Patent – Page 2 – SoCal IP Law Institute

Ninth Circuit Rules in Favor of Yoga Icon Lululemon in a Reverse Trademark Confusion Case over their Align Pants

Vancouver-based Lululemon ("Lulu"), founded in 1998, is famously known for their boujee yoga-inspired activewear. Industry competitor Aliign Activation Wear (“Aliign”) filed suit against Lulu in the Central District of California back in mid-2020, primarily alleging that Lulu was infringing its Aliign trademark, which Aliign said it has been using since 2011. You see, Lulu rolled [...]

By SoCal IP|2022-08-23T16:45:36-07:00August 23rd, 2022|Uncategorized, Reissue, Venue, Claim Construction, Noninfringement|0 Comments

SoCal IP Law Institute MCLE meeting of August 15, 2022 – CAFC re: Recapture During a Broadening Reissue; and CAFC re: Expert Witnesses and Obviousness

SoCal IP Law Institute MCLE meeting of August 15, 2022 - CAFC re: Recapture During a Broadening Reissue; and CAFC re: Expert Witnesses and Obviousness. Please join us on Monday, August 15, 2022 at Noon , where we will discuss CAFC re: Recapture During a Broadening Reissue; and CAFC re: Expert Witnesses and Obviousness. For [...]

By Angelo Gaz|2022-08-12T19:51:48-07:00August 12th, 2022|Inter Partes Review, patentability, Prosecution Appeal, Proseuction Laches, Reissue, Statutory Subject Matter, Invalidity, Obviousness|0 Comments

SoCalIP Law Institute Weekly Meeting – August 8, 2022 – Inherency of Negative Claim terms and Trade Dress in the 5th Circuit

Please join us on Monday, August 8, 2022 at 12:00 pm, where we will discuss the following: Novartis Pharm. Corp. v. Accord Healthcare, Inc., 38 F.4th 1013 (Fed. Cir. 2022) (rehearing decision here) - Novartis prevailed in the 5th Circuit on the validity of its claims under the Written Description Requirement based on a negative [...]

By Guy Cumberbatch|2022-08-02T16:49:40-07:00August 2nd, 2022|Patent, Standing, Trade Dress, Trademark, Written Description, Claim Construction, Invalidity, Acquired Distinctiveness|0 Comments

Less Whack in Waco; Echos of 2015

Summer time and the living is easy, so I’m a bit delayed in this week’s post. Apologies. In this week’s post, I highlight shifts in the patent litigation environment in Texas. The Eastern District of Texas, especially Marshall and Tyler, used to be the top venue choice for patent owners who wanted a fast path [...]

By Steven C. Sereboff|2022-07-30T08:01:13-07:00July 30th, 2022|Reissue, Venue, Claim Construction, Noninfringement, Uncategorized|0 Comments

SoCal IP Law Institute MCLE meeting June 20, 2022 – Two CAFC patent cases

Please join us on Monday, June 20, 2022 at 12:00 pm, where we will discuss two recent patent rulings of the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. University of Massachusetts v. L’Oréal S.A., No. 21-1969 (Fed. Cir. 2022) This case is an appeal from the United States District Court for the District of [...]

By Mark A. Goldstein|2022-06-17T16:37:45-07:00June 17th, 2022|Patent, Personal Jurisdiction, Damages, indefiniteness, Invalidity|0 Comments

SoCal IP Law Institute MCLE meeting of June 13, 2022 – CAFC re: Intrinsic Evidence on Indefiniteness and Sanctions; and CAFC re: Damages Calculation.

Please join us on Monday, June 13, 2022 at 12:00 pm, where we will discuss recent Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit action regarding Intrinsic Evidence on Indefiniteness and Sanctions; and regarding Damages Calculation. For CAFC Clarifies Analysis of Intrinsic Evidence on Indefiniteness, Affirms PTAB’s Denial of Sanctions, please see: ClearOne v Shure. For [...]

By Angelo Gaz|2022-06-09T19:48:08-07:00June 9th, 2022|Written Description, Damages, indefiniteness, Invalidity, Patent, Sanctions|0 Comments

Supreme Court to Clarify Transformative Use in Andy Warhol Foundation v. Goldsmith; CAFC Muddies Standing Requirements for TTAB Appeals

On Monday, April 11, 2022, Chris Kopitzke will lead a discussion of the issues before the Supreme Court in the long-running copyright infringement case based on Andy Warhol’s “Prince” series of artworks, and about the CAFC’s recent holding that a party lacked Article III standing to challenge the TTAB’s ruling on likelihood of confusion involving [...]

By SoCal IP|2022-04-09T12:46:26-07:00April 9th, 2022|Written Description, indefiniteness, Invalidity|0 Comments

SoCal IP Law Institute MCLE meeting of March 28, 2022 – Two Recent Federal Circuit Cases

Please join us on Monday, March 28, 2022 at 12:00 pm, where we will discuss two recent Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit decisions. Dyfan, LLC v. Target Corp., No. 21-1725 (Fed. Cir. 2022) addresses claim construction to determine whether a patent is invalid. The evaluation includes consideration of whether patent claims adhere to [...]

By Mark A. Goldstein|2022-03-27T17:12:06-07:00March 27th, 2022|Written Description, indefiniteness, Invalidity|0 Comments

SoCal IP Law Institute MCLE meeting of June 13, 2022 – CAFC re: Intrinsic Evidence on Indefiniteness and Sanctions; and CAFC re: Damages Calculation

Please join us on Monday, June 13, 2022 at 12:00 pm, where we will discuss recent Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit action regarding Intrinsic Evidence on Indefiniteness and Sanctions; and regarding Damages Calculation For Intrinsic Evidence on Indefiniteness and Sanctions please see: ClearOne v Shure. For Damages Calculation please see: Pavo v. Kingston. [...]

By Angelo Gaz|2022-06-09T19:23:49-07:00March 17th, 2022|Sanctions, Written Description, Attorney's Fees, Damages, Enablement, indefiniteness, Invalidity|0 Comments

Boardside Chats from the PTAB

The USPTO's Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) handles five kinds of cases: 1. Appeals by patent applicants when an examiner has rejected their application at least twice.2. Appeals by patent owners in reexaminations3. Inter parte reviews (IPRs)4. Post Grant Reviews (PGRs)5. Covered Business Method Patent Reviews (CBMs) In support of the PTAB's public outreach [...]

By Steven C. Sereboff|2022-03-17T15:11:50-07:00March 17th, 2022|Training, Uncategorized, Prosecution Appeal|0 Comments