IP UPDATE

Don’t walk away: Trademark owner can’t bring infringement suit against co-owner

by Amit Kumar Saha, PhD | Jul 17, 2025 | Trademarks

The US Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit upheld a district court’s summary judgment decision that a co-owner of a trademark cannot bring infringement or dilution claims under the Lanham Act against other co-owners or their licensees. Reed v. Marshall et al., Case No. 24-20198 (5th Cir. July 2, 2025) (Graves, Smith, Duncan, JJ.)

Originally formed by Di Reed, Joi Marshall, and Tonya Harris (aka Tonya Kelly), Jade was a music group that enjoyed commercial success before disbanding in 1995. In 2018, the trio attempted a reunion and jointly applied for the federal service mark JADE, which was registered in June 2019. The reunion ultimately did not materialize. In 2021, Marshall and Harris began performing under the JADE name with a new singer, Myracle Holloway, engaged under a six-month work-for-hire agreement. Reed objected, claiming they used the jointly owned mark without her consent, and filed suit in the US District Court for the Southern District of Texas, asserting claims under the Lanham Act and Texas law. The district court granted summary judgment in favor of Marshall and Harris. Reed appealed.

The Fifth Circuit affirmed. The central question was whether a co-owner of a federally registered trademark may bring an action under the Lanham Act against another co-owner for alleged unauthorized use of the mark.

The district court concluded that absent a contractual agreement to the contrary, co-owners of a trademark each have equal rights to use the mark. The Fifth Circuit affirmed that the Lanham Act does not authorize one co-owner to sue another for infringement or dilution; such disputes must be resolved through contract law or other private arrangements. Because Holloway’s use of the mark was authorized by two co-owners of the registration, she too was shielded from liability under the Lanham Act.

The Fifth Circuit also rejected Reed’s unfair competition and dilution claims, finding no evidence of misuse that would infringe the rights of an equal co-owner.

Practice note: When multiple parties intend to co-own a trademark, it is usually advisable to enter into an agreement that clearly defines each party’s rights and limitations on use. Without such an agreement, co-owners may find themselves with limited recourse in the event of a dispute.

Que sera, sera: No declaratory relief after songwriter’s heir terminated copyright assignments

by Taylor MacDonald | Jul 17, 2025 | Copyrights

Addressing the intersection of a trust beneficiary’s rights to royalties and an heir’s copyright termination rights under 17 U.S.C. § 203, the US Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit affirmed the district court’s order dismissing the beneficiary’s request for declaratory relief for failure to state a claim. Tammy Livingston v. Jay Livingston Music, Inc. and Travilyn Livingston, Case No. 24-5263 (6th Cir. Jul. 7, 2025) (Readler, Siler, Clay, JJ.)

Jay Livingston was a prominent 20th century songwriter. In 1985, he established a family trust that granted the beneficiaries royalties from nearly 250 songs and transferred his reversionary copyright interests in the songs to the trust. The copyright interest was reversionary because in 1984, Livingston executed a contract that began assigning copyright interests in the songs to a company whose legal successor would become Jay Livingston Music. That contract laid the groundwork for successive agreements that would each transfer a specific song to the company. By 2000, Livingston had assigned his interests in each song to Jay Livingston Music.

In 2000, Livingston signed a second overarching contract, extending the company’s rights to the full duration of each song’s copyright protection. The songs’ copyrights expire around 2050. In 2003, after Livingston passed away, a California probate court ordered that the trust no longer held any rights in his copyright interests beyond the royalties.

In 2015, Travilyn Livingston (Livingston’s only child) terminated the assignment to Jay Livingston Music of 32 songs under § 203(a)(2)(B) of the Copyright Law, reverting all rights to Travilyn. Tammy Livingston, Travilyn’s daughter, sued Travilyn in 2022, requesting declaratory relief stating either that the termination notices Travilyn used were invalid or that Tammy remained entitled to royalties from the 32 songs under state law. The district court dismissed the case for failure to state a claim. Tammy appealed.

The Sixth Circuit affirmed the district court. The Sixth Circuit considered whether Livingston executed the 2000 contract as an individual or a trustee and to what extent that affected the validity of the assignment extensions. The Court determined that the probate court’s 2003 order had preclusive effect and that Livingston had signed the 2000 contract in his individual capacity. Therefore, the company – not the trust – held the valid assignments in 2015 when Tammy terminated them.

