IP UPDATE

Coffee, tea, or doctrine of foreign equivalents?

by Kavya Rallabhandi | Dec 18, 2025 | Trademarks

The US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit reversed a Trademark Trial & Appeal Board decision upholding refusal of the KAHWA mark for cafés and coffee shops, holding that the doctrine of foreign equivalents was inapplicable since KAHWA has a well-established alternative English meaning. In re Bayou Grande Coffee Roasting Co., Case No. 2024-1118 (Fed. Cir. Dec. 9, 2025) (Moore, Hughes, Stoll, JJ.)

In February 2021, Bayou applied to trademark KAHWA for cafés and coffee shops, claiming use since 2008. The examiner refused, deeming the mark generic or descriptive under the doctrine of foreign equivalents, asserting that KAHWA means “coffee” in Arabic. Bayou argued that it instead refers to a specific type of Kashmiri green tea not sold in US cafés or coffee shops. The examiner upheld refusals on both grounds and denied reconsideration.

On appeal, the Board affirmed the examiner’s refusals based on the Kashmiri green tea meaning but did not address the Arabic meaning. The Board found KAHWA generic and descriptive for cafés and coffee shops due to record evidence showing relevant customers regarded KAHWA as the generic description for a type of green tea beverage, and cafés and coffee shops serve a variety of tea beverages. Bayou appealed.

The Federal Circuit first determined that the Board’s generic and merely descriptive findings based on the Kashmiri green tea meaning did not constitute new grounds of rejection. The Court also reversed the Board’s generic and merely descriptive findings based on the Kashmiri green tea meaning.

The Federal Circuit concluded that the Board’s generic finding was not supported by substantial evidence because of undisputed evidence that no café or coffee shop in the United States sells kahwa. Therefore, whether relevant customers understood KAHWA to refer to a specific type of Kashmiri green tea was insufficient to establish genericness. The Court also held that the Board’s merely descriptive finding was not supported by substantial evidence because kahwa is neither a product/feature of café and coffee shop services nor a tea variety typically offered there. Moreover, registering KAHWA would not grant Bayou rights against cafés or coffee shops merely selling kahwa, and potential future sales were irrelevant to the descriptiveness analysis.

Finally, the Federal Circuit held that because KAHWA’s undisputed English meaning is Kashmiri green tea, translation was unnecessary, and the doctrine of foreign equivalents did not apply. Under the doctrine of foreign equivalents, a foreign mark may be translated into English to evaluate it for genericness or descriptiveness. However, translation is not required when consumers would not translate, or when the mark has a well‑established alternative meaning that makes the literal translation irrelevant.

Authentication approved: § 314(d) doesn’t bar review of IPR petition scope

by Keval Amin | Dec 18, 2025 | Patents

The US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirmed a Patent Trial & Appeal Board inter partes review (IPR) decision, finding that:

§ 314(d) does not bar review of an IPR petition’s scope.
Substantial evidence supported the Board’s findings that the prior art taught the disputed limitations.
The Board correctly distinguished similar but different claim elements.

International Business Machines Corp. v. Zillow Group, Inc., Case Nos. 24-1170; -1274 (Fed. Cir. Dec. 9, 2025) (Chen, Taranto, Stoll, JJ.)

IBM holds a patent related to systems and methods for single sign-on (SSO) operations, enabling users to create and access multiple accounts using a single set of login credentials. Rakuten petitioned for IPR, asserting an anticipation challenge under § 102 and three obviousness challenges under § 103. The Board instituted review and addressed three claim limitations central to the dispute.

The Board first addressed the “protected resources” limitation. It adopted IBM’s construction requiring URLs or URIs and ultimately found the anticipation challenge unmet, but not because Sunada prior art failed to disclose the limitation. Instead, Rakuten (the original IPR petitioner) expressly abandoned its § 102 anticipation ground at oral argument, and afterward the Board found that Rakuten had not carried its burden. However, the Board agreed that a prior art reference nonetheless satisfied the limitation because the Board concluded that a skilled artisan would understand Sunada’s express disclosure that “web applications” be identified by conventional URLs or URIs.

Next, the Board construed “identifier associated with the user” to mean information that uniquely identifies a user, adopting IBM’s preferred construction. The Board found that the prior art reference disclosed this limitation through its use of a “User ID.”

Finally, the Board determined that Rakuten failed to establish that the asserted prior art taught the limitation requiring the second system to send a request message to a first system “in response to a determination” during user account creation. The prior art disclosed sending such a request only to the user’s own computer (not to the first system) when additional user information was needed.

