IP UPDATE
Exploring the latest in intellectual property law
IP UPDATE
Exploring the latest in intellectual property law
Results for "Patent"
Subscribe to Results for "Patent"'s Posts

For Statutory Equivalents, Even One Means May Be Enough

by | Jun 6, 2024 |

A US Patent & Trademark Office (PTO) appeals review panel decided that a means-plus-function (M+F) claim element supported by the disclosure of only a single species is not invalid for indefiniteness or lack of written description, even if the specification lacks other disclosed statutory corresponding equivalents. Ex parte Chamberlain, Appeal No. 22-001944 (App. Review Panel, May 21, 2024) (Vidal, Dir.; Udupa, Boalick, APJs) (per curiam).

The independent claims of the patent application at issue involved methods of treating patients with “anti-C5 antibod[ies]” that include amino acid substitutions devised to increase the in vivo half-life of the antibody. Each claim involved similar preambles: “A method of treating a patient by administering an anti-C5 antibody comprising . . . .” One of the independent claims was in Jepson form, whereas the other included a M+F limitation.

Following rejections by the examiner and the applicant’s appeal to the Patent Trial & Appeal Board, the Board entered new grounds of rejection finding both claims invalid under 35 U.S.C. § 112, ¶1 (written description) and affirmed the examiner’s rejection of the claims for obviousness-type double patenting. The Board also entered a new ground of rejection finding the claim including the M+F claim element indefinite under 35 U.S.C. § 112, ¶2. Following the applicant’s appeal to the Federal Circuit, the PTO took the unusual step of petitioning the Federal Circuit to “administratively remand [the case] to the Office in order to convene an Appeals Review Panel to clarify the Office’s position on the proper analysis of ‘Jepson-format and means-plus-function claims in the field of biotechnology, and particularly in the antibody art’ and ‘to issue a revised decision.’”

On remand, the panel affirmed the Board’s determinations that written description was lacking but overturned the Board’s finding of indefiniteness for the claim including the M+F element. In doing so, the panel offered useful commentary on the invalidity standard for M+F claim elements as well as the implications that a limiting preamble may have on invalidity.

The panel found the “treating a patient” preamble recitation limiting in both claims. For the Jepson claim, the preamble was per se limiting. However, the panel went on to find that, even independent of the Jepson claim format, the “treating a patient” phrase would be limiting. Outside the Jepson context, the panel characterized the inquiry of determining whether a preamble limits the body of the claim as a highly contextual one. According to the panel, the “treating a patient” term did not merely provide “circumstances in which the method may be useful” but instead constituted “the raison d’être of the claimed method itself.” The “treating a patient” language was necessary to “give life, meaning, and vitality” to limitations in the body of the claim involving increasing the in vivo half-life of the antibodies and administering the antibodies.

Having determined that the “treating a patient” recitation was limiting, the panel found that the limitation was overbroad compared to the scope of the patent’s disclosure, and thus the Jepson format claim lacked adequate written description. Read in light of [...]

Continue Reading



read more

No Attorneys’ Fees Available for Successful IPR in Parallel Court Proceedings

by | May 30, 2024 |

The US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit concluded that a party that voluntarily elects to pursue parallel proceedings before the Patent Trial & Appeal Board and the district court is not entitled to recover attorneys’ fees under 35 U.S.C. § 285 (exceptional case doctrine) in connection with the Board proceedings, nor does § 285 entitle a party to hold opposing counsel jointly and severally liable for fees. Dragon Intellectual Property LLC v. Dish Network L.L.C., Case Nos. 2022-1621; -1777; -1622; -1779 (Fed. Cir. May 20, 2024) (Moore, C.J.; Stoll, J.) (Bencivengo, J., dissenting).

Dragon sued DISH Network, Sirius XM Radio (SXM) and eight others for patent infringement. The district court stayed proceedings as to DISH and SXM while they pursued inter partes review (IPR) but proceeded with claim construction for the other defendants. Following claim construction, all parties stipulated to noninfringement, and the district court accordingly entered a noninfringement judgment that was subsequently vacated following appeal to the Federal Circuit. Following the Board’s determination that the asserted claims were unpatentable, DISH and SXM filed a motion for attorneys’ fees in the district court proceeding. The district court granted the motion for time spent litigating the district court case but denied for fees incurred solely during the IPR proceedings and recovery from Dragon’s former counsel. DISH and SXM appealed the denial-in-part, and Dragon cross-appealed the grant-in-part.

