IP UPDATE
Exploring the latest in intellectual property law
IP UPDATE
Exploring the latest in intellectual property law
Results for "Trademark appeal"
Subscribe to Results for "Trademark appeal"'s Posts

When It’s All In the Family: Reverse Confusion Not a Basis for Broad Trademark Remedies

by | Jan 8, 2020 |

Addressing reverse confusion and scope of available remedies, the US Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit upheld a district court’s refusal to award infringing profits and a broad permanent injunction after a jury found infringement. Fabick, Inc. v. JFTCO, Inc., Case Nos. 19-1760; -0072 (7th Cir. Dec. 9, 2019) (Flaum, J.)

This trademark dispute originates with a family feud. John Fabick, founder of the John Fabick Tractor Company, purchased two Caterpillar equipment dealerships intending for his son, Joe, to operate the dealerships. At the time, the John Fabick Tractor Company had used the mark FABICK in connection with its business. Joe later founded FABCO, which sold Caterpillar equipment and related goods. Eventually, one of Joe’s sons, Jeré, took over FABCO.

(more…)



read more

Supreme Court: PTO Not Entitled to Attorney’s Fees in District Court Appeals

by | Jan 2, 2020 |

PATENTS / PTO ATTORNEY’S FEES

In a unanimous decision authored by Justice Sotomayor, the Supreme Court of the United States held that the US Patent and Trademark Office (PTO) is not entitled to recover its attorney’s fees in an appeal to a district court from an adverse decision of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) under 35 USC § 145. Peter v. NantKwest, Inc., Case No. 18-801 (Supr. Ct. Dec. 11, 2019) (Sotomayor, Justice).

The question posed in this case was:

[W]hether such “expenses” [in § 145 proceedings] include the salaries of attorney and paralegal employees of the United States Patent and Trademark Office (PTO).

The answer was a resounding “no.”

(more…)



read more

Seventh Circuit Formally Adopts Octane Fitness Standard for Trademark Cases

by | Jan 2, 2020 |

TRADEMARKS / ATTORNEY’S FEE AWARD

The US Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit officially joined its sister circuits in holding that the Supreme Court standard for awarding attorney’s fees in patent cases, set forth in Octane Fitness, LLC v. ICON Health & Fitness, Inc., was equally applicable to attorney’s fees claims under the Lanham Act. In doing so, the Seventh Circuit overruled its prior holding that a plaintiff’s claims were only “exceptional” under the Lanham Act if they constituted an abuse of process. LHO Chicago River, LLC v. Perillo, Case. No. 19-1848 (7th Cir. Nov. 8, 2019) (Manion, J).

(more…)



read more

Settlement wipes out exceptional-case fee award in exceptional fashion

by | Sep 3, 2026 |

The US Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit granted the parties’ joint motion to vacate a district court’s attorneys’ fee rulings after the parties settled while the second fee appeal was pending. The Court concluded that the case presented the rare “exceptional circumstances” warranting vacatur after mootness resulting from settlement. Lontex Corp. v. Nike, Inc., Case Nos. 24-3284; -3358 (3d Cir. Aug. 20, 2026) (Chagares, C.J.; Freeman, Bove, JJ.)

The appeals arose from fee proceedings following the Third Circuit’s earlier decision in Lontex v. Nike (2024). There, the Court addressed the standard for determining whether a trademark case is “exceptional” for purposes of awarding attorneys’ fees and remanded for further proceedings. On remand, the district court again found the case exceptional and awarded Lontex attorneys’ fees and costs. Nike appealed, and Lontex cross-appealed.

After oral argument and mediation, the parties settled and jointly sought vacatur of the district court’s fee rulings. The Third Circuit emphasized that settlement alone does not warrant vacatur. Because judicial decisions are presumptively correct and may have value beyond the immediate parties, vacatur following settlement remains an extraordinary equitable remedy requiring exceptional circumstances.

The Third Circuit found such exceptional circumstances in this case. Most importantly, the challenged decisions applied the legal standard established in the Third Circuit’s precedential 2024 decision in the case, which remains intact. The public therefore retained the benefit of the appellate decision establishing the governing legal principles, reducing the public interest in preserving the district court’s application of those principles on remand. Both parties also challenged the district court’s rulings, and the settlement (reached following court-encouraged mediation) conserved further judicial resources.

