In recent months, the Ninth Circuit and Fourth Circuit have issued important rulings about how the Lanham Act, with its jurisdiction limited to issues involving U.S. commerce, can be expanded in a world economy that...

The distinction between disclosing how to practice an invention and explaining how an invention works is important to understand when drafting patent applications.

Give the judges at the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board a little wine — and look what happens!

Could a couch potato mistake his cushy and comfortable shoes for the high-tech shoe wear of the athletes he watches on television?

Earlier this month, the Supreme Court of the United States heard oral arguments in Lee v. Tam to examine the constitutionality of Section 2(a) of the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1052(a).

Defendants enjoined from use of an infringing trademark make only de minimis changes to the infringing product to present the appearance of compliance with a court's order.

The U.S. House of Representatives recently passed a bill that, if enacted, could make it easier for patent owners to amend their claims during post-grant proceedings such as inter partes reviews (IPR).

Colorful (and scant) costumes! Gravity-defying moves! Posturing, combat — and cries of cheating! Sounds like a match-up tailor-made for late-night TV, right?

Controversy concerning standard essential patents is not new.

Companies in today’s economy thrive on offering innovative products that differentiate them from those of competitors.

The US International Trade Commission has been giving more weight to public interest factors in recent times, as Carl Charneski explains.

Traditionally, a new manufacturing method was either patented or kept a trade secret.

The USPTO's Trademark Trial and Appeal Board recently issued an interesting opinion in McDonald’s Corp. v. McSweet, LLC.

Effective September 16, 2012, patent owners can utilize a new "Supplemental Examination" proceeding to address potential issues affecting granted patent claims.

Effective May 13, 2015, applicants can file international design patent applications in a single, standardized application via the USPTO designating any of more than 62 territories, including the U.S. and European Union (EU), and can receive the same effective filing date in each jurisdiction.

At the end of April, the USPTO's (United States Patent and Trademark Office) Trademark Trial and Appeal Board (TTAB) issued what might on its face be an unexpected decision.

Prior to the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board’s opinion in In re Tofasco of America, Inc., it appeared obvious that adding "i" to a generic term was not registrable (at least to everyone but Apple).

On October 6th, 2016, the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) released a greatly anticipated study, the subject focusing on various Patent Assertion Entities' (PAE) business operations over a six year period.

The Federal Circuit granted Aqua Product Inc.'s en banc rehearing request on August 12, 2016. In its order granting rehearing, the Federal Circuit requested the parties to address the following questions...

On August 31, 2012, the Federal Circuit issued its highly anticipated en banc decision regarding "Akamai Technologies, Inc. v. Limelight Networks, Inc." and "McKesson Technologies, Inc. v. Epic Systems Inc."