The Federal Circuit affirmed the district court’s grant-in-part, finding that the district court did not abuse its discretion in declaring these cases exceptional. The Federal Circuit explained that the vacated noninfringement judgment did not require the district court to ignore its claim construction order in determining exceptionality. The Court further explained that even though Dragon was not entitled to a claim construction “do-over,” the prosecution history disclaimer issue was independently considered during the exceptionality inquiry, and Dragon did not provide any grounds for the conclusion that this constituted an inadequate inquiry.

The Federal Circuit also affirmed the denial of attorneys’ fees with regard to fees incurred during the IPR proceedings and Dragon’s former counsel’s liability for fee awards under § 285.

First, the Federal Circuit rejected DISH and SXM’s argument that § 285 allows recovery of fees incurred during parallel IPR proceedings, principally on the grounds that the IPR proceedings were pursued voluntarily. The Court reasoned that there are many advantages to leveraging IPR proceedings and, therefore, “where a party voluntarily elects to pursue an invalidity challenge through IPR proceedings, we see no basis for awarding IPR fees under § 285.”

Second, the Federal Circuit relied on the statutory text and determined that liability for attorneys’ fees awarded under § 285 does not extend to a party’s counsel. The Court explained that while other statutes explicitly allow parties to recover costs and fees from counsel, § 285 is silent as to who can be liable for a fee award, and therefore it is reasonable to conclude that fees cannot be assessed against counsel.

Sitting by designation, Judge Bencivengo of the US District Court for the Southern District of California dissented [...]

Continue Reading



read more

Getting to the Core of It: Assignment Clause Is Ambiguous

by | May 30, 2024 |

The US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit vacated and remanded a district court’s grant of summary judgment, finding that the language used in an invention assignment clause was subject to more than one reasonable interpretation (i.e., ambiguous) and thus remand was necessary for further fact finding. Core Optical Tech., LLC v. Nokia Corp., Case Nos. 23-1001; -1002; -1003 (Fed. Cir. May 21, 2024) (Dyk, Taranto, JJ.) (Meyer, J., dissenting).

Core Optical filed complaints against three groups of defendants alleging patent infringement. The lead defendant, Nokia, moved for summary judgment, arguing that Core Optical did not have standing to bring the patent infringement suit. Nokia argued that by virtue of an invention assignment clause in an employment-related agreement signed in 1990, the inventor, Dr. Core, had assigned the patent rights to TRW, his employer at the time of the invention. In the agreement, Dr. Core “agreed to disclose to TRW and automatically assign to TRW all of his inventions that ‘relate to the business or activities of TRW’ and were ‘conceived, developed, or reduced to practice’ during his employment with TRW.” Nokia argued that by virtue of that earlier assignment, the subsequent assignment to Core Optical was ineffective. The agreement had a carveout from the assignment for inventions “developed entirely on [Dr. Core’s] own time” that was unrelated to his work for TRW. According to Nokia, based on the assignment, Core Optical did not have standing to assert the patent. The district court agreed and granted Nokia’s motion for summary judgment. Core Optical appealed.

The Federal Circuit reviewed the district court’s grant of summary judgment de novo, following Ninth Circuit and California law relating to the underlying contract dispute and related factual determinations. Under California law, the “fundamental goal of contractual interpretation is to give effect to the mutual intention of the parties” (citing City of Atascadero v. MLPF&S (1998)). In granting summary judgment, the district court had held that the 1990 invention assignment agreement’s carveout did not encompass Dr. Core’s PhD research, which undisputedly led to the invention claimed in the patent. That finding was based in part on the TRW fellowship program that supported and enabled Dr. Core’s PhD work. However, Core Optical presented evidence that “Dr. Core was careful not to work on his PhD research while ‘on the clock’ at TRW and not to use TRW equipment, facilities, or supplies when working on his PhD research.”