Balancing those considerations, the Third Circuit concluded that the benefits of settlement outweighed the remaining public interest in preserving the district court’s rulings. The case therefore presented the unusual circumstances in which vacatur following settlement is appropriate.



read more

Now you know the limits on patent rights: Diversion of resources doesn’t establish standing

by | Sep 3, 2026 |

Concluding that an organization cannot establish standing to seek prospective relief merely by alleging that it diverted resources in response to challenged conduct, the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirmed dismissal of claims brought by inventor-advocacy organizations challenging language on the cover of issued patents because the organizations lacked both organizational and associational standing. US Inventor, Inc. v. Squires, Case No. 24-2378 (Fed. Cir. Aug. 21, 2026) (Moore, Cunningham, Kovner (sitting by designation), JJ.)

The cover of each newly issued patent includes language tracking the Patent Act, stating that the patent “grants to the persons having title to this patent the right to exclude others from making, using, offering for sale, or selling” the invention throughout the United States or importing the invention into the US. Three inventor advocacy organizations – US Inventor, Inventors Association of South Central Kansas, and Inventors Network of Minnesota – sued the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) and its acting director, alleging that this language was misleading in light of the Supreme Court’s 2006 decision in eBay v. MercExchange.

Plaintiffs contended that eBay eliminated any absolute right of a patent owner to exclude others because injunctive relief is no longer automatic upon a finding of infringement. They sought an order requiring the USPTO to change the patent cover language, an injunction prohibiting the USPTO from representing that patent owners possess an unequivocal right to exclude, and a declaration that the existing language is unlawful. The district court dismissed the complaint for lack of standing. Plaintiffs appealed.

The Federal Circuit affirmed, concluding that plaintiffs had not adequately alleged a real and immediate threat of future injury sufficient to support prospective injunctive or declaratory relief.

First, the Federal Circuit concluded that plaintiffs lacked organizational standing. An organization suing on its own behalf must satisfy the ordinary requirements of Article III standing, including demonstrating a concrete and imminent threat of future injury. Relying on the Supreme Court’s 2024 decision in FDA v. Alliance for Hippocratic Medicine, the Court explained that an organization does not suffer a cognizable injury merely because challenged conduct causes it to spend additional “time, energy, and resources on advocacy and education.”

Plaintiffs relied on a similar diversion-of-resources theory, alleging that the USPTO’s patent cover language required them to devote resources to educating inventors about the effect of eBay, thereby impairing their ability to pursue their organizational missions. The Federal Circuit found those allegations insufficient.

The Federal Circuit also rejected plaintiffs’ reliance on the Supreme Court’s 1982 decision in Havens Realty v. Coleman. In Havens, the challenged conduct directly interfered with the organization’s core activities because racial steering practices caused the organization to receive false housing information that it then passed along to home seekers. Here, by contrast, plaintiffs were aware of eBay and therefore were not themselves misled by the patent cover language. Their alleged injury instead arose from their decision to educate unidentified inventors who might misunderstand that language. Rather than alleging that the USPTO directly impeded their [...]

Continue Reading



read more

A prescription for liability: Injunction in gray-market drug case based on material differences

by | Aug 27, 2026 | ,

Affirming a preliminary injunction, the US Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit found that companies importing foreign-market pharmaceuticals for domestic patients were likely liable for trademark infringement, and that healthcare administrators and pharmacy benefit managers that continued facilitating those transactions despite reason to know of the infringement were likely liable for contributory infringement. Gilead Sciences, Inc. v. Meritain Health, Inc., Case No. 25-1828 (4th Cir. Aug. 13, 2026) (Agee, Harris, Keenan, JJ.)

Gilead sued a group of companies involved in filling US patient prescriptions for the HIV drug Biktarvy® with a Gilead-branded version of the drug intended for Turkey. Gilead alleged that the defendants’ importation and distribution of the Turkish-market product infringed its trademarks under the Lanham Act. In addition to suing companies directly involved in sourcing and supplying the prescriptions, Gilead sued Meritain Health, the third-party administrator of the relevant healthcare plan, and ProAct, a pharmacy benefit manager, for contributory infringement.

