You searched for Trademark appeal | Page 10 of 77

Results for "Trademark appeal"

Pick a lane: USPTO Director nixes IPR for inconsistent claim construction positions

by Lauren Hong | Nov 20, 2025 | Patents

The Director of the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) vacated a Patent Trial & Appeal Board decision instituting an inter partes review (IPR) proceeding after finding that the petitioner advanced inconsistent claim construction positions before the Board and in parallel district court litigation without adequate justification. Tesla, Inc. v. Intellectual Ventures II LLC, IPR2025-00340 (PTAB Nov. 5, 2025) (Stewart, USPTO Dir.)

Intellectual Ventures II LLC (IV), the patent owner, requested director review of the Board’s decision granting institution, arguing that the decision should be reversed because Tesla, Inc., the petitioner, failed to adequately explain why it advanced inconsistent claim construction positions before the district court and the Board.

In the district court, Tesla opposed IV’s plain and ordinary meaning construction of the claim limitation “generating said target feature information from said data statistics” in independent claim 1. Tesla argued that the limitation was indefinite because a person of ordinary skill in the art could not determine its meaning and scope with reasonable certainty. In contrast, before the Board, Tesla asserted that “no claim term requires express construction” and that the challenged claims should be given their plain and ordinary meaning.

IV contended that Tesla’s justification (that it was statutorily prohibited from raising indefiniteness challenges in an IPR) was insufficient to explain the divergent positions. While the Board’s rules do not categorically prohibit petitioners from taking inconsistent claim construction positions across forums, petitioners must explain why those differences are warranted.

The Director agreed with IV, finding Tesla’s rationale inadequate. The Director explained that simply asserting that indefiniteness cannot be raised in an IPR does not explain why a petitioner should be permitted to raise inconsistent invalidity challenges in two forums. In vacating the institution decision, the Director emphasized that permitting such inconsistencies without proper justification would undermine the USPTO’s goal of “providing greater predictability and certainty in the patent system.”

USPTO Director to decide AIA petitions

by Amol Parikh | Oct 23, 2025 | America Invents Act, Patents

The United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) issued a memorandum on October 17, 2025, titled “Director Institution of AIA Trial Proceedings,” providing updated guidance to the Patent Trial & Appeal Board regarding the standards and procedures for instituting trial proceedings under the America Invents Act (AIA), including inter partes review (IPR) and post-grant review (PGR).

Since the AIA’s enactment in 2012, the Board’s trial proceedings have become a central mechanism for challenging the validity of issued patents. The institution phase, in which the Board decides whether to proceed with a trial, has been shaped by a series of precedential decisions and evolving USPTO policies, particularly regarding discretionary denials under 35 U.S.C. §§ 314(a) and 325(d).

The October 17, 2025, memorandum states that to “improve efficiency, consistency, and adherence to the statutory requirements for institution of trial, effective October 20, 2025, the Director will determine whether to institute trial for [IPR and PGR] proceedings.” If the Director determines that review is appropriate based on discretionary, merits-based, or other considerations, the USPTO will issue a summary notice granting institution for at least one challenged claim. If the Director determines review is not appropriate, the USPTO will issue a summary notice denying institution. For cases involving novel or complex issues, the Director may issue a detailed decision or refer the matter to one or more Board judges. A three-member Board panel will conduct all instituted reviews. The memorandum also notes that the USPTO has issued more than 580 prior decisions under interim processes that offer guidance on handling of discretionary factors.

Double trouble: Proposed IPR institution changes would limit duplicative proceedings

by Rick Evans | Oct 23, 2025 | America Invents Act, Patents

The United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) proposed changes to the rules governing inter partes reviews (IPRs) before the Patent Trial & Appeal Board, including setting limits on use of IPR proceedings for patent claims that have already been challenged in a prior proceeding. According to the USPTO, the proposal is aimed at preventing duplicative litigation against patent holders and promoting fairness, efficiency, and predictability in patent disputes.

The Notice of Proposed Rulemaking introduces changes to 37 C.F.R. § 42.108 that would bar the institution of IPRs in cases where:

A petitioner refuses to stipulate that it won’t pursue invalidity challenges under §§ 102 or 103 in other venues, such as a district court or the US International Trade Commission (ITC).
The challenged claims were found not invalid or not unpatentable in a prior district court, ITC, Board reexamination, or Federal Circuit proceeding.
Parallel litigation involving the patent will likely reach a decision before the final IPR written decision.

The proposed rule would provide an exception to the proposed IPR limitations in “extraordinary circumstances,” such as a bad faith institution of a previous IPR or a substantial change in law that renders a prior challenge irrelevant.