The Federal Circuit disagreed with the district court that the matter was subject to resolution on summary judgment. The Court agreed with Core Optical that the “entirely-own-time” phrase did not unambiguously express a mutual intent to designate all the time Dr. Core spent performing his PhD research as his own time or, as Nokia argued, to indicate that some of the time Dr. Core spent performing his PhD research was partly TRW’s time (as the district court held). The Federal Circuit walked through the undisputed facts, including that Dr. Core sought funding from TRW for his PhD research and [...]

Continue Reading



read more

Pay for Delay Is Sometimes Okay

by | May 23, 2024 | ,

The US Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit affirmed the dismissal of a lawsuit against pharmaceutical companies accused of violating antitrust laws by using reverse payments to delay entry of a generic version of a patented drug. CVS Pharmacy, Inc. v. Forest Labs. Inc., Case Nos. 23-410; -418; -420; -423 (2d Cir. May 13, 2024) (Jacobs, Sack, Nardini, JJ.)

This case involves a drug called Bystolic, which is a beta blocker designed to treat high blood pressure. Numerous purchasers of Bystolic and its generic versions brought state and federal antitrust claims against Forest Labs. and the generic manufacturers. The purchasers alleged that Forest Labs. unlawfully paid off the generic manufacturers to delay the market entry of their products and prolong Forest Labs.’ ability to reap monopoly profits. The purchasers claim that Forest Labs. covered up these payments by pretextually compensating the generics for goods and services that Forest Labs. did not truly need. The purchasers claim that without such “side deals,” generic versions of Bystolic would have entered the market earlier – whether by the generic manufacturers prevailing in the infringement litigation, entering at risk (i.e., with litigation ongoing) or agreeing to a settlement allowing for earlier market entry.

The payments made by Forest Labs. are known as “reverse payments” because, unlike a typical settlement payment, the patent holder pays the alleged patent infringer even though they have no claim for damages. In 2013, the Supreme Court explained in FTC v. Actavis that such payments should be evaluated pursuant to antitrust law’s rule of reason, under which courts balance anticompetitive effects against procompetitive benefits. The Supreme Court explained that while reverse payments may look dubious, they are not automatically unlawful. Instead, these payments may “sometimes” violate the antitrust laws, but only if they are both “large” and “unjustified.” According to the Supreme Court, whether a reverse payment passes antitrust muster “depends upon its size, its scale in relation to the payor’s anticipated future litigation costs, its independence from other services for which it might represent payment, and the lack of any other convincing justification,” including fair value for goods and services exchanged as part of a bona fide commercial relationship.

Forest Labs. and the generic manufacturers moved to dismiss the purchasers’ claims for failure to state a claim. The district court granted the motion, concluding that the purchasers’ allegations did not plausibly show an antitrust violation under Actavis. The purchasers’ appealed.

The Second Circuit affirmed the dismissal. Analyzing Actavis, the Court explained that reverse payments are subject to the rule-of-reason analysis and the relevant inquiry involves determining why the payment was made. The Court noted that the payments must be analyzed against a backdrop of the strong public policy favoring settlement of disputes, meaning that the payments violate antitrust law only if they are both large and unjustified or unexplainable. In turn, whether a reverse payment is “unjustified” depends on whether it “reflects traditional settlement considerations,” including “fair value” for products or services provided by the generic manufacturer pursuant [...]

Continue Reading



read more

Testing Negative: Collateral Order Doctrine Precludes Appellate Jurisdiction

by | May 23, 2024 |

Addressing appellate jurisdiction in view of the collateral order doctrine, the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit dismissed an appeal of a district court’s ruling denying a motion to dismiss because the district court’s order did “not conclusively determine any issue.” Copan Italia S.p.A. v. Puritan Med. Prod. Co. LLC, Case No. 22-1943 (Fed. Cir. May 14, 2024) (Cunningham, Bryson, Stark, JJ.)

