You searched for Trademark Precedent

Results for "Trademark Precedent"

RIP for POP: PTO Updates Interim Director Review Procedures

by Amol Parikh | Aug 3, 2023 | Uncategorized

On July 24, 2023, the US Patent & Trademark Office (PTO) announced that a revised interim Director Review (DR) process and Appeals Review Panel (ARP) process will replace the Precedential Opinion Panel Process. Updates to the interim DR process include the following:

Expanding the process to permit parties to request DR of Patent Trial & Appeal Board decisions on institution in America Invents Act (AIA) proceedings
Providing updated guidance as to what types of issues the Director will consider in DR, as well as additional guidance on several topics, such as the initiation of DR at the sole discretion of the Director (sua sponte DR), remands to Board for further proceedings and the Director’s sanction authority
Providing the Director with the option to delegate review to a new independent panel called the Delegated Rehearing Panel (DRP)
Creating a new ARP, which may be convened by the Director sua sponte to review Board ex parte, reexamination or reissue appeal decisions.

Under the interim DR process, a party to a Board decision may now request DR of a Board decision, whether to institute trial, a final written decision or a decision granting a request for rehearing.

After a DR request is received and processed, the request will then be routed to an Advisory Committee that the Director has established to assist with the process. The Advisory Committee comprises 11 members and includes representatives from various PTO business units who serve at the discretion of the Director. A quorum of seven members is needed for the committee to meet. The Advisory Committee may include members from the following business units:

Office of the Under Secretary (not including the Director or Deputy Director)
The Board (not including members of the panel for each case under review)
Office of the Commissioner for Patents (not including the Commissioner for Patents or any persons involved in the examination of the challenged patent)
Office of the General Counsel
Office of Policy and International Affairs.

The Director will review each request for DR; the underlying decision, including the associated arguments and evidence; and the recommendation of the Advisory Committee. The Director will then determine whether to grant or deny review or delegate a decision to a Delegated Rehearing Panel (DRP). The DRP will be selected from among the Chief Judge, Deputy Chief Judge, Vice Chief Judges and Senior Lead Judges of the Board, excluding judges who served on the original panel for the case under review or otherwise have a conflict with the case. An appellant can request a rehearing of a DRP decision or appeal the decision to the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit.

An ARP that consists of the Director, the Commissioner for Patents and the Chief Judge of the Board has now been created. The panel may be convened by the Director sua sponte to review ex parte, reexamination or reissue appeal decisions. Requests for ARP review will not be considered. ARP decisions are appealable to the Federal Circuit. An appellant may not [...]

Continue Reading

No Need for Unnecessary RPI Determinations

by Joshua Revilla | Jul 27, 2023 | Patents

The US Patent & Trademark Office Director partially vacated the Patent Trial & Appeal Board’s real-party-in-interest (RPI) determination because that determination was not necessary to resolve the underlying proceeding. Unified Patents, LLC v. MemoryWeb, LLC, IPR2021-01413, Paper 76 (PTAB May 22, 2023) (Vidal, Dir.)

Unified Patents filed a petition requesting inter partes review (IPR) of a patent owned by MemoryWeb. In its petition, Unified certified that it was the only RPI. Prior to institution, both parties briefed whether Unified should have identified two third parties as RPIs under 35 U.S.C. § 312(a)(2). In its institution decision, the Board declined to determine whether the third parties were RPIs because there was no allegation in the proceeding of a time bar or estoppel based on there being an unnamed RPI, and therefore the proceedings would not have created a time bar or estoppel under 35 U.S.C. § 315 even if the third parties were included as RPIs.

