IP UPDATE
Exploring the latest in intellectual property law
IP UPDATE
Exploring the latest in intellectual property law

All rise: Here comes the real judge

by | Jan 22, 2026 |

The US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit sustained the Trademark Trial & Appeal Board’s refusal to register trademark applications (over oppositions) for two character marks and a design mark based on the Board’s finding of likelihood of confusion with the common law rights of a world-famous baseball player and major league baseball’s players association  as supported by substantial evidence and consistent with trademark law. Chisena v. Major League Baseball Players Ass’n, Case No. 23-2073 (Fed. Cir. Jan. 8, 2026) (Hughes, Freeman, Lourie, JJ.) (nonprecedential).

Michael Chisena, acting pro se, sought trademark registration for two word marks, ALL RISE and HERE COMES THE JUDGE, and a design mark featuring a baseball field with a superimposed scale of justice and judge’s gavel (pictured below) (Chisena marks) for use in connection with “clothing, namely t-shirts, shirts, shorts, pants, sweatshirts, sweatpants, jackets, jerseys, athletic uniforms, and caps.”

Source: Chisena v. Major League Baseball Players Ass’n, Case No. 23-2073 (Fed. Cir. Jan. 8, 2026), Slip Op at 2.

Chisena filed intent to use applications and alleged that the constructive use priority date for the word marks was July 14, 2017, and for the design mark it was October 12, 2017. The Major League Baseball Players Association (MLBPA) and Aaron Judge, a superstar Yankees outfielder and team captain (collectively, appellees), filed Notices of Opposition against registration of the marks, which the Board consolidated into a single proceeding.

Judge is a well-known baseball player whose rise to fame prompted the commercialization of judicial slogans and insignia in connection with his baseball career. The appellees alleged that the Chisena marks would likely cause confusion with their marks, which include ALL RISE and certain judicial symbols. They argued that they had common law trademark rights that predated Chisena’s alleged priority dates. The Board found that the appellees established priority against the Chisena marks and that there was a likelihood of confusion between the marks and therefore refused to register the Chisena marks. Chisena appealed.

The Federal Circuit found that the Board’s priority decisions were supported by substantial evidence that appellees’ marks were used in commerce prior to the Chisena marks’ priority date. The Court concluded that the priority dates for the Chisena marks were the constructive use filing dates since Chisena did not use the marks in commerce until after he filed the applications. The Court further relied on licensed products bearing judicial slogans, phrases, symbols, and personal indicia related to Judge used as early as June 2017 in holding that appellees’ common law trademark rights predated the Chisena marks’ priority dates.

Chisena argued that appellees did not adequately identify the specific marks at issue in their Notices of Opposition. The Federal Circuit agreed with the Board that the notices provided fair notice because they adequately claimed ownership of the marks that served as the basis for the opposition and the basis for appellees’ priority claims.

Chisena argued that the [...]

Continue Reading



USPTO elevates precedential and informative decisions on discretionary institution in IPR/PGR

by | Jan 22, 2026 |

The United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) designated four decisions as precedential and nine decisions as informative, all highlighting the factors the USPTO will consider in determining whether to deny a petition for inter partes review (IPR) or post-grant review (PGR) based on discretionary considerations.

Although the individual outcomes differ among the four precedential decisions (two granting institution and two denying), the decisions provide insight on how the USPTO will exercise its discretion to institute and deny America Invents Act (AIA) trials based on timing, copycat petitions and joinder, sequential petitions, and policy preference for PGR availability. The USPTO designated the following decisions precedential:

The USPTO designated the following decisions as informative, illustrating the types of factual scenarios that may support either discretionary denial of a petition or, conversely, a decision to consider the petition on the merits.

Together, these informative decisions provide concrete, real‑world examples of how the Director is likely to applies discretion under 35 USC §§ 314(a) and 324(a), ranging from circumstances where institution is disfavored (e.g., parallel litigation dynamics, petition quality, procedural posture) to situations where the USPTO [...]