Copan and Puritan are competing medical supplies companies. Copan filed suit against Puritan alleging infringement of Copan’s patents for “flocked” swabs, which are used “for collecting biological specimens.” While the lawsuit was filed in 2018, the circumstances surrounding the case changed significantly in March 2020 when the COVID-19 pandemic caused the demand for flocked swabs to skyrocket. In May 2020, the parties agreed to stay the proceedings until the COVID-19 crisis passed.

During the stay, Puritan entered into a contract with the US Air Force, causing Puritan to expand its manufacturing facilities and capabilities. The Air Force stated in a document associated with the contract that, under the Public Readiness and Emergency Preparedness Act (PREP Act), (1) the contract was being entered into for the purpose of covered countermeasures for responding to a public health emergency, (2) Puritan’s performance under the agreement was for recommended activities in responding to the public health emergency and (3) Puritan was a covered person under the PREP Act. Further, the Air Force “expressly acknowledge[d]” that Puritan “shall be immune from suit and liability to the extent and as long as [Puritan’s] activities fall withing the terms and conditions of the PREP Act and the PREP Act declaration.”

Puritan asserted it had immunity under the PREP Act from certain claims in Copan’s infringement suit. Puritan sought leave to amend its answer to include this affirmative defense and filed a partial motion to dismiss the claims directed to Puritan’s performance under the Air Force contract. Copan opposed the motion, arguing the PREP Act does not apply to claims for patent infringement and immunity only applies to claims for losses relating to physical harm, like products liability.

The district court denied Puritan’s motion, finding “that Puritan had not shown, as a factual matter, that its flocked swabs were ‘covered countermeasures’ under the PREP Act.” The district court pointed to “evidentiary gaps,” which prevented Puritan – at the current stage of litigation – from proving the PREP Act affirmative defense. Puritan appealed.

The Federal Circuit determined it lacked jurisdiction and dismissed the appeal. Because the denial of Puritan’s partial motion to dismiss was not a final order, appellate jurisdiction would only arise in limited circumstances under the collateral order doctrine. The collateral order doctrine allows appellate jurisdiction on rulings that (1) conclusively determine a disputed question, (2) resolve an issue completely separate (collateral) to the merits of the action and (3) are effectively unreviewable on appeal from a final judgment.

The Federal Circuit found that the district court order did not conclusively determine any issue and therefore the Federal Circuit lacked jurisdiction under the [...]

Continue Reading



read more

When Is It Really Over? If Additional Proceedings Are Needed, Judgment Is Not Final

by | May 16, 2024 |

The US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, factually distinguishing the concept of finality in this case from its earlier decision in Fresenius USA v. Baxter Int’l, vacated and remanded a district court’s amended final judgment with instructions to dismiss the case as moot in view of parallel proceedings that had found all patent claims invalid. Packet Intelligence LLC v. NetScout Systems, Inc., Case No. 22-2064 (Fed. Cir. May 2, 2024) (Lourie, Hughes, Stark, JJ.)

This dispute was originally before the Federal Circuit in 2020 when NetScout appealed a district court’s judgment that it willfully infringed multiple patents and that none of the patent claims were shown to be unpatentable or invalid. NetScout also appealed the district court’s damages award, which included enhancements. In the first appeal, the Federal Circuit reversed the damages award, vacated the enhanced damages and affirmed the remainder of the decision (Packet I). While the case was on remand to the district court, the Patent Trial & Appeal Board issued final written decisions in a series of inter partes reviews (IPRs) that had been initiated by third parties, finding all claims to be unpatentable as obvious. Packet appealed the Board’s decisions to the Federal Circuit. The district court issued an amended decision on May 4, 2022, after the Federal Circuit’s first decision remanding the case and after the Board’s final written decisions in the IPRs.

NetScout appealed again, arguing that if the Federal Circuit affirmed the Board’s findings invalidating the patents at issue, then the claims at issue in the litigation would all be unpatentable, which would trigger an immediate issue preclusion that would leave Packet unable to collect on any outstanding monetary damages awarded by the district court. Therefore, the question before the Federal Circuit was whether the decision in Packet I rendered the case sufficiently final such that it would be immune to the Board’s subsequent determination of unpatentability.