After institution, MemoryWeb continued to argue that the Board should terminate the proceeding because of Unified’s alleged failure to name the third parties as RPIs while also arguing that in the alternative, the Board should find the two third parties estopped from challenging the validity of the claims at issue in two different IPRs covering the same patent. The Board then issued an order identifying the third parties as RPIs, explaining that it was now appropriate to determine whether the two third parties were RPIs “[b]ecause the issue of Section 315(e) estoppel has been put before us [as relevant to the subsequent IPR challenges filed by the third parties], and we now have a complete factual record available to fully address the RPI question, and to avoid unnecessary prejudice to Patent Owner.” The Board also explained that it was now necessary to determine whether the third parties were RPIs in the case at hand to determine whether they would be estopped in a subsequent proceeding.

Unified filed a request for Director review of the Board’s RPI determination. Unified argued that the panel erred by issuing a non-binding advisory opinion on RPI that prejudiced the third parties by prejudging the RPI issue without their participation and where the decision could bind them in their later-filed proceedings. Unified also cited the Board’s precedential decision in SharkNinja v. iRobot, arguing that the Board should not resolve an RPI issue when it would not create a time bar or estoppel under 35 U.S.C. § 315 in the proceeding.

The Director concluded that the Board can and should determine the RPIs or real parties in privity in a proceeding where that determination may impact the underlying proceeding, including (but not limited to) a time bar under 35 U.S.C. § 315(b) or estoppel under 35 U.S.C. § 315(e) that might apply. However, the Director determined that such was not the situation here since determining the RPI issue was not necessary to resolve the proceeding. The Director, therefore, vacated the Board’s RPI determinations.

Speculative Injury from Rulemaking Petition Denial Doesn’t Confer Standing

by Cecilia Choy, Ph.D. | Jul 20, 2023 | America Invents Act, Patents

The US District Court for the District of Columbia affirmed the dismissal of a case alleging that the US Patent & Trademark Office (PTO) violated the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) by denying the plaintiffs’ rulemaking petition. The district court found that the plaintiffs’ alleged injury was too speculative to confer Article III standing. US Inventor, Inc. v. US Patent and Trademark Office, Case No. 22-2218 (D.D.C. July 12, 2023) (Bates, J.)

Under the America Invents Act (AIA), the Patent Trial & Appeal Board may hear challenges to the validity of patents through inter partes review (IPR) and post-grant review (PGR). The decision to initiate a review is made at the discretion of the PTO on a case-by-case basis. US Inventor, Inc., and National Small Business United (collectively, NSBU) filed a rulemaking petition with the PTO, arguing that the PTO unlawfully designated cases as precedential or informative without putting those considerations through notice-and-comment rulemaking, as required by the APA. NSBU expressed the same position in a previous lawsuit filed in the Eastern District of Texas that was dismissed for lack of standing—a decision upheld by the US Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit. NSBU subsequently filed a lawsuit in the District of Columbia. The PTO filed a motion to dismiss for lack of standing.

In a motion to dismiss, a court will accept facts alleged in the complaint as true but will not assume the truth of legal conclusions. The District of Columbia noted that not every denial of a rulemaking petition confers standing on the petitioner. Standing is established by claiming an injury in fact that can be traced to the defendant’s actions and is likely to be redressed by the court. Therefore, a plaintiff must show that the denial of the petition caused a concrete injury in fact. Injury in fact must be concrete, particularized and not conjectural or hypothetical. Standing can be established via associational standing or organizational standing. Here, the court found that NSBU could establish neither.

In finding no associational standing, the District of Columbia agreed with the PTO that NSBU’s theory of injury was too speculative and not concrete. NSBU proposed an “uncertain series of events” that could lead to an alleged injury, but the court rejected the claim as attenuated conjecture based on the actions of independent third parties (similar to the fact pattern in the Supreme Court’s 2013 decision in Clapper v. Amnesty Int’l USA.)

The District of Columbia heavily criticized the first step of NSBU’s proposed series of events, which was that a valid IPR or PGR would have to be filed on behalf of a patent held by a member of NSBU’s organizations. The court found that identifying potential members that might face IPR or PGR proceedings if a third party decided to bring a claim against them was too hypothetical and relied entirely on the actions of a third party.

The District of Columbia also disagreed with NSBU’s reliance on statistics. NSBU argued that patent cancellation is more likely [...]

Continue Reading

Quack, Waddle and Duck: Order That Grants Injunctive Relief Is an Injunction

by Kavya Rallabhandi | Jun 15, 2023 | Trademarks

The US Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit vacated and remanded a district court ruling, finding that the district court failed to properly apply the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (FRCP) in granting injunctive relief. Wudi Industrial (Shanghai) Co., Ltd. v. Wong et al., Case Nos. 22-1495; -1662 (4th Cir. June 5, 2023) (Gregory, King, JJ.) (Rushing, J., dissenting). The dissent argued that the district court simply entered a permissible order enforcing a settlement agreement between the parties.

The FRCP outlines the necessary criteria and steps for courts to grant injunctive relief. FRCP 52(a)(2) requires courts to state the findings and conclusions that support their actions. FRCP 65(d) requires courts to state the reasons why the injunction was issued, state the injunction’s terms specifically or describe the restrained/required act(s) in detail. Per the Supreme Court’s Ebay test, a party seeking injunctive relief must demonstrate the following:

It has suffered an irreparable injury.
Remedies available at law, such as monetary damages, are inadequate to compensate for that injury.
Considering the balance of hardships between the plaintiff and defendant, a remedy in equity is warranted.
The public interest would not be disserved by an injunction.

Wudi Industrial competes with Wai L. Wong and his business entity GT Omega Racing (collectively, GTOR) in marketing video gaming chairs and other products. GTOR challenged Wudi’s GTRACING trademark registration in a cancellation proceeding at the Trademark Trial & Appeal Board, alleging that the mark encroached on GTOR’s earlier use of GT OMEGA RACING. The Board ruled in favor of GTOR, and Wudi initiated a first appeal at the district court. The parties subsequently entered into a concurrent-use agreement that assigned to Wudi the right to use the GTRACING word mark in all global markets except within a European carve-out of 53 named countries in exchange for a $4.5 million payment to GTOR. Under the agreement, Wudi was barred from purchasing ad words from search engines and shopping sites or using any social media platforms to promote GTRACING in the European carve-out countries.

In May 2022, GTOR filed a motion for enforcement in the district court, alleging breach because some of Wudi’s marketing and promotional content in the European carve-out contained the GTRACING mark. The district court granted GTOR’s motion and issued a first order. Under threat of contempt for noncompliance, Wudi was ordered to cease impermissible conduct and take down all posts accessible in the European carve-out containing GTRACING within seven days. In June 2022, the district court issued a second order stating that the first order was a grant of specific performance, not a preliminary injunction. Wudi appealed both orders.

The Fourth Circuit vacated and remanded the district court’s first and second orders because of procedural errors amounting to abuses of discretion, despite the dissent’s argument that the orders merely enforced the parties’ agreement. The Court concluded that the first order constituted a preliminary injunction, later made permanent by the second order, because “if it walks like a duck, quacks like a [...]

Continue Reading

Electra Powers Second Circuit’s False Endorsement Analysis

by Nitya Anand | Jun 8, 2023 | Trademarks

Following on the heels of its 2021 decision in Electra v. 59 Murray, the US Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit affirmed the summary judgment denial of a Lanham Act claim related to false endorsement premised upon the unauthorized use of photographs in connection with promotional materials. Souza et. al. v. Exotic Island Enterprs., Inc., Case No. 21-2149 (2d Cir. May 19, 2023) (Lynch, Nardini, Menashi, JJ.) The Second Circuit also affirmed the district court’s summary judgment denial of Lanham Act false advertising and New York state right of publicity claims.

The operator of a gentlemen’s club used photographs of current and former professional models in social media posts promoting the club. The photographs were obtained without the models’ permission through a third-party vendor. The models sued the club operator asserting false endorsement, false advertising and right of publicity violations. The parties filed dueling summary judgment motions in February 2021. During the pendency of those motions, the Second Circuit decided Electra, a case involving overlapping plaintiffs suing on several of the same causes of action based on highly similar fact patterns. The district court subsequently granted the club operator’s motion for summary judgment and denied the models’ motion. The models appealed.