Shortly after filing suit, Gilead moved for a temporary restraining order and then a preliminary injunction enjoining the defendants from importing gray-market versions of Biktarvy®. The district court granted the requested relief, finding that Gilead had demonstrated a likelihood of success on its direct infringement claims against certain defendants and its contributory infringement claims against others. Meritain, ProAct, and the other defendants appealed.

The defendants first argued that the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FDCA) precluded Gilead’s Lanham Act claims. Although the Turkish version of Biktarvy® was not US Food and Drug Administration approved, Gilead did not premise its trademark claims on that fact. The Fourth Circuit therefore concluded that adjudicating Gilead’s claims did not require enforcement or interpretation of the FDCA.

The defendants also challenged the district court’s likelihood-of-confusion finding, emphasizing that Gilead itself manufactured the Turkish version of Biktarvy® and that the product bore authentic Gilead trademarks. The Fourth Circuit disagreed, explaining that goods bearing a genuine trademark may nevertheless be considered nongenuine for trademark purposes if they materially differ from the authorized domestic product or are sold outside the trademark owner’s quality-control procedures.

Although the Turkish and US versions of Biktarvy® were chemically identical, the Fourth Circuit found material differences between them. Among other things, the Turkish product contained foreign-language labeling and lacked certain warnings and patient information provided with the US version. The Turkish product also was not transported through Gilead’s quality-control system. Those differences were sufficient to support the district court’s finding of material differences.

The Fourth Circuit also rejected Meritain and ProAct’s challenges to the contributory infringement ruling. The Court explained that contributory infringement does not require actual knowledge of another party’s infringement. Liability may arise where a defendant knew or should have known of the infringement and nevertheless continued supplying products or services that facilitated it.

The Fourth Circuit further rejected Meritain and ProAct’s argument that contributory infringement required proof that they exercised control over the direct infringers. In doing so, the Court declined to adopt the Ninth Circuit’s control requirement. The Fourth Circuit also concluded that even if [...]

Continue Reading



read more

In the doghouse? Tarnishment requires proof of reputational harm

by | Aug 13, 2026 |

In the latest chapter of a long-running dispute, the US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit vacated a permanent injunction against VIP Products’ “Bad Spaniels” dog toy, finding that Jack Daniel’s Properties, Inc., (JDPI) failed to establish that the parody was likely to harm the reputation of its famous marks. The Court also explained that although parody does not automatically escape dilution liability when used as a source identifier, a product’s parodic nature remains relevant to whether consumers are likely to form a damaging association with the famous mark. VIP Products LLC ⁠v. Jack Daniel’s Properties Inc., Case No. 25-2027 (9th Cir. August 4, 2026) (Berzon, Smith, Hurwitz, JJ.)

VIP Products sells a line of dog toys parodying well-known alcohol bottles. Its Bad Spaniels toy mimics the appearance of a Jack Daniel’s whiskey bottle but replaces “Jack Daniel’s” with “Bad Spaniels,” “Old No. 7” with “Old No. 2,” and “Tennessee Whiskey” with “Tennessee Carpet,” along with references to dog waste.

JDPI sued VIP for trademark infringement and dilution. The dispute ultimately reached the US Supreme Court, which in 2023 held that VIP could not invoke the Trademark Dilution Revision Act’s statutory parody exclusion because VIP used the challenged designations as source identifiers for its own goods.

On remand, the district court found no likelihood of confusion but concluded that Bad Spaniels diluted JDPI’s trademarks by tarnishment and entered a permanent injunction. VIP appealed.

The Ninth Circuit explained that a dilution-by-tarnishment claim requires the trademark owner to establish, among other things, that the asserted mark is famous and that the challenged use creates an association likely to harm the famous mark’s reputation. The Court emphasized that the analysis must be conducted on a mark-by-mark basis. Fame established for one mark cannot automatically be attributed to related marks.

Applying that framework, the Ninth Circuit found that JDPI had established fame for the Jack Daniel’s word mark and registered trade dress, but not for certain other asserted marks, including “Old No. 7.” That distinction was significant because some of Bad Spaniels’ more overt scatological references corresponded to marks that JDPI had not independently shown to be famous.