The Federal Circuit determined that Packet’s infringement judgment was not final before the Federal Circuit affirmed the Board’s unpatentability judgments. The Court discussed its prior decisions on finality, focusing on its 2013 decision in Fresenius in which the Court considered a different concept of finality. In Fresenius, the Court explained that the finality at issue was not the potential res judicata effect on another litigation. Rather, Fresenius was concerned with “whether the judgment in this infringement case is sufficiently final so that it is immune to the effect of the final judgment in the PTO proceedings, as affirmed by this court.” The Federal Circuit stated that in accordance with this concept of finality (also the one at issue in NetScout’s appeal), a litigation is sufficiently final when it is “entirely concluded” so that the cause of action is merged into a final judgment and the final judgment leaves nothing for the court to do but execute the judgment.

Applying this standard to the facts of the case at issue, the Federal Circuit found that Packet’s cause of action remained pending and [...]

Continue Reading



read more

How Close Are They? PTO Looking for “Significant Relationship” Between Sequential IPR Petitioners

by | May 9, 2024 |

Addressing the issue of whether to discretionally deny a petition for inter partes review (IPR) under the General Plastics factors when there is no “significant relationship” between the petitioners, the Director of the US Patent & Trademark Office (PTO) vacated the Patent Trial & Appeal Board’s decision denying institution. Videndum Prod. Sol., Inc. v. Rotolight Ltd., IPR2023-01218 (PTO-Ofc. of Dir., Apr. 19, 2024) (Vidal, PTO Dir.)

Videndum filed a petition requesting IPR challenging claims of a patent owned by Rotolight. In its Patent Owner’s Response, Rotolight argued to the Board that it should exercise its discretion to deny institution under 35 U.S.C. § 314(a), citing the Board’s 2017 precedential decision in General Plastic. Prior to Videndum’s petition, the Board instituted review of the same patent at the request of another party. However, one month prior to oral argument in that proceeding, the parties to that IPR proceeding jointly moved to terminate the proceeding on the basis of a settlement. The Board granted the parties’ joint petition.

In the present case, a split Board denied Videndum’s petition for institution, reasoning that Videndum’s petition was a “follow on” of the prior proceeding, and citied General Plastic even while conceding that the “Petitioner’s reliance on [the] earlier-filed petition …, even ‘as a menu and roadmap’” is not sufficient “to create ‘a significant relationship’ that favors denial under the first General Plastic factor.” The dissent agreed on that point but argued that the “General Plastic factors as whole weigh against exercising discretion to deny institution.”

Videndum requested Director review of the Board’s denial of institution based on an abuse of discretion argument. The Director granted review.

The Director found error with the Board’s application of the General Plastic factors in situations where the second-in-time petition is not by the same party that filed the first petition or by a party having a “significant relationship” with the first filer.

The General Plastic factors generally deal with how the Board should analyze whether to institute a subsequent petition on the same patent. Factor one explicitly asks whether the two petitioners are the same. However, the application of the General Plastic factors “is not limited solely to instances when multiple petitions are filed by the same petitioner.” But, when the factors are applied to different petitioners, they have been applied to petitioners who have a “significant relationship” with each other.

Here, both the parties and the Board agreed that there is not a “significant relationship” between the two petitioners. As the Director noted, the PTO has never extended the General Plastic factors “to any cases in which the first and second petitioners do not have a significant relationship.” The Director found the Board’s unprecedented extension of the General Plastics factors to be “improper[],” vacated the Board’s decision, and remanded the case with an instruction to the Board majority to “address the merits of the Petition.”

Practice Note: Patent owners fighting institution of an IPR by a subsequent petitioner should allege facts emphasizing the relationship between the two [...]

Continue Reading



read more

Standing Ovation…Denied!

by | May 9, 2024 |

The US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit reversed a district court’s decision in a patent dispute for a lack of subject matter jurisdiction because the plaintiff lacked constitutional and statutory standing. Intellectual Tech LLC v. Zebra Technologies Corporation, Case No. 22-2207 (Fed. Cir. May 1, 2024) (Prost, Taranto, Hughes, JJ.)