The Second Circuit relied heavily on its Electra decision to affirm the district court’s denial of the models’ false endorsement claim. To prevail on a false endorsement claim under Section 43 of the Lanham Act, the models were required to prove that there was a likelihood of confusion between their goods or services and those of the club operator. Likelihood of consumer confusion is evaluated using the eight Polaroid factors:

Strength of the trademark
Similarity of the marks
Proximity of the products and their competitiveness with one another
Evidence that the senior user may bridge the gap by developing a product for sale in the market of the alleged infringer’s product
Evidence of actual consumer confusion
Evidence that the imitative mark was adopted in bad faith
Respective quality of the products
Sophistication of consumers in the relevant market.

First, the models argued that the district court oversimplified the “strength of the mark” analysis (factor 1) to focus only on the recognizability of the mark. The Second Circuit disagreed, explaining that not only was Electra’s focus on recognizability binding precedent but also, that factor was required to be evaluated in the context of the mark’s strength in the false endorsement context (i.e., as a function of the extent to which the endorser’s identity could be linked with the product being sold). In other words, without an adequate showing that the models were recognized in the social media posts promoting the club, there could be no case of endorsement, let alone false endorsement.

Second, the models challenged the district court’s exclusion of their expert testimony on certain Polaroid factors. The district court excluded surveys conducted by the models’ expert as unreliable because they suffered from various methodological flaws and, therefore, did not provide a reliable [...]

Continue Reading

Common Sense: Nonparties Not Precluded by Ex Parte Reexamination Termination

by Brennen Baylor | Jun 8, 2023 | Trademarks

In a precedential decision, the US Patent & Trademark Office (PTO) Trademark Trial & Appeal Board denied a motion for judgment based on either claim or issue preclusion, and in the alternative for a show cause order, in a challenger’s petition. Common Sense Press Inc. d/b/a Pocket Jacks Comics v. Ethan Van Sciver and Antonio J. Malpica, Cancellation No. 92075375, 2023 BL 171365 (TTAB May 19, 2023) (Wellington, Pologeorgis, English, ATJs).

Common Sense Press filed a petition to cancel the registration for the mark “Comics Gate” for comics. In its petition, Common Sense asserted claims of nonuse, abandonment and fraud. The Respondents denied the allegations in the petition and also raised unclean hands by petitioner as a defense.

Common Sense also requested reexamination of the “Comics Gate” mark, which the PTO Director instituted on May 9, 2022. The cancellation proceeding was suspended pending the outcome of the reexamination. The Respondents were instructed to submit evidence to establish use of their mark for comics as of the August 13, 2020, deadline for filing a statement of use, as required under Section 1(d) of the Lanham Act.

The Respondents’ Section 1(d) statement showed that the “Comics Gate” mark was used in connection with comics sales in interest commerce and that such comics were provided via interest trade channels during the relevant period. In view of the Respondents’ evidence, the PTO Director determined that use had been demonstrated for comics and terminated the reexamination.

With the Notice of Termination in hand, the Respondents requested that the Board enter judgment in their favor in the cancelation proceeding as to nonuse and abandonment based on issue preclusion or, in the alternative, issue a show cause order to Common Sense as to why judgment should not be entered against them.

The Board denied the Respondents’ request, reasoning that termination of a reexamination proceeding does not preclude future nonuse challenges. Nor does such a reexamination termination decision have preclusive effect on a petitioner seeking cancellation, even if the petitioner requested the terminated reexamination. Citing due process concerns, the Board explained that the termination of an ex parte reexamination proceeding in which the petitioner necessarily does not participate may not serve as a basis for preventing the petitioner from raising even identical challenges in another action. The Board further noted that while the applicable statute “contains explicit estoppel provisions that bar the filing of future expungement or reexamination proceedings as to the identical goods or services once a proceeding of the same kind has been instituted . . . neither the statute nor regulations set forth a limitation on any party’s ability to petition to cancel a registration just because it is or has been the subject of a reexamination or expungement proceeding.” Thus, the Board concluded there is no basis to issue a show-cause order to a litigant who never appeared in a prior action.

