On December 28, 2015, the Court of Appeals for Veteran's Claims ("CAVC") remanded several issues in an appeal by Laurence Wilkins from a decision by the Board of Veterans' Appeals...

Registering a trademark, or service mark (for services) is of the utmost importance to a company offering goods or services in the United States. Federal registration...

Name, image, and likeness (NIL) rights and non-fungible tokens (NFTs) are two ideas that have been the topic of much discussion this year, particularly in collegiate and professional sports.

On May 30, 2017, in Impression Products, Inc. v. Lexmark International, Inc.,

On October 26, 2015, Shire filed a petition for Panel rehearing and rehearing en banc with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit...

On November 27, 2017, the Supreme Court heard oral argument in SAS Institute Inc. v. Matal, No. 16-969. At issue is whether in inter partes reviews ("IPRs") ...

On March 25, 2016, Judge Donald M. Middlebrooks of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida ruled that the patent protecting Shire's drug LIALDA® was valid and infringed by Watson Pharmaceuticals' Abbreviated New Drug Application.

The USPTO's most substantive proposal relates to the evidentiary rules of patent review proceedings.

The U.S. District Court of Massachusetts has new patent rules effective June 1, 2018. Newly amended Local Rule 16.6 applies to all newly filed patent cases and to any patent case where a scheduling order has not been entered.

Magistrate Judge Schneider of the District of New Jersey granted plaintiff Supernus's motion to compel thirty-three documents that defendant TWi claimed were inadvertently produced privileged documents.

An always popular route for brand owners applying for U.S. trademark protection is filing based upon a bona fide intention to use a mark in commerce.

On February 3, 2020, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) issued a joint statement announcing their plans to collaborate...

HP Inc. ("HP") instituted an inter partes review ("IPR") against MPHJ Technology Investments ("MPHJ") at the Patent Trial and Appeal Board ("the Board") on fourteen claims of one patent.

On October 20, 2016, the Antitrust Division of the U.S. Department of Justice and the Federal Trade Commission ("the agencies") jointly issued Antitrust Guidance for Human Resources Professionals.

On November 13, 2015, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit granted a petition for rehearing en banc filed by Frommer Lawrence & Haug LLP (FLH) on behalf of its client The Medicines Company.

On July 16 2019, the PTAB issued a Trial Practice Guide Update ("Guidance"), where the practice of filing parallel petitions challenging the same patent was given special attention.

On November 27, 2017, the Supreme Court heard oral argument in Oil States Energy Services v. Greene's Energy Group, No. 16-712. At issue is whether inter partes reviews ("IPRs") are unconstitutional ...

The Patent Trial and Appeal Board ("PTAB") has clarified that a reissue application or ex parte reexamination request may be filed at any time before issuance of a USPTO...

Section 289 provides that a design patent owner can recover an infringer's "total profit" as damages for the sale of "any article of manufacture to which such design … has been applied...

On October 22, 2019, the PTAB issued a notice of proposed rulemaking ("Notice") to allocate the burdens of persuasion on motions to amend in post grant trial proceedings (inter partes reviews, ...