In 2011, OnAsset granted Main Street Capital a security interest in a patent owned by OnAsset. In 2013, Main Street notified OnAsset that it was in default and, in 2017, OnAsset and Main Street entered into a forbearance agreement. Around the same time, Intellectual Tech was formed as a subsidiary of OnAsset and was assigned the patent in which Main Street had security interest. Intellectual Tech entered into its own patent security interest agreement with Main Street. Later, like OnAssett, Intellectual Tech defaulted.

Intellectual Tech sued Zebra Technologies for patent infringement, asserting the patent that was the subject to the security interest. Zebra moved to dismiss for lack of standing since Intellectual Tech had defaulted with respect to the Main Street security interest agreement. The district court denied Zebra’s motion, affirming Intellectual Tech’s ownership over the patent and its right to enforce it against Zebra. Zebra argued that Main Street gained exclusive rights over the patent when OnAsset defaulted back in 2013. The district court disagreed but nevertheless granted Zebra’s motion regarding constitutional standing, concluding that Main Street still had a right to grant a license to the patent to Zebra. Despite Intellectual Tech’s efforts to cure the standing defect by joining Main Street to the lawsuit, the district court deemed it incurable and dismissed Intellectual Tech’s claims without prejudice. Intellectual Tech appealed.

The Federal Circuit reversed, determining that Intellectual Tech had an exclusionary right in the patent when it filed a complaint against Zebra. Zebra contended that Main Street’s authority to license the patent, as per the forbearance agreement, stripped Intellectual Tech of all exclusionary rights. Zebra presented two licensing-related arguments: Main Street’s exclusive licensing ability upon default nullified Intellectual Tech’s exclusionary rights, and even if both Main Street and Intellectual Tech could license upon default, Main Street’s nonexclusive capability still deprived Intellectual Tech of its rights.

The Federal Circuit disagreed, finding that the forbearance agreement did not suggest that, without further action from Main Street, the mere activation of Main Street’s options automatically divested Intellectual Tech of its rights. By rejecting this exclusive-rights contention, the Court did not evaluate whether Intellectual Tech would maintain constitutional standing under the interpretation.

The Federal Circuit distinguished exclusive and nonexclusive licensing contexts in explaining why the jurisprudence cited by Zebra (the Federal Circuit’s 2010 decision in WiAV Sols. LLC v. Motorola, Inc.) did not control. According to the Court, this differentiation underscored the importance of distinguishing between patent owners and licensees, as ownership typically entails baseline exclusionary rights, contrasting with a licensee’s limited freedom from suit.

Moreover, the Federal Circuit’s analysis also underscored the necessity to assess patent agreements thoroughly, particularly regarding assignment clauses. Zebra argued that Main Street’s option [...]

Continue Reading



read more

It May Be a Hairy Situation, but Detailed Declaration Sufficient Evidence of Prior Use

by | May 9, 2024 |

The US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirmed the Patent Trial & Appeal Board’s refusal to register a mark, finding that an unchallenged, detailed declaration by the opposing company’s director sufficed as substantial evidence of prior use. Jalmar Araujo v. Framboise Holdings, Inc., Case No. 23-1142 (Fed. Cir. Apr. 30, 2024) (Lourie, Linn, Stoll, JJ.)

On December 3, 2019, Jalmar Araujo filed an application to register #TODECACHO as a standard character mark for hair combs. Framboise Holdings filed an opposition on the grounds that Araujo’s mark would likely cause confusion with its #TODECACHO design mark (below).

Framboise Holdings alleged that it owned the mark based on its prior use of it in connection with various hair products since March 24, 2017. Framboise also filed its own application for registration of its design mark on April 14, 2020, claiming the same date of first use.

On October 18, 2021, the final day on which Framboise could submit its case in chief to the Board, it moved for a seven-day extension. Four days after filing the motion, it served Araujo with the declaration of Framboise Director Adrian Extrakt. Although it was the testimony of a single interested party, the Board found Extrakt’s declaration alone to be convincing evidence of prior use. His declaration provided a list of products and dates of first use, as well as examples of the mark displayed on products in stores. After the Board sustained the opposition, Araujo appealed.