Tammy argued that Travilyn could only terminate the assignments if they had been transferred to a third party in 1984. Tammy claimed that Travilyn did not own the company when the 1984 contract was executed and that Livingston thus granted the rights to himself as the owner of the company. The Sixth Circuit was unpersuaded by this argument because the 1984 agreement stated that Travilyn owned the company on the date of execution. Tammy next argued that the district court committed reversable error when it stated that Travilyn owned the company “sometime before” the 1984 contract’s execution rather than on the day, as the contract itself stated. The Court found that this misstatement did not rise to reversible error.

Finally, to support her [...]

Continue Reading

Appeal is too late to raise percolating claim construction dispute

by Sarah Mezini | Jul 17, 2025 | Patents

The US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirmed a district court’s finding of noninfringement, concluding that the patent owner had improperly raised a claim construction issue for the first time on appeal – an argument not preserved at the district court level. Egenera, Inc. v. Cisco Systems, Inc., Case No. 23-1428 (Fed. Cir. July 7, 2025) (Prost, Taranto, Stark, JJ.)

Egenera owns a patent that enhances traditional server systems by enabling a one-time physical setup followed by flexible virtual reconfiguration. The company alleged that Cisco infringed specific claims of the patent.

During claim construction, the parties disputed the interpretation of two terms: “computer processor/processor” and “emulate Ethernet functionality over the internal communication network.” The district court adopted the ordinary meaning of “computer processor,” which excluded Cisco’s unified computing system from its scope. Regarding the term “emulate,” the district court considered whether it implied an absence from the internal communication network but made no further determinations as the parties did not explicitly raise a dispute regarding the remainder of the claim term. Based on its construction of “computer processor/processor,” the district court granted Cisco’s motion for summary judgment on certain claims. Later, at trial, a jury found no infringement of other asserted claims. Egenera moved for judgment as a matter of law (JMOL) or alternatively for a new trial, both of which the district court denied. Egenera appealed the post-trial rulings and the earlier summary judgment ruling.

The Federal Circuit affirmed the district court’s grant of summary judgment. It concluded that the record lacked sufficient evidence to show that Cisco’s system “emulated” Ethernet functionality as required by the asserted claims. The Court emphasized that Egenera’s argument focused narrowly on the construction of the term “emulate,” rather than on the evidentiary record. Moreover, neither party clearly indicated that the dispute centered on unresolved claim construction rather than factual issues. The Court noted that it will not address claim construction on appeal where the issue was not preserved in the district court and was inadequately presented on appeal. As a result, the Court confined its analysis to the sufficiency of the evidence and upheld the district court’s finding of noninfringement.

The Federal Circuit also affirmed the district court’s denial of JMOL. The Court emphasized that it needed to address only one of Cisco’s proposed noninfringement grounds to determine whether substantial evidence supported the jury’s verdict. It concluded that the jury had a sufficient evidentiary basis to find that Egenera failed to prove infringement.

Finally, the Federal Circuit upheld the district court’s denial of Egenera’s motion for a new trial. It rejected all of Egenera’s arguments, which alleged errors related to jury selection, jury instructions, expert testimony, closing arguments, and a verdict contrary to the weight of the evidence.

State court action doesn’t create reasonable apprehension of related federal claims

by Tessa Kroll | Jul 17, 2025 | Trade Secrets

Addressing whether a federal district court had jurisdiction over an action for declaratory relief that certain trade secrets and trademarks were invalid and not infringed, the US Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit concluded that state law claims for breach of contract, trade secret misappropriation, and trademark infringement did not create a reasonable apprehension of federal litigation sufficient to give rise to federal jurisdiction. Thunderhead of Ankeny, Inc. v. Chicken Bones of Kearney, Inc., Case No. 24-2741 (8th Cir. July 8, 2025) (Colloton, Arnold, Gruender, JJ.)

Nearly 20 years ago, David Anders sold his equity in Chicken Bones of Kearney, Inc., which ran a bar and grill called the Chicken Coop. Anders subsequently opened a new Chicken Coop restaurant. Chicken Bones sued Anders for misappropriating Chicken Bones’ trade secrets, trademarks, and trade dress. The parties settled, and Anders received a limited license to the Chicken Coop intellectual property. Anders then opened several other Chicken Coop locations under that license.