The USPTO explained that the proposed changes will offer greater certainty for patent owners by reducing serial validity challenges, improving judicial efficiency by minimizing duplicative proceedings, and facilitating lower litigation costs and stronger investment incentives. The USPTO noted that the changes would benefit smaller technology companies, which often lack the litigation resources of larger companies and are more vulnerable to the effects of weaker patent rights.

The proposed changes would represent a significant shift in the availability of IPR for petitioners and would alter the timing and strategy of decisions about whether to pursue an IPR. Comments on the proposed rule changes are due by November 17, 2025, and can be submitted via the federal eRulemaking portal.

Associational standing requires concrete, non-speculative harm

by Taylor MacDonald | Oct 16, 2025 | Patents

The US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirmed a district court decision dismissing a lawsuit against the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) for lack of associational standing since no member of the association had standing to sue. US Inventor, Inc. v. United States Patent and Trademark Office, Case No. 24-1396 (Fed. Cir. Oct. 3, 2025) (Lourie, Reyna, Stark, JJ.)

US Inventor and National Small Business United (collectively, the plaintiffs) jointly filed a petition for rulemaking at the USPTO to amend the regulations that control the USPTO’s discretion to institute inter partes review (IPR) or post-grant review (PGR) proceedings. The plaintiffs proposed five instances in which the USPTO would have no discretion to institute an IPR or PGR. Separately, the USPTO issued a request for public comments regarding institution discretion two months after the plaintiffs filed their petition.

Eventually, the USPTO denied the petition, citing redundancy with the request for public comment. The USPTO assured the plaintiffs that their request would be considered as a public comment.

In response, the plaintiffs filed a complaint in federal court claiming that the USPTO had committed three errors:

The USPTO’s assurance that the plaintiffs’ requests would be considered “in unspecified ‘future rulemaking’” violated its duty to conclude the matter in an appropriate amount of time, as required by the Administrative Procedure Act (APA).
Under the APA, the USPTO failed to state adequate grounds for denial.
The USPTO violated the America Invents Act (AIA) by “fail[ing] to promulgate notice-and-comment rulemaking.”

The USPTO filed a motion to dismiss, arguing that the plaintiffs lacked standing. The district court granted the motion, finding that the plaintiffs had neither organizational nor associational standing. The plaintiffs appealed.

Because the issue of associational standing was not specific to patent law, the Federal Circuit applied the law of the US Circuit Court for the District of Columbia, which reviews standing de novo.

Of the three requirements for associational standing (standing of at least one associational member, applicability of the issue to the association’s purposes, and individual member participation not required for the claim or relief), only the first was at issue.

The Federal Circuit concluded that since no member of the plaintiffs’ organizations had standing to sue, the plaintiffs themselves did not have associational standing. The Court noted that the plaintiffs had failed to claim anything more than speculative harm to any member resulting from the USPTO’s denial of plaintiffs’ petition. The Court found the “risk” of patent cancellation during an IPR or PGR proceeding insufficiently “actual or imminent” to afford any member standing to sue.

The Federal Circuit explained that a requisite third-party action outside of the plaintiffs’ control would need to occur before any harm to the plaintiffs’ members could be concretely realized. Third-party actions, including the filing of a petition for an IPR or PGR proceeding, the USPTO’s institution of such proceeding, and the USPTO’s ultimate decision in such proceeding, constitute multiple steps in the chain of events that might result in harm [...]

Continue Reading

Bank on it: Likelihood of confusion analysis requires factual consistency when evaluating DuPont factors

by Taylor MacDonald | Oct 2, 2025 | Trademarks

The US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit reversed in part a decision by the Trademark Trial & Appeal Board and remanded for new analysis of two factors under the Dupont likelihood of confusion test. The Court emphasized that the factual determination in factor two (similarity of the parties’ goods or services) should remain consistent through the analyses for factors one and six. Apex Bank v. CC Serve Corp., Case No. 23-2143 (Fed. Cir. Sept. 25, 2025) (Moore, Hughes, Cunningham, JJ.)

CC Serve has held a registration for the word mark ASPIRE in connection with credit card services since 1998. In 2019, Apex Bank, a Tennessee-based banking chain, filed intent-to-use applications at the US Patent & Trademark Office (PTO) for marks incorporating ASPIRE BANK for use in “banking and financing services.” CC Serve, which partners with banks to issue and service credit cards, filed a letter of protest during Apex’s trademark prosecution. Despite CC Serve’s objections, the PTO published Apex’s marks in December 2019. CC Serve then formally opposed the marks, and the Board sustained the opposition, finding a likelihood of consumer confusion. Apex appealed.