Araujo argued that the Board abused its discretion in granting Framboise an extension of the trial period, and that the Board’s finding that Framboise established prior use of the #TODECACHO design mark was not supported by substantial evidence. The Federal Circuit disagreed.

The Federal Circuit concluded that the Board had not abused its discretion in granting Framboise an extension because it identified and applied the correct good cause standard and “reasonably found good cause to grant the extension.” The Court also found that the Board was correct in finding that Extrakt’s declaration alone was sufficient evidence to support a priority date of March 24, 2017, based on evidence of the design mark’s use in connection with various hair products. The Court noted that the declaration did not simply consist of “naked general assertions of prior use,” but contained evidence. Araujo neither deposed Extrakt nor offered any evidence to dispute his claims. Hence, Extrakt’s declaration sufficed to meet the applicable preponderance of the evidence standard.

Practice Note: Oral or written testimony, even when offered by an interested party, can establish priority of use in a trademark proceeding if it is sufficiently detailed, is supported by exhibits and is convincing.



read more

Hot Mess? Second Circuit Douses Injunction Based on Weak Mark

by | May 2, 2024 |

The US Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit reversed a district court’s grant of preliminary injunction for abuse of discretion based on an erroneous evaluation of the strength of the “inherently descriptive” marks at issue. City of New York v. Henriquez, Case No. 23-325 (2d Cir. Apr. 16, 2024) (Livingston, CJ; Walker, Carney, JJ.)

Juan Henriquez is a first responder with the Fire Department of New York (FDNY). Henriquez began organizing what he called “medical special operations conferences” (MSOCs) around the United States. In New York, he partnered with the FDNY. Six years into organizing with the FDNY, the relationship soured. Henriquez then applied to register “Medical Special Operations Conference” as a trademark. The US Patent & Trademark Office (PTO) rejected his application on the basis that the mark was merely descriptive. Henriquez amended his application under § 2(f) of the Lanham Act, which allows registration of descriptive marks that have been used on a “substantially exclusive and continuous basis” for at least five years. The PTO agreed to register his mark.

The FDNY and the City of New York brought suit, seeking to cancel Henriquez’s trademark. Henriquez counterclaimed for trademark infringement of his registered “Medical Special Operations Conference” mark and the related unregistered mark “MSOC”. The district court granted Henriquez a preliminary injunction and barred the FDNY from using “medical,” “special” and “operations” in its branding. The FDNY appealed.

The FDNY raised two issues on appeal: did the district court abuse its discretion by enjoining the FDNY’s use of the marks, and alternatively, did the district court grant an “overbroad” injunction?

The Second Circuit agreed with the FDNY on the first injunction issue and therefore did not reach the second.

The Second Circuit requires analysis of the eight “likelihood of confusion” factors under Polaroid when considering a preliminary injunction. While no one factor is dispositive, the strength of a mark “is especially important,” and therefore the Court is “reluctant to affirm any preliminary injunction founded upon an erroneous strength analysis.”

The Second Circuit found three “missteps” that led the district court to commit legal error by improperly categorizing Henriquez’s two marks as “at least strongly suggestive,” when in fact the marks were inherently descriptive.

First, the Second Circuit explained that the district court did not properly consider Henriquez’s past concessions about his marks. Henriquez registered his mark under § 2(f) of the Lanham Act – conceding descriptiveness. Henriquez also argued to the district court that both of his marks were valid based on secondary meaning, which is only necessary for descriptive marks. Because “[w]hat parties say about their marks matters,” the district court was wrong to ignore admissions of descriptiveness.

Second, the Second Circuit found that the district court did not properly consider the PTO’s characterization of the marks as descriptive. Courts should “accord great weight to the PTO’s conclusions” and only decline to follow those conclusions “for compelling reasons.” The Court noted that the PTO initially rejected Henriquez’s application and only granted registration under § 2(f), which [...]

Continue Reading



read more

BLOG EDITORS

Paul Devinsky

Amol Parikh

Jodi Benassi

STAY CONNECTED

Subscribe

TOPICS

ARCHIVES