Trademark holders and their counsel may need to reconsider what the TTAB means when it says two marks are similar, after reading a divided panel ruling in In re Twin Restaurant IP LLC, says Brinks' Slavick in a recent article for InsideCounsel.com.

As part of its annual "Special 301" identification and review of countries that deny adequate and effective protection of IP rights or deny fair and equitable market access to U.S. persons...

It’s tough to side against Mother’s, you might say. And the TTAB didn’t. In Ava Ruha Corp. d/b/a Mother’s Market & Kitchen v. Mother’s Nutritional Center, Inc., Cancellation Nos. 92056067 and 92056080 (January 29, 2015), Ava Ruha petitioned to have the trademark of Mother’s Nutritional Center cancelled on the grounds of likelihood of confusion, fraud, and dilution.

Yesterday, the Federal Circuit decided what it called "an issue of first impression . . . that has split the district courts."

In a precedential ruling in late January, the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board (TTAB) roiled the waters for applying laches in trademark disputes, potentially complicating future uses of this affirmative defense in cases where the timeframe for bringing an infringement claim is unclear

The Eastern District of Texas conducted its 17th Annual Bench Bar Conference last week in Plano, TX. The Eastern District traditionally has used this forum to discuss potential changes to the local rules or introduce model orders, particularly in the patent area.

On April 20, 2015 Scott Slavick's article, "Stretched to its limit, Panini strikes out at TTAB," was published on InsideCounsel.

The newly formed PTAB Bar association held its inaugural conference in Washington, D.C. from March 1-3.

On November 15, 2016, in Global Tel*Link Corp. v. Securus Techs., Inc. the PTAB sua sponte reconsidered institution and terminated the CBM review nearly one year after the review was instituted.

In a unanimous decision in Association for Molecular Pathology, et. al. v. Myriad Genetics, Inc. et. al., the U.S. Supreme Court found "a naturally occurring DNA segment is a product of nature and not patent eligible merely because it has been isolated."

One of the benefits to the post-grant proceedings created by the American Invents Act is that parties may settle before the completion of the proceeding.

In a unanimous decision in Association for Molecular Pathology, et. al. v. Myriad Genetics, Inc. et. al., the U.S. Supreme Court found "a naturally occurring DNA segment is a product of nature and not patent eligible merely because it has been isolated," but cDNA (a synthetic or man-made DNA molecule) is patent eligible because it is not naturally occurring.

The America Invents Act, signed into law by President Obama in 2011, requires the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) to establish at least three regional offices throughout the country with more than 600 cities applied.

On October 5, 2015 Scott Slavick's article, "When evidence isn't, fame is fleeting" was published in InsideCounsel.

The Leahy-Smith America Invents Act (AIA) provided the USPTO with new fee-setting authority. The authority specifically permits the USPTO to set fees to recover the cost of patent operations, reduce the current patent application backlog, decrease patent application pendency, improve patent quality, and upgrade infrastructure.

The recent TTAB decision in Anheuser-Busch, LLC v. Innvopak Systems Pty. Ltd. affirms Scott Slavick's conviction that a party can bolster its likelihood of confusion argument by introducing consumer survey findings into evidence, he notes in his latest article for InsideCounsel.com.

The Federal Circuit recently dismissed a patent owner's appeal seeking to modify the claim construction applied by the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) in an inter partes reexamination proceeding.

On Friday, January 15, the U.S. Supreme Court granted certiorari in In re Cuozzo Speed Technologies LLC.

On January 14, 2017, the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board ("TTAB") implemented numerous amendments to its Trademark Rules of Practice. These rule changes impact all active opposition and cancellation proceedings.

On July 9, 2016, the USPTO officially deployed its new e-filing and searching system called Patent Trial and Appeal Board End to End.