The Ninth Circuit also found JDPI’s evidence of likely reputational harm insufficient. JDPI’s expert relied on general consumer psychology research suggesting that associations between food or beverages and defecation may produce disgust, but he did not conduct a study examining consumer reactions to Bad Spaniels itself. The Court concluded that such generalized evidence did not establish that consumers would transfer negative associations from the parody dog toy to JDPI’s famous marks.

The Ninth Circuit further faulted the tarnishment analysis for failing to account for the toy’s parodic character. Although parody is not categorically exempt from dilution liability when the challenged use itself functions as a trademark, the Court explained that parody remains relevant to whether consumers are likely to make an association that harms the famous mark’s reputation. Because Bad Spaniels unmistakably mocked Jack Daniel’s, as opposed to presenting itself as Jack Daniel’s, the Court [...]

Continue Reading



read more

Same patent, same light: Director vacates IPR decision at odds with ITC decision

by | Aug 13, 2026 |

The director of the United States Patent & Trademark Office (USPTO) vacated a Patent Trial and Appeal Board final written decision finding challenged claims obvious where the US International Trade Commission, considering the same patent, parties, and obviousness theory, had reached the opposite conclusion. The director found that the Board had not adequately justified departing from the Commission’s analysis. Biofrontera Inc. v. Sun Pharmaceutical Industries Inc., IPR2024-01312 (USPTO Dir. July 29, 2026) (Squires, Dir.)

Biofrontera petitioned for inter partes review (IPR) of a Sun Pharmaceutical patent directed to a photodynamic dermatology device. The Board instituted review and ultimately found all challenged claims unpatentable as obvious.

The same patent was also at issue in a Section 337 investigation before the Commission. Sun Pharmaceutical had accused Biofrontera of importing certain photodynamic therapy systems that infringed two patents. An administrative law judge (ALJ) found infringement and recommended an exclusion order. The ALJ also found that Biofrontera had not shown the claims of the patent at issue in the IPR to be obvious.

Before the Board, Biofrontera argued that the ALJ’s determination did not warrant deference because it was not yet final, remained subject to Commission review, and was based on a different evidentiary record and burden of proof. The Board agreed and reached the opposite conclusion on obviousness.

On Director Review, the director rejected the Board’s explanations and vacated the final written decision. The director concluded that the Board had not identified a sufficient basis for reaching a patentability determination inconsistent with the Commission’s assessment of the same obviousness theory.

The director first rejected the Board’s reliance on the non-final status of the ALJ’s determination. By the time of Director Review, the full Commission had upheld the ALJ’s conclusion that Biofrontera had not shown the claims obvious, eliminating the finality concern on which the Board had relied. The director further explained that even a non-final ALJ determination may remain relevant when the Board considers whether parallel proceedings justify terminating or otherwise declining to continue an IPR.

The director also found that differences in the evidentiary records did not adequately explain the conflicting results. Although the IPR included expert testimony that had not been presented at the Commission, the Board did not sufficiently explain why that testimony warranted reaching a different conclusion on the same prior art combination.

Nor did the differing burdens of proof resolve the inconsistency. The director acknowledged that an IPR applies the preponderance-of-the-evidence standard, while a Commission respondent challenging patent validity faces a higher burden. But the difference in standards, standing alone, did not explain why the two tribunals reached conflicting factual conclusions regarding the same claim limitation and prior art combination.

Finding no adequate justification for the divergence, the director vacated the Board’s final written decision and dismissed the IPR petition rather than remanding for further proceedings.

Practice Note: Parties litigating patent validity in parallel Board and Commission proceedings should expect prior findings from one forum to receive meaningful consideration in the other, particularly where the same parties, prior [...]

Continue Reading



read more

Heirs’ lights flicker out: Sixth Circuit affirms MillerKnoll’s Bubble Lamp rights

by | Jul 23, 2026 |

The US Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit affirmed summary judgment for the manufacturer of an iconic lamp design, finding that the designer’s heirs could not pursue trademark infringement and related tort claims based on the contractual transference of ownership and use of the intellectual property associated with the lamp. The Court concluded that the governing agreements authorized the manufacturer’s conduct and that the designer’s family later ratified the manufacturer’s ownership by accepting royalties with knowledge of its ownership claim. Nelson v. MillerKnoll, Inc., Case No. 25-1940 (6th Cir. July 7, 2026) (Boggs, Clay, Gilman, JJ.)