Practice Note: This case serves as a reminder of the metes and bounds of an ex parte reexamination or expungement proceeding. Although [...]

Continue Reading

Weeded Out: Mark for Drug Paraphernalia Described as “Essential Oil Dispenser” Refused Registration

by Tessa Kroll | May 18, 2023 | Trademarks

Addressing the registrability of marks for cannabis-related products, the Trademark Trial & Appeal Board upheld an Examiner’s refusal to register marks for an “essential oil dispenser” based on extrinsic evidence that the dispenser was primarily used with cannabis extract. In re National Concessions Group, Inc., Ser. Nos. 87168058 and 87183434 (TTAB May 3, 2023) (Thurmon, Greenbaum, English, ATJs) (precedential).

National Concessions sought registration of the word mark BAKKED and a stylized drop logo for an “essential oil dispenser, sold empty, for domestic use” on the Principal Register. The specimen provided by National Concessions illustrated the two marks on an oil dispensing pen identified as “THE DABARATUS.” After reviewing National Concessions’ website—where THE DABARATUS was touted as “THE ALL-IN-ONE TOOL FOR DABBING” that delivers “THE PERFECT DOSE OF CANNABIS EXTRACT”—the Examiner concluded that THE DABARATUS was unlawful drug paraphernalia under the Controlled Substances Act (CSA) and refused registration of the marks. National Concessions appealed on the following three grounds:

The goods are not drug paraphernalia because they are used to dispense essential oil.
The exemption in Section 863(f)(1) of the CSA applies because National Concessions was permitted to sell the goods under Colorado state law.
The exemption in Section 863(f)(2) of the CSA applies because the goods are traditionally intended for tobacco products.

After briefing, the Board suspended the appeal and remanded the applications to the Examiner to request information from National Concessions concerning the legislative histories of Sections 863(f)(1) and (2) of the CSA and the relevant provisions of Colorado state law. The Examiner then issued a Supplemental Final Office Action maintaining the refusal of both marks, and the Board continued proceedings.

The Board began its analysis by outlining the relevant provisions of the CSA, explaining that for a mark to be eligible for registration, the goods must be legal under federal law. Under Section 863(a) of the CSA, it is unlawful to sell “drug paraphernalia,” which is defined as “any equipment, product, or material of any kind which is primarily intended or designed for use in … introducing into the human body a controlled substance, possession of which is unlawful under [the CSA],” including marijuana and marijuana-based preparations. The CSA includes exemptions for any person authorized by local, state or federal law to distribute such items (Section 863(f)(1)) or any item that is traditionally intended for use with tobacco products (Section 863(f)(2)).

The Board first found that National Concessions’ “essential oil dispenser” was prohibited drug paraphernalia under the CSA, even though the product was not unlawful as described in the application. The Board noted that extrinsic evidence, such as an applicant’s marketing materials or product instructions, can be used to show a violation of the CSA even if the application does not reveal a per se violation. After considering National Concessions’ website as well as third-party websites and articles, the Board agreed with the Examiner that National Concessions’ “essential oil dispenser” was primarily intended to dispense cannabis oil for “dabbing”—a method of inhaling superheated cannabis concentrates. The [...]

Continue Reading

Strike 1: Priority. Strike 2 :Likelihood of Confusion. Strike 3: You’re Out under Section 2(d).

by Jake B. Vallen | Apr 27, 2023 | Trademarks

The Trademark Trial & Appeal Board affirmed the rejection of three trademark applications, finding that the applied-for marks would cause confusion with a record-setting major league baseball player. Major League Baseball Players Ass’n v. Chisena, Opp. Nos. 91240180; 91242556; 91243244 (TTAB Apr. 12, 2023) (Cataldo, Heasley, Larkin, ATJ.) (precedential).

