<em> Sanho Corp. v. Kaijet Tech. Int'l Ltd., Inc. </em>
A recent Federal Circuit decision has narrowed the public disclosure requirement for obtaining patents. The requirement now limits what qualifies as “reasonably available to the public” under the prior art requirement for obtaining a patent. A private sale was not found to meet the narrowed requirement.
A Collision of Precedents: Assessing the <em> LKQ Corp. v. GM Global Technology Operations LLC </em> Patent Case
For the first time since 2018, the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit sat en banc to review a patent case. LKQ Corp v. GM Global Technology Operations LLC marks a pivotal battle over design patents and spotlights the debate surrounding existing Court precedents.
<em>Great Concepts, LLC v. Chutter, Inc.</em>
In Great Concepts, LLC v. Chutter, Inc., Chutter challenged the validity of Great Concept’s mark, claiming “DANTANNA’S” confuses their mark “DAN TANA,” challenging incontestability, and arguing that “DANTANN’S” was obtained by a false affidavit, so Great Concept’s mark is therefore fraudulent.
<em>Medtronic, Inc. v. Teleflex Life Scis. Ltd.</em>
The Federal Circuit affirmed the Patent Trials and Appeals Board’s decision on the validity of Teleflex’s patent but refused to address whether an in vivo performance of an in vivo method is required to show actual reduction to practice.
<em>Galperti, Inc. v. Galperti S.r.l.</em>
The Federal Circuit vacated the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board’s dismissal of Galperti Inc.’s fraud charge against Galperti S.r.l., because Galperti Inc. did not need to establish secondary meaning or privity in demonstrating their competitors’ claim’s falsity.
<em>Actelion Pharms. LTD v. Mylan Pharms. Inc.</em>
The Federal Circuit Court issued a precedential decision vacating the District Court for the Northern District of West Virginia’s claim construction order and remanded the case to consider extrinsic evidence and its impact on claim construction.
<em>Spireon, Inc. v. Flex Ltd.</em>
The Federal Circuit ruled that the TTAB failed to properly weigh the conceptual and commercial strength of a mark by not considering third-party registrations and by placing the burden to establish non-use on the applicant.
<em>Baxalta Inc. v. Genentech, Inc.</em>
The Federal Circuit affirmed the district court’s ruling that Baxalta’s patent for antibodies that treat Hemophilia A was invalid for lack of enablement and applied the Supreme Court’s 2023 decision in Amgen Inc. v. Sanofi to reach its determination.
<em>Bad Elf, LLC v. Flex Ltd.</em>
The Federal Circuit determined that the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board (“TTAB”) erred in its likelihood of confusion analysis and remanded a case to reconsider its application of the conceptual and commercial strength DuPont Factor in light of Spireon.
<em>Columbia Sportswear N. Am., Inc. v. Seirus Innovative Accessories, Inc.</em>
In line with anticipation analysis for design patents, prior art may only be deemed “comparison prior art” if applied to the claimed article of manufacture. Future design patent infringement plaintiffs are now limited in their potential comparison art.
<em>Ikorongo Texas LLC v. Bumble Trading LLC</em>
The Federal Circuit affirmed the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas decision and canceled Ikorongo Technology LLC’s patent claims under 35 U.S.C. § 251(a), which requires that a reissue patent contain no new matter.