George Nelson, a prominent mid-century furniture designer, created the cloth-covered hanging fixtures known as the Bubble Lamp while serving as design director of Herman Miller, now MillerKnoll. George and Herman Miller did not enter into a formal written agreement addressing ownership of the Bubble Lamp’s intellectual property during the designer’s employment.

After George’s death, his widow, Jacqueline Nelson, entered into a 2006 agreement under which Herman Miller agreed to pay royalties on certain products designed by George. In 2015, while a related foundation was litigating against another company that had registered and sold Bubble Lamp trademarks, George’s son, Mico Nelson, executed an addendum on Jacqueline’s behalf. The addendum expanded the royalty arrangement to include “Nelson branded Lamp Products” and granted Herman Miller exclusive worldwide rights to manufacture, use, sell, and license those products.

Herman Miller later acquired the Bubble Lamp business and related trademark registrations, including two product-configuration marks and the BUBBLE LAMP word mark.

The Nelson family sued MillerKnoll, alleging that it had improperly obtained the Bubble Lamp’s intellectual property as part of a broader scheme to deprive the family of George’s rights. The complaint asserted federal and state trademark infringement, fraud, conspiracy, unjust enrichment, and cancellation of the trademark registrations. The district court granted summary judgment to MillerKnoll on all claims. The Nelson family appealed.

The principal issue on appeal was whether the 2006 agreement and 2015 addendum merely licensed MillerKnoll to use the Bubble Lamp’s intellectual property or also authorized MillerKnoll ownership of that intellectual property.

Applying Michigan contract law, the Sixth Circuit concluded that the agreements unambiguously granted MillerKnoll both ownership and use rights. Although the agreements referred to “Licensed Products,” that term was contractually defined to include products whose rights MillerKnoll owned. Other provisions granted MillerKnoll “exclusive right, title, and interest” in the covered designs and the sole right to enforce the associated proprietary rights.

That contractual authorization defeated the Nelson family’s Lanham Act claim. The Sixth Circuit explained that authorized use of a mark cannot support an infringement claim under § 43(a) because authorized conduct does not create the type of source confusion the statute is intended to prevent.

The same reasoning foreclosed the state-law trademark and tort claims. Because the agreements authorized MillerKnoll’s ownership and use of the Bubble Lamp’s intellectual property, the Nelson family could not recover for conduct to which it had consented.

The Sixth Circuit also concluded that Mico independently ratified MillerKnoll’s ownership. [...]

Continue Reading



read more

USPTO extends deadline for requesting director review of decisions instituting trial

by | Jul 16, 2026 |

The United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) updated its director review process by extending the deadline for requesting director review of decisions made in Patent Trial & Appeal Board proceedings from 14 to 30 days.

Under 37 C.F.R. § 42.75(c)(1), a request for director review must be filed within the time period set forth in 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(d), unless the director grants an extension for good cause. Section 42 generally requires that a request for director review be filed within 14 days of a decision instituting trial or 30 days of a final decision or a decision denying institution.

In a precedential order in Light & Wonder, Inc. v. Evolution Malta Ltd., IPR2025-01072, Paper 30 (Director June 22, 2026), however, the director waived the 14-day deadline and extended it to 30 days. The USPTO has now incorporated that change into its published director review process.

The updated process explains that the deadline may be extended in exceptional circumstances, provided that “the trial has not progressed meaningfully.” Examples of exceptional circumstances include:

  • Dismissal of all or substantially all claims in co-pending litigation
  • Findings of fact and conclusions of law rendering all or substantially all challenged claims invalid in litigation
  • Violation of a Sotera stipulation

Parties seeking an extension based on exceptional circumstances must email Director_PTABDecision_Review@uspto.gov, copy counsel for all parties, and explain in three sentences or fewer why an extension is warranted. The remaining parties will then be given an opportunity to respond.



read more

BLOG EDITORS

Paul Devinsky

Amol Parikh

Jodi Benassi

STAY CONNECTED

Subscribe

TOPICS

ARCHIVES