Believing that Anders had not complied with the license in opening the new restaurants, Chicken Bones sued Anders in state court for breach of the settlement agreement, misappropriation of trade secret recipes, and infringement of the Chicken Coop trademarks and trade dress. In response, Anders sued Chicken Bones in federal court, seeking declarations of noninfringement and invalidity. The district court dismissed the suit for lack of jurisdiction. Anders appealed.

The parties and the Eighth Circuit assumed that the district court would have jurisdiction only if the suit presented a federal question. The Eighth Circuit explained that to assess federal question jurisdiction in the case of a declaratory action, the Court must imagine a traditional action that presents the same controversy and determine whether a federal claim would appear on the face of the resulting complaint. “If, but for the availability of the declaratory judgment procedure, the federal claim would arise only as a defense to a state created action, jurisdiction is lacking.”

Applying this principle, the Eighth Circuit concluded that the district court did not have jurisdiction over Anders’ declaratory action because he primarily sought vindication of his defenses to Chicken Bones’ pending state law claims. While the Court recognized that Anders also sought declaratory relief in anticipation of potential federal trade secret, trademark, and trade dress claims, the Court reasoned that any federal law controversy between the parties was too speculative to support jurisdiction. While a threat of litigation can give rise to a justiciable controversy, there was no evidence that Chicken Bones would assert overlapping and duplicative federal law claims against Anders. The Eighth Circuit further found that Chicken Bones’ petition to cancel Anders’ federal trademark registration of a Chicken Coop logo did not change its analysis, because the petition merely confirmed the existence of a trademark infringement dispute between the parties, which Chicken Coop elected to adjudicate in state court.

The Eighth Circuit distinguished cases involving state law trade secret claims concerning a patented invention. Because there is no state patent system, such trade secret claims can [...]

Continue Reading

Motivation, expectation of success negate obviousness presumption in overlapping range case

by Dexter Hamilton | Jul 17, 2025 | Patents

The US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirmed (on its second review) a district court’s ruling upholding the validity of patent claims related to a long-acting injectable dosing regimen, finding that the presumption of obviousness does not apply automatically and must be grounded in specific factual findings, particularly regarding a skilled artisan’s motivation and expectations. Janssen Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v. Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc., Case No. 25-1228 (Fed. Cir. July 8, 2025) (Prost, Reyna, Taranto, JJ.)

Janssen sued Teva under the Hatch-Waxman Act in 2018 after Teva filed an abbreviated new drug application (ANDA) seeking approval for a generic version of Janssen’s drug. Teva stipulated infringement but challenged the patent’s validity, arguing that all claims were obvious in light of prior art. The patent at issue covered a dosing regimen involving two “loading doses” spaced about a week apart, followed by monthly maintenance injections, designed to improve patient compliance compared to traditional oral dosing.

In 2021, the district court rejected Teva’s obviousness arguments, citing key differences between the claims and prior art, including the specific dosage amounts, the sequence of administration, and the requirement for deltoid injections. In 2024, the Federal Circuit initially vacated that decision and remanded for further analysis. On remand, the district court again found the claims nonobvious, and Teva appealed again.

A prima facie case of obviousness typically exists when the ranges of a claimed composition overlap the ranges disclosed in the prior art. Teva argued that a presumption of obviousness should apply because the prior art disclosed equal loading doses (150 or 100 mg-eq) within the claimed range. The Federal Circuit disagreed, emphasizing that the presumption depends on factual premises (such as a skilled artisan’s motivation to optimize and expectations from routine experimentation), which were not met here. The Court noted that Janssen’s specific choice of a higher first dose followed by a lower second dose did not clearly fall within the presumption’s scope.

Turning to the obviousness analysis, the Federal Circuit found that the three primary prior art references did not disclose a loading-dose regimen. Teva’s additional references, which it claimed taught dose reduction strategies, were also deemed insufficient. The Court found that one expert cited a reference recommending a high first dose for acutely ill patients while another noted that long-acting injectables were not typically used for such patients. The Court found that the prior art taken as a whole undermined Teva’s position.

Teva further contended that the district court improperly considered safety and efficacy (factors not recited in the claims) and erred in finding that the multidose regimen added complexity that would discourage a skilled artisan. The Federal Circuit rejected these arguments, affirming that the district court appropriately considered the motivation to develop a safe and effective regimen and correctly found that the prior art lacked relevant safety or efficacy data for multidose approaches.