The Federal Circuit reviewed the Board’s findings under the DuPont framework, which assesses likelihood of confusion based on multiple factors. Apex challenged the Board’s analysis of three specific factors:

Factor two: Similarity of the parties’ goods/services
Factor six: Strength of the prior mark in the marketplace
Factor one: Similarity of the marks themselves

The Federal Circuit upheld the Board’s finding under factor two, agreeing that “credit card services” and “banking/financing services” are highly similar based on their definitions and market overlap.

However, the Federal Circuit found fault with the Board’s analysis under factor six, which evaluates third-party use of similar marks to determine the strength of the contested mark. Apex submitted many examples of ASPIRE marks used in both the credit card and broader financial services industries. The Board, however, narrowed its focus to only those marks used in credit card services, excluding broader banking and financial services. The Federal Circuit concluded that this was inconsistent with the Board’s finding under factor two regarding the similarity of the parties’ goods and services. The Court instructed that on remand, the Board should consider third-party ASPIRE marks across both industries.

The Federal Circuit also directed the Board to revisit factor one, which assesses the similarity of the marks in light of the strength of the prior mark. Whether the strength of CC Serve’s mark is diminished when viewed in the broader financial services context could affect the “overall commercial impression” of the marks and the likelihood of confusion.

The Federal Circuit emphasized that factual determinations, particularly regarding the similarity of goods and services, must be applied consistently across the DuPont factors. The Court therefore remanded the case to the Board for reconsideration of factors one and six considering this guidance.

Oh brother: Draft settlement agreements carefully

by Ashley K. Justice | Sep 18, 2025 | Copyrights, Trademarks

The US Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit affirmed a district court judgment, finding that the plaintiff failed to sufficiently prove damages for its copyright claim, the jury instructions accurately applied the sophisticated consumer exception to initial-interest confusion, and the district court properly submitted ambiguous contract language to the jury for interpretation. Hoffmann Brothers Heating and Air Conditioning, Inc. v. Hoffmann Air Conditioning & Heating LLC, Case No. 24-1289 (8th Cir. Sept. 8, 2025) (Graza, Stras, Kobes, JJ.)

Brothers Tom and Robert Hoffmann were partners in Hoffmann Brothers. After Robert bought out Tom, they entered into a settlement agreement that included a four-year restriction barring Tom from using the name “Hoffmann” in connection with an HVAC business. After four years, Tom began using “Hoffmann Air Conditioning & Heating, LLC” (Hoffmann AC). Hoffmann AC’s advertising agency later mistakenly used pictures of Hoffmann Brothers. Hoffmann Brothers sued for trademark and copyright infringement. Hoffmann AC prevailed on some issues at summary judgment, and the jury reached a mixed verdict on the remaining claims. Both parties were denied attorneys’ fees, and Hoffmann Brothers appealed.

On appeal, the Eighth Circuit affirmed that Hoffmann Brothers did not sufficiently prove damages for its copyright claim based on Hoffmann AC’s use of its photographs. Because the photographs were unregistered works, Hoffmann Brothers was required to prove actual damages and/or additional profits of the infringer attributable to the infringement. Hoffmann Brothers’ only evidence of actual damages was Hoffmann AC’s monthly fee paid to its marketing agency. The Court found that using the monthly fee was too speculative because it did not reflect the benefit to Hoffmann AC or the harm to Hoffmann Brothers. For evidence of additional profits, Hoffmann Brothers’ expert report failed to link the use of the photographs to Hoffmann AC’s gross revenue. The Court explained that the Hoffmann Brothers could have linked additional profits attributable to the use of the photographs by, for example, demonstrating that:

Hoffmann AC gained customers because of the ads.
The photographs actually influenced purchasing decisions.
There was spike in monthly revenue that coincided with use of the photographs.

Regarding Hoffmann Brothers’ trademark claim, the jury found that the names were not so similar as to cause confusion. Hoffmann Brothers appealed, arguing that the district court erred in its jury instructions. The Eighth Circuit rejected the argument, finding the instructions fair and legally adequate. The instruction was directed to the issue of initial-interest confusion (a concept not adopted by Missouri courts), which occurs when consumer confusion arises at the outset, even if no sale ultimately results. The Court explained that under Eighth Circuit precedent, a sophisticated consumer exception applies to this theory, meaning that consumers who exercise a high degree of care are less likely to be initially confused. Here, the district court instructed the jury to consider initial-interest confusion only if it found that Hoffmann Brothers’ customers were not sophisticated. While the Eighth Circuit acknowledged some hesitation about the assumption that sophisticated consumers are never susceptible to initial-interest [...]

Continue Reading

Solidarity: Union’s commercial use may be Lanham Act violation

by Cecilia Choy, PhD | