the information with customers or posted the information online. The district court granted summary judgment to the defendants on all claims, holding that “Double Eagle failed to identify its alleged trade secrets with sufficient particularity and clarity to proceed to trial,” that it failed to present evidence of the information’s secrecy to support the misappropriation claim, and accordingly that there was no underlying tort on which to base the claim for civil conspiracy. Double Eagle appealed.

Double Eagle argued that the summary judgment grant was improper because there were genuine issues of material fact on the issue of whether it identified its trade secrets with sufficient particularity and whether the business information was confidential. Double Eagle also argued that the district court erred by not allowing it an opportunity to supplement the evidence in support of its claim. The Tenth Circuit disagreed and affirmed on all counts.

The Tenth Circuit agreed with the district court that Double Eagle failed to introduce evidence that its alleged trade secrets were “known only to a limited number of people, were not readily ascertainable, or were valuable because they were not widely known.” The Court noted that Double Eagle’s PSQ specifications were readily ascertainable through proper means, its pricing was shared with customers without any protection to prevent customers from sharing those prices, and the customer drawings originated from the customers and were not owned by Double Eagle.

The Tenth Circuit similarly agreed with the district court’s dismissal of the misappropriation claim, explaining that the same lack of secrecy that defeated the trade secret claim also defeated the misappropriation claim. Finally, the Court rejected Double Eagle’s argument concerning its ability to supplement the record because the district court invited the parties to submit briefing on the issues, including an opportunity to move for leave to submit more evidence, but Double Eagle chose not to do so. Having [...]

Continue Reading