The Board held several challenged claims unpatentable and others not unpatentable based on the asserted prior art. IBM appealed regarding all the claims the Board found unpatentable, contending that the Board’s analysis of “protected resources” relied on a theory of patentability not raised in the reward company’s petition, and that the Board’s findings on “identifier associated with the user” lacked substantial evidence. Zillow cross-appealed with respect to all claims the Board held not unpatentable, arguing that the Board’s findings lacked substantial evidence.

The Federal Circuit affirmed the Board on both appeals. First, responding to Zillow’s reviewability challenge, the Court held that § 314(d) did not bar review of whether the Board stayed within the petition’s grounds. The Court explained that while institution decisions are unreviewable, courts routinely examine whether the final written decision relies on theories actually presented in the petition. Zillow argued that because IBM’s challenge was “closely tied” to the Board’s institution decision, § 314(d)’s bar on [...]

Continue Reading

Sedona Conference releases draft model DTSA jury instructions

by Jodi Benassi | Dec 18, 2025 | Trade Secrets

The Sedona Conference published the first comprehensive draft Model Jury Instructions for the Defend Trade Secrets Act of 2016 (DTSA) and invites public comment through January 17, 2026. The draft instructions, which have been three years in development, aim to provide clear, consensus-driven guidance on the key issues that juries must resolve in DTSA cases, against the backdrop of an evolving and often inconsistent body of federal trade secret law.

Background

Although the DTSA has been in effect since 2016, federal courts are only now beginning to generate a meaningful body of appellate decisions interpreting the statute, largely because of the slowdown in trial activity during the COVID-19 pandemic. According to the Sedona Conference’s announcement, more than 9,600 federal trade secret cases were filed between 2017 and 2022, but only about 300 reached a jury verdict in that period. This emerging landscape has underscored the need for model jury instructions that can guide courts and litigants in identifying, framing, and presenting DTSA issues at trial.

The draft instructions were prepared by members of the Sedona Conference Working Group 12 on Trade Secrets, a group dedicated to developing nonpartisan, consensus-based principles for managing trade secret litigation. As described in the commentary, the working group has published influential guidance on governance of trade secrets, clean room practices, and interorganizational sharing of confidential information.

Overview of the draft instructions

The Model Jury Instructions consist of core DTSA concepts and follow a familiar model instruction format, pairing proposed instructions with supporting authority and explanatory commentary. As summarized in the one-page publication outline, the instructions cover an introduction to DTSA claims, the elements of misappropriation, existence of a trade secret, misappropriation theories, and damages.

Key issues highlighted in the draft

Identifying trade secrets with “sufficient particularity”

Recent cases suggest that in some circumstances, the jury may need to decide whether the asserted trade secrets have been identified with sufficient specificity, although most practitioners agree that courts should police this issue before trial. This specificity requirement reflects a growing tension between early disclosure obligations and strategic concerns about revealing sensitive information.

What constitutes “reasonable measures”?

Whether a plaintiff took “reasonable measures” to maintain secrecy remains a fact-intensive inquiry. The commentary notes emerging case law holding that general confidentiality policies, cybersecurity protections, or “need to know” restrictions may be insufficient if not specifically tied to the trade secrets at issue. At least one court has suggested that failing to affirmatively tell an employee that a piece of proprietary information (such as source code) is a trade secret may defeat DTSA protection.

Combination trade secrets and proof of misappropriation

The draft rejects a patent-style “all-elements” test and instead endorses assessing substantial similarity between the combination trade secret and the accused method or system. This recommendation reflects a shift away from rigid element-by-element comparisons toward more flexible, fact-driven analyses.

Whether retention alone can constitute misappropriation

One unresolved issue is whether mere retention of trade secret information (once lawfully acquired) can [...]

Continue Reading

Game plan backfires: Mark cancelled

by Lauren Hong | Dec 18, 2025 | Trademarks

The US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirmed the Trademark Trial & Appeal Board’s cancellation of a registration and dismissal of registrant’s opposition, finding that the cancellation petitioner had priority through a valid assignment of common law rights. Game Plan, Inc. v. Uninterrupted IP, LLC, Case No. 24-1407 (Fed. Cir. Dec. 10, 2025) (Reyna, Prost, Cunningham, JJ.)