Continue Reading



Top Gun and all that jazz: “Substantial similarity” in the Ninth Circuit

by | Jan 15, 2026 |

Two January 2026 decisions from the US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit confirm that copyright infringement requires substantial similarity in protectable expression, proven through both extrinsic and intrinsic tests. Yonay v. Paramount Pictures Corp. demonstrates strict application of filtration principles and the constraints of selection-and-arrangement theories at summary judgment. Sedlik v. Von Drachenberg, by contrast, underscores the central and increasingly contested role of the intrinsic test at trial, even when extrinsic similarity evidence is substantial. Yonay v. Paramount Pictures Corp., Case No. 24-2897 (9th Cir. Jan. 2, 2026) (Hurwitz, Miller, Sung, JJ.); Sedlik v. Von Drachenberg, et al., Case No. 24-3367 (9th Cir. Jan. 2, 2026) (Wardlaw, Mendoza Jr., Johnstone, JJ.) (per curiam) (Wardlaw, Johnstone, JJ., concurring).

The extrinsic test examines objective similarities in protectable expression after excluding unprotectable elements while the intrinsic test asks whether an ordinary reasonable observer would perceive substantial similarity in expression without expert guidance.

Yonay v. Paramount Pictures – “Top Guns”

Ehud Yonay authored and owns a copyright in “Top Guns,” a 1983 magazine article about the US Navy Fighter Weapons School, popularly known as “Top Gun.” Yonay sued Paramount Pictures, alleging that its 2022 film Top Gun: Maverick infringed that copyright. The district court granted summary judgment for Paramount, and Yonay appealed.

The Ninth Circuit applied the extrinsic test and rigorously filtered out unprotectable elements, including factual material about the Top Gun program, stock scenes, and high-level themes. The Court concluded that the similarities identified by the plaintiffs existed only at an abstract level and did not involve protectable expression. Although “Top Guns” contains vivid prose and an innovative narrative structure that qualify as protectable expression, none of that expression appeared in the film. The Court explained that even under a selection-and-arrangement theory, courts must filter out unprotectable elements and determine whether the works share a protectable “pattern, synthesis, or design.” After doing so, the Court concluded that the similarities identified by the plaintiffs consisted of unprotectable facts and ideas rather than original expression.

Because the intrinsic test is reserved exclusively for the trier of fact, only the extrinsic test was relevant at the summary judgment stage. The Ninth Circuit also determined that the district court did not abuse its discretion in excluding the plaintiffs’ expert, whose analysis failed to adequately filter out unprotectable elements and therefore relied heavily on similarities in facts and abstract ideas, rendering his opinions unhelpful.

The Ninth Circuit affirmed summary judgment for Paramount, holding that Top Gun: Maverick was not substantially similar to the article “Top Guns.”

Sedlik v. Von Drachenberg, et al. – Miles Davis photograph

Jeffrey Sedlik owns a copyright in his photograph of Miles Davis. Sedlik sued Katherine Von Drachenberg and her tattoo parlor, High Voltage Tattoo, alleging copyright infringement based on Von Drachenberg’s use of the photograph as a reference to create a tattoo depicting Davis’s likeness, the creation of a preliminary sketch, and the posting of related images on social media. After a jury trial, the district court entered judgment in favor [...]

Continue Reading



USPTO launches SEP Working Group aimed at strengthening patent enforcement

by | Jan 15, 2026 |

The United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) announced the formation of the Standard-Essential Patent (SEP) Working Group, which will report directly to USPTO Director John A. Squires. The initiative aims to examine policy issues related to patents incorporated into technical standards and provide guidance on enforcement and licensing practices.

Background

Technical standards underpin many modern technologies, including telecommunications, automotive systems, and artificial intelligence. These standards often include patented technologies, which represent significant investment by inventors. Concerns have emerged about the predictability of remedies and the treatment of patent holders within the SEP ecosystem.

Historically, injunctions in SEP disputes have been difficult to obtain in the United States because SEP patents are typically subject to fair, reasonable, and non-discriminatory (FRAND) commitments. FRAND obligations are intended to ensure broad access to standardized technologies, but they often create uncertainty around enforcement and limit the availability of injunctive relief. This tension has led to debates over whether SEP holders can effectively prevent infringement when licensing negotiations fail.

Recent USPTO actions

The USPTO’s announcement follows its recent involvement in cases addressing patent remedies, in which the USPTO argued that injunctions should be available for SEP patents. In Radian Memory Systems v. Samsung Electronics, the USPTO filed a statement emphasizing the role of injunctions in protecting patent rights. Similarly, in an International Trade Commission investigation involving dynamic random-access memory (DRAM) devices, the USPTO commented on the public interest in enforcing valid patents. Both of these cases involved the assertion of SEP patents.

Objectives of the SEP Working Group

The working group will focus on three areas:

  1. Clarifying enforcement standards: Reviewing approaches to ensure strong and predictable remedies for SEP holders.
  2. Encouraging broader participation: Exploring ways to enable small and medium-sized enterprises to engage in standards development.
  3. Stakeholder engagement and transparency: Creating dialogue with patent holders, implementers, and standards organizations to identify challenges and develop resources for licensing predictability.

USPTO Deputy General Counsel Nicholas Matich and Senior Legal Advisor Austin Mayron will co-chair the working group. The group will seek input from stakeholders across the innovation ecosystem.

Next steps

The USPTO intends for this initiative to formalize its recent policy efforts and provide a structured approach to SEP-related issues. Stakeholders are encouraged to participate in discussions as the group begins its work.



Deadlines and discretion: Appeal trips over the clock

by | Jan 15, 2026 |

The US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirmed in part and dismissed in part an appeal of an International Trade Commission decision. The Federal Circuit affirmed the Commission’s issuance of a limited exclusion order against one set of respondents and dismissed the complainant’s appeal of the Commission’s no‑violation finding against another set of respondents as time‑barred under the statute. Crocs, Inc. v. Int’l Trade Comm’n, Case No. 2024-1300 (Fed. Cir. Jan. 8, 2026) (Stoll, Lourie, Chun, JJ.)

Crocs filed a complaint with the Commission alleging that multiple respondents violated Section 337 by importing, selling for importation, or selling within the US footwear that infringed its registered trademarks (the 3D marks), which are associated with certain features of Crocs’ Classic Clog shoes. Crocs’ complaint requested relief in the form of a general exclusion order (GEO), or in the alternative, a limited exclusion order (LEO). Three respondents participated in an evidentiary hearing before an administrative law judge in September 2022 (active respondents) while four respondents were in default and waived their rights to appear, to be served with documents, and to contest the allegations (defaulting respondents). More than 20 other respondents were terminated based on consent orders or settlement agreements.

In a September 14, 2023, Notice of Final Determination and accompanying opinion, the Commission found no violation by the active respondents, concluding that Crocs had not established likelihood of confusion, infringement, or dilution of the 3D marks. The Commission, presuming the facts alleged in the complaint as true and finding that public interest factors do not preclude relief, also issued an LEO against the defaulting respondents, barring them from importing the infringing shoes.

On December 22, 2023, Crocs filed a notice of appeal challenging the Commission’s no-violation finding as to the active respondents and its decision to issue only an LEO against the defaulting respondents rather than the GEO that Crocs requested. The Commission countered that Crocs’ appeal against the active respondents was time-barred by Section 337(c), which required the appeal to be filed by November 13, 2023, and argued that the Commission did not abuse its discretion in issuing only an LEO against the defaulting respondents.

The Federal Circuit dismissed Crocs’ appeal against the active respondents as untimely. The Court explained that when the Commission issues a single decision that contains a no-violation finding against one set of respondents and enters an exclusion order against another set of respondents, each ruling carries its own deadline for appeal. In this case, Crocs’ December 22, 2023, appeal was time-barred under Section 337(c) because the 60-day period for filing a notice of appeal on the no-violation finding expired on November 13, 2023. The Court also considered and upheld the Commission’s LEO order, concluding that the Commission had articulated a sufficient basis for the remedy and that its decision was not arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise contrary to law.



Subscribe

BLOG EDITORS

Paul Devinsky

Amol Parikh

Jodi Benassi

STAY CONNECTED

Subscribe

TOPICS

ARCHIVES