Michael P. Chisena sought registration of the standard character marks ALL RISE and HERE COMES THE JUDGE, along with the following design mark for use in commerce on “clothing, namely, t-shirts, shirts, shorts, pants, sweatshirts, sweatpants, jackets, jerseys, athletic uniforms, and caps.”

New York Yankees outfielder Aaron Judge and the Major League Baseball Players Association (MLBPA) filed Notices of Opposition challenging Chisena’s registration for likelihood of confusion under Section 2(d) of the Trademark Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1052(d), among other things.

At the outset, the Board addressed the issue of whether Judge and MLBPA were entitled to a statutory cause of action challenging the registration of Chisena’s marks. The Board found standing, concluding that both Judge and MLBPA had “legitimate interest[s] in the outcome of this opposition” because granting Chisena’s registration “would provide a prima facie right to exclusive use of [the] marks on [the] identified apparel, in competition with the apparel marketed by Opposers’ licensees.” The Board reasoned that this stake in the outcome of the opposition created a sufficiently high level of potential harm to Judge and MLBPA to support standing.

Turning to the merits of the Section 2(d) claim, the Board explained that Judge and MLBPA must “prove both priority of use of their pleaded marks and a likelihood of confusion between those marks and those Applicant ha[d] applied to register.”

First, the Board addressed priority of use of ALL RISE and HERE COMES THE JUDGE, as well as judicial designs, such as a gavel, courthouse image or the scales of justice, as trademarks on t-shirts, baseball caps and other athletic apparel. Judge and MLBPA established that Judge had been an MLBPA member since 2016 and that since then, “numerous licensees have obtained approval to produce and market products bearing his personal indicia.”

Chisena responded with multiple arguments in favor of priority but the Board found none to be persuasive. The Board reasoned as follows:

“[T]he relevant purchasing public [would] clearly perceive[] ‘JUDGE’ in the context of ‘HERE COMES THE JUDGE’ as a play on words, embracing both its judicial and surname meanings.”
“[B]aseball fans and commentators began using ‘ALL RISE’ as a play on Aaron Judge’s last name early in his career,” and whether it is a nickname or not, there is “a protectable property right in any term the public has come to associate with . . . goods or services.”
The slogans and symbols function as trademarks because “consumers who encounter [them] on t-shirts and other athletic apparel would recognize, associate, and perceive them as pointing to a single source: Aaron Judge.”
“[T]he judicial phrases and symbols . . . serve to perform the [...]

Continue Reading

“Goods in Trade” in the Age of the Internet

by Lillian Spetrino | Apr 6, 2023 | Trademarks

The Trademark Trial & Appeal Board recently redefined what it takes in the age of the internet to meet the “goods in trade” requirement for registrability by holding that the Lens.com three-factor test is the universal legal standard for that inquiry. In re The New York Times Company, Serial Nos. 90106071, 90112154, 90112577, 90115155, 90115491, 90115337 (TTAB Mar. 30, 2023) (Lykos, J.) (precedential).

The New York Times applied to trademark six column names: “The New Old Age,” “A Good Appetite,” “Hungry City,” “Work Friend,” “Off the Shelf” and “Like a Boss.” The Examining Attorney issued a final refusal, explaining that the specimens did not demonstrate that the marks were used on separate goods in trade. The Times appealed. The question before the Board was whether the printed columns were independent “goods in trade.”

The Board reversed the refusal and held that The Times could register the marks. While past decisions had found that non-syndicated print newspaper columns failed to rise to the level of “goods in trade,” the Board reasoned that those decisions were based on the fact that such columns were only available to consumers as part of an overall purchase of a particular print publication—but in the age of the internet, that is no longer the case. The Board reasoned that determining whether a non-syndicated column is a good in trade should not depend on the format in which it is offered.

