Virginia IP Law > Troutman Sanders LLP

Troutman Sanders Federal Circuit Review – May 21, 2015

FederalCircuitReviewheader

Each week, Troutman Sanders’ Federal Circuit review summarizes the Federal Circuit precedential patent opinions from the prior week.   

This week:

  • A Single Entity Must Perform Every Step of a Method to Infringe Under § 271(a)
  • “Qualitative” Investments Alone Are Insufficient To Satisfy Domestic Industry Requirement of § 337
  • One Legal Standard for Generic Analysis, Whether Trademark Is a Compound Term or a Phrase

[Read more →]

May 22, 2015   No Comments

Troutman Sanders Federal Circuit Review – May 15, 2015

FederalCircuitReviewheader

Each week, Troutman Sanders’ Federal Circuit review summarizes the Federal Circuit precedential patent opinions from the prior week.   

This week:

  • AIA Eliminates District Court’s § 146 Review of Interferences Declared After September 15, 2012

[Read more →]

May 15, 2015   No Comments

Troutman Sanders Federal Circuit Review – May 8, 2015

FederalCircuitReviewheader

Each week, Troutman Sanders’ Federal Circuit review summarizes the Federal Circuit precedential patent opinions from the prior week.   

This week:

  • Federal Circuit Reconsiders Biosig v. Nautilus Under New Indefiniteness Standard
  • A Potential Competitor May Bring False Marking Action if It Suffered Competitive Injury

[Read more →]

May 8, 2015   No Comments

Troutman Sanders Federal Circuit Review – May 1, 2015

FederalCircuitReviewheader

Each week, Troutman Sanders’ Federal Circuit review summarizes the Federal Circuit precedential patent opinions from the prior week.   

This week:

  • Embodiments Disclosed in the Specification Do Not Restrict Claim Scope Absent Manifestation of Clear Intention to Restrict
  • Exclusion of Patentee’s Expert Report on Damages Does Not Lead to Summary Judgment for Lack of Evidence

[Read more →]

May 1, 2015   No Comments

Troutman Sanders Federal Circuit Review – April 23, 2015

FederalCircuitReviewheader

Each week, Troutman Sanders’ Federal Circuit review summarizes the Federal Circuit precedential patent opinions from the prior week.   

This week:

  • USPTO’s Refusal to Terminate an Inter Partes Reexamination is Not a “Final Action” for Which the Agency Can Be Sued
  • Factual Findings Support the District Court’s “Framing” of Obviousness Question
  • A Claimed Range Must Be Critical to Avoid Anticipation By Overlapping Ranges in the Prior Art
  • Court Affirms “THE SLANTS” Mark Is Disparaging
  • NOPALEA Is Not Registerable for Nutritional Supplements Containing Nopal Juice

[Read more →]

April 27, 2015   No Comments

Troutman Sanders Federal Circuit Review – April 10, 2015

FederalCircuitReviewheader

Each week, Troutman Sanders’ Federal Circuit review summarizes the Federal Circuit precedential patent opinions from the prior week.   

This week:

  • PTO’s Decision to Revive an Application Is Not Subject to Third Party Challenge under the APA
  • Case or Controversy Exists in Declaratory Judgment Action of Non-infringement for Disclaimed Patent
  • Court Deems “Refers To” Language In Amendment Defines a Disputed Claim Term

[Read more →]

April 10, 2015   No Comments

SCOTUS: Preclusive Effect Should Be Given to TTAB Decisions When the Other Elements of Issue Preclusion Are Met.

In an opinion written by Justice Alito, the Supreme Court recently held that preclusive effect should be given to Trademark Trial and Appeal Board administrative decisions if the other elements of issue preclusion are met. B&B Hardware, Inc. v. Hargis Industries, Inc. dba Sealtite Building Fasteners et al., No. 13-352, 575 U.S. ___ (March 24, 2015). Although administrative proceedings before the TTAB are certainly different from those in district court, the Court noted that there is no reason to categorically doubt the quality of those proceedings. When an agency has acted in its judicial capacity to resolve disputed issues and providing adequate opportunity to litigate and when the same legal standard is applied to decide the same issues, preclusion applies in later actions. Because the TTAB decides issues of registrability, there are many instances in which issue preclusion will not apply in later infringement actions. However, this ruling will undoubtedly affect the way parties approach contested TTAB proceedings. [Read more →]

April 3, 2015   No Comments

New .SUCKS Top-Level Domain is .PROBLEMATIC

This post is from the Troutman Sanders Advisory dated March 31, 2015 authored by Michael “Mike Hobbs, Jr.Karl M. Zielaznicki and Susan Stabe

In a real life version of the classic “prisoner’s dilemma” game theory, companies are now weighing the significant costs of registering their brands and corporate names during the new .SUCKS gtld Sunrise Period, versus waiting for the general registration period when the .SUCKS domain names become significantly cheaper, but then facing the very real possibility that YOURCOMPANY.SUCKS may irretrievably be taken by a disgruntled customer or ex-employee. Clearly, the situation is .PROBLEMATIC.

[Read more →]

April 1, 2015   No Comments

Troutman Sanders Federal Circuit Review – March 27, 2015

FederalCircuitReviewheader

Each week, Troutman Sanders’ Federal Circuit review summarizes the Federal Circuit precedential patent opinions from the prior week.   

This week:

  • Docket Error Deemed Insufficient For Extending or Re-opening Appeal Period
  • Federal Circuit Declines to Reconsider Standard for Willful Infringement
  • Federal Circuit Affirmed Infringement and Non-Obvious Ruling for Aqueous Acetaminophen Formulations

[Read more →]

March 30, 2015   No Comments

New .Bank Top Level Domain Names Preparing to Launch

This post is from the Troutman Sanders Advisory dated February 18, 2015 authored by Michael “Mike Hobbs, Jr., Sofia Jeong, and Austin Padgett

The .BANK TLD (top-level domain) operated by the American Bankers Association (ABA) and the technology policy division of the Financial Services Roundtable (BITS) will soon open for verified members of the banking community. A thorough vetting process and heightened security requirements could make .BANK websites the most secure Internet locations to conduct online banking in the future. But allowing a .BANK website bearing your bank’s brand to fall into the wrong hands could damage your customers’ confidence, dilute your brand and weaken your trademark.

[Read more →]

March 27, 2015   No Comments