The US Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit held that a brewing company’s statements that a competitor’s beers were made with corn syrup were not false and misleading under the Lanham Act because the competitor listed corn syrup as an ingredient in its beers. Molson Coors Beverage Co. USA LLC v. Anheuser-Busch Cos., LLC, Case Nos. 19-2200, -2713, -2782, -3097, -3116 (7th Cir. May 1, 2020) (Easterbrook, J.).
The US Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit addressed the copyright protection afforded to an information database and whether comments made to a reporter while litigation was ongoing violated the disparagement clause in a separation agreement. Ultimately, the Court affirmed a judgment against the defendant for copyright infringement and against its founder for breach of contract. In doing so, the Court upheld the findings that plaintiff’s database copyright was valid, even though it was only entitled to a narrow scope of protection, and that the defendant’s founder’s comments to a reporter violated his contract with the plaintiff. Infogroup, Inc. v. DatabaseUSA.com LLC, Case No. 18-3723 (8th Cir. Apr. 27, 2020) (Benton, J.).
Addressing whether a party can waive a challenge to the constitutionality of Administrative Patent Judges’ (APJs’) appointment, the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit found that the issue is non-jurisdictional and therefore waivable. Ciena Corp. v. Oyster Optics, LLC, Case No. 19-2117 (Fed. Cir. Jan. 28, 2020) (O’Malley, J.) (reissued as precedential May 5, 2020).
The US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit found claims directed to methods of fishing to be patent ineligible, affirming a Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) decision that the claims were directed to the abstract idea of selecting a fishing hook based on observed water conditions. In re: Christopher John Rudy, Case No. 19-2301 (Fed. Cir. Apr. 24, 2020) (Prost, CJ).
A unanimous panel of the US Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit upheld a default judgment and permanent injunction against an online marketer for trademark infringement, false advertising, dilution, unfair competition under the Lanham Act, and claims under Illinois statutory and common law. Quincy Bioscience, LLC v. Ellishbooks, et al., Case No. 19-1799 (7th Cir. Apr. 24, 2020) (Wood, J.).
The US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirmed a US Patent & Trademark Office (PTO) Trademark Trial and Appeal Board (TTAB) refusal to register the mark STRATUS over the existing registration for STRATA, finding a likelihood of confusion between the two marks. Stratus Networks, Inc. v. UBTA-UBET Communications, Inc., Case No. 19-1351 (Fed. Cir. Apr. 14, 2020) (Reyna, J.).
Addressing issues related to the disgorgement of profits and attorneys’ fees in a trademark infringement lawsuit, the US Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit affirmed a denial of such fees and profits. Safeway Transit LLC and Aleksey Silenko v. Discount Party Bus, Inc., Party Bus MN LLC, and Adam Fernandez, Case No. 18-2990 (8th Cir. Apr. 6, 2020) (Smith, J.).
In 2000, Alex Fernandez started Party Bus MN, which was the first party-bus company in the Twin Cities region. In 2004, Fernandez formed Discount Party Bus Co., LLC (DPB). Fernandez also used the names “Rent My Party Bus” and “952 Limo Bus” in print advertising before 2008.
The US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit held that the Federal Reserve Banks of several cities are “persons” under the America Invents Act (AIA) and therefore may petition for post-issuance review under the AIA. Bozeman Financial LLC v. Federal Reserve Bank of Atlanta et al., Case No. 19-1018 (Fed. Cir. Apr. 10, 2020) (Moore, J.).
Bozeman owns two patents directed to methods of authorizing and clearing financial transactions to detect and prevent fraud. The Federal Reserve Banks of Atlanta, Boston, Chicago, Cleveland, Dallas, Kansas City, Minneapolis, New York, Philadelphia, Richmond, San Francisco and St. Louis filed a petition for covered business method (CBM) review of several claims of Bozeman’s patents. The Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) ultimately found the challenged claims ineligible under 35 U.S.C. § 101. Bozeman appealed.
Combining a deep knowledge of IP law and business savvy, our IP team serves as our clients’ secret weapon in the courtroom and the boardroom for IP litigation, licensing, monetization and strategic portfolio development. With a team of more than 100 IP lawyers and professionals, we earn major patent and trademark victories in dozens of district and appellate courts. Whether you’re building the next iconic brand, protecting game-changing new technology or creating new revenue streams from your established IP assets, we can help you achieve your business goals at every stage of the IP lifecycle.
Our team is known for delivering business-driven solutions and innovative ideas to keep our clients ahead of the competition in jurisdictions around the world. In the last five years, we have handled more than 225 patent cases and led more than 100 trademark and copyright cases in US District Courts, and conducted more than 125 proceedings before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board. We protect and manage the IP portfolios of some of the world’s most notable innovators, and we marry our legal and technical expertise at the deal table to maximize value and minimize risk to our clients’ valuable IP assets. To us, an engagement isn’t just a matter; it’s a partnership. Central to our approach is investing deeply in your business to develop strategies that fully leverage your IP assets and give you a strategic advantage in today’s competitive global market.
If you have questions or topic suggestions, please let us know via the Contact form, or reach out to one of our editors directly. Search for: BLOG EDITORS
STAY CONNECTED Subscribe TOPICSTOPICS Select Category America Invents Act Antitrust Cert Alert Copyrights EU Update Food, Beverage & Agribusiness Life Sciences Patents Technology Trade Secrets Trademarks Uncategorized ARCHIVES ARCHIVES Select Month September 2025 August 2025 July 2025 June 2025 May 2025 April 2025 March 2025 February 2025 January 2025 December 2024 November 2024 October 2024 September 2024 August 2024 July 2024 June 2024 May 2024 April 2024 March 2024 February 2024 January 2024 December 2023 November 2023 October 2023 September 2023 August 2023 July 2023 June 2023 May [...]Reviewing a decision from the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”) Trademark Trial and Appeal Board, the Federal Circuit vacated and remanded the Board’s refusal to register a trademark consisting of a gradient of multiple colors applied to product packaging, and relied on Supreme Court precedent in concluding that color marks can be inherently distinctive when used on product packaging “depending upon the character of the color design.” In re Forney Industries, Inc., Case No. 2019-1073 (Fed. Cir. Apr. 8, 2020) (O’Malley, J.)[precedential].
Subscribe