The Board held that going forward, the appropriate test to apply to non-syndicated print columns or sections in printed publications or recorded media is the three-part test found in the 2012 Federal Circuit Lens.com decision. The Federal Circuit test outlines the following factors to consider when evaluating whether an applicant’s goods are “goods in trade”:

Are the goods for which registration is sought a conduit or necessary tool useful only in connection with the applicant’s primary goods or services?
Are the goods for which registration is sought so inextricably tied to and associated with the primary goods or services as to have no viable existence apart from them?
Are the goods for which registration is sought neither sold separately nor do they have any independent value apart from the primary goods or services?

Applying the Lens.com factors to the print columns, the Board concluded that the columns were “goods in trade” even though they were not syndicated.

As to the first factor, the Board found that the columns were not just a conduit or necessary tool to get to The New York Times newspaper in print. The Board reasoned that the columns were not like an instructional manual or brochure telling the reader how to navigate The New York Times print edition.

Regarding the second factor, the Board found probative that a Google search of the proposed trademarks yielded the columns for which registration was sought. The Board found that this demonstrated that each individual print column was not so “inextricably tied to and associated with The New York Times print edition of the [...]

Continue Reading

Claim Duality: Multiple Dependent Claims Can Be Both Patentable and Unpatentable

by Tim Dunker | Mar 9, 2023 | Patents

Addressing, for the first time, the issue of patentability of multiple dependent claims under 35 U.S.C. § 112, fifth paragraph, the Director of the US Patent & Trademark Office (PTO) granted rehearing and modified the Patent Trial & Appeal Board’s (Board) Final Written Decision after finding that the patentability of a multiple dependent claim should be considered separately as to each of the claims from which it depends. Nested Bean, Inc. v. Big Beings US Pty. Ltd. et al., IPR2020-01234 (PTO Feb. 24, 2023) (Vidal, Dir.) (precedential).

Nested filed a petition for inter partes review challenging claims 1 through 18 of a patent owned by Big Beings. Claims 1 and 2 were independent, and claims 3 to 16 were multiple dependent claims, which depended directly from either claim 1 or 2. The Board granted institution and ultimately issued a Final Written Decision finding that Nested did not establish that claims 1, 17 and 18 were unpatentable, but that Nested had established that claims 2 through 16 were unpatentable.

Big Beings filed a Request for Director review, noting that each of claims 3 to 16 were multiple dependent claims that depended from both claims 1 and 2. Big Beings argued that because the Board found that Nested failed to show that claim 1 was unpatentable, the Board should have also found that Nested failed to show that claims 3 through 16, as depending from claim 1, were unpatentable. The Director granted review.

35 U.S.C. § 112, fifth paragraph, states, in relevant part, “[a] multiple dependent claim shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the particular claim in relation to which it is being considered.” Big Beings argued that the statute requires the Board to separately consider the patentability of alternative dependencies of a multiple dependent claim. Nested responded by arguing that the statute should be read so that if any version of a multiple dependent claim is found unpatentable over the prior art, then all versions of the claim should be found unpatentable.

The Director found that this was an issue of first impression. Relying on 37 C.F.R. § 1.75(c) and 35 U.S.C. § 282, the Director concluded that “a multiple dependent claim is the equivalent of several single dependent claims. Thus, in the same way that the unpatentability of multiple single dependent claims would each rise or fall separately, so too should the dependent claims covered by a multiple dependent claim.” The Director also noted that the Federal Circuit in Dow Chemical and Dayco Products explained that “not addressing claim validity on an individual basis is an error and contravenes 35 U.S.C. 282[.]” The PTO Director concluded, quoting the Manual of Patent Examining Procedure (MPEP), that “a multiple dependent claim must be considered in the same manner as a plurality of single dependent claims.”

Older Posts »

« Newer Posts

BLOG EDITORS

Paul Devinsky

Amol Parikh

BLOG EDITORS

STAY CONNECTED

TOPICS

ARCHIVES

RECENT POSTS