Game Plan obtained a federal registration in 2018 for the stylized mark I AM MORE THAN AN ATHLETE. GP GAME PLAN covering charitable fundraising via t-shirt sales. Uninterrupted IP (UNIP) subsequently filed six intent-to-use (ITU) applications for marks incorporating I AM MORE THAN AN ATHLETE and MORE THAN AN ATHLETE for clothing and entertainment services. Game Plan opposed the ITU applications, asserting likelihood of confusion and priority under § 2(d) of the Lanham Act, and claimed common law rights in support of its opposition. UNIP denied any likelihood of confusion and counterclaimed to cancel Game Plan’s registration, asserting priority based on common law rights in MORE THAN AN ATHLETE that UNIP acquired through a 2019 asset purchase agreement (executed after Game Plan filed its Notice of Opposition) from More Than an Athlete (MTAA), which had used the mark since at least 2012, and MTAA’s founder.

The Board dismissed Game Plan’s opposition because it submitted no evidence during its trial period, explaining that Game Plan could not sustain its § 2(d) claims based on common law rights alone. The Board also found that UNIP had acquired valid and enforceable common law rights in the mark from MTAA and its founder and therefore held that UNIP had priority based on the 2019 assignment. Game Plan appealed.

Game Plan argued that the assignment was an invalid “assignment in gross” and violated 15 U.S.C. § 1060(a)(1) and 37 C.F.R. § 2.133(a). The Federal Circuit concluded that the assignment was not in gross because:

It expressly transferred “all of the goodwill of this business related to” the mark.
UNIP’s subsequent use was substantially similar to the assignor’s use.
The assignor remained engaged as a consultant, supporting continuity of goodwill.

The Federal Circuit further held that § 1060(a)(1) did not apply because UNIP did not assign its pending ITU applications. Rather, it received an assignment of existing common law rights to a mark in use. Likewise, the Court found that § 2.133(a) did not bar the Board’s priority determination because the Board relied on UNIP’s independent common law rights, which independently predated Game Plan’s filing date, rather than any amendment to UNIP’s application.

The Federal Circuit also affirmed the Board’s refusal to consider Game Plan’s evidence, noting that Game Plan was advised of the proper procedures for submitting evidence at trial but failed to follow those procedures. Game Plan attempted to rely on materials attached to its motion for summary judgment that were not reintroduced into evidence during the testimony period as required by Board rules. The Court concluded that the Board acted within its discretion to exclude the evidence not submitted during the designated [...]

Continue Reading

Institution decisions off limits: Federal Circuit rejects mandamus petitions based on due process, “settled expectations”

by Cecilia Choy, PhD | Dec 18, 2025 | Patents

The US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit denied mandamus relief to three petitioners after the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) denied inter partes review (IPR) institution. The Court explained that Congress insulated the Director’s discretion from judicial review by making IPR institution determinations final and nonappealable, and that 35 U.S.C. § 314(d) bars virtually all judicial oversight. In re Cambridge Industries USA Inc., Case No. 2026-101; In re Sandisk Technologies, Inc., Case No. 2025-152; In re HighLevel, Inc., Case No. 2025-148 (Fed. Cir. Dec. 9, 2025) (nonprecedential) (Prost, Chen Hughes, JJ.)

The Federal Circuit acknowledged that while “colorable constitutional claims” may present an exception to the no judicial review clause, no such claims were raised in these cases. The petitioners failed to identify the kind of property interests or retroactivity concerns that could support either a colorable due process claim or an alternative avenue for relief.

Settled expectations

The lead case, In re Cambridge Industries USA, addressed the USPTO’s use of the “settled expectations” factor as a basis for discretionary denial. The agency denied institution on two patents that had been in force for seven and nine years, respectively, concluding that the patent owner had developed “settled expectations” in those long-standing rights. The companion petition, In re Sandisk Tech., involved patents that had been in force for nine and 12 years, and the USPTO reached the same conclusion.

The Federal Circuit declined to disturb either decision. The Court held that the petitioners had not shown that the settled expectations factor exceeded the USPTO’s statutory authority or that the agency’s application of the factor was unreasonable. It also rejected the argument that the USPTO had effectively created a “maximum-patent-age cap” on institution. Emphasizing the narrow scope of mandamus review, the Court reiterated that it was not deciding whether the USPTO’s actions were correct or statutorily permissible, but only that the petitioners failed to establish a “clear and indisputable right” to relief in light of Congress’s limits on judicial review of institution decisions.

Efficiency

In HighLevel, a district court had already found the challenged patents ineligible under 35 U.S.C. § 101. The Patent Trial & Appeal Board nonetheless denied IPR institution, determining that instituting review would not be an efficient use of agency or party resources and that the “efficiency and integrity of the patent system” were best served by declining review. The USPTO denied Director review.

The Federal Circuit rejected HighLevel’s contention that this decision violated due process, holding that HighLevel’s “mere reliance on the PTO evaluating its petition without regard to efficiency concerns arising from parallel litigation” was insufficient to establish a colorable constitutional claim.