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.
Industry-Specific Patent Policy
Patent scholars have long called for industry-specific patent policy; however, these policies must support cross-functional collaboration amongst different technologies to continue to foster innovation.
<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.
It’s Barbie’s World. Burberry’s Just Living in It.
Burberry and Mattel, maker of Barbie, recently settled a U.S. trademark dispute arising from Burberry’s application for registration of the mark “BRBY”, as Mattel withdraws its Opposition Notice and Burberry’s abandons its registration application.
Crossroads Between Free Speech and Trademarks
Over the summer, the Supreme Court announced it will take up a trademark case to determine whether the application of Section 2(c) of the Lanham Act to political figures is violative of the First Amendment.
Dunkin’ v. Vapin
Dunkin filed a suit against an e-cigarette company’ for infringing Dunkin’s trademark. Dunkin’ asserts that the e-cigarette company “Vapin” essentially took Dunkin’s style and color from their trademark and replaced the word “Dunkin’” to “Vapin.” This case has the potential to help show a clear case of what the likelihood of confusion analysis of trademark infringement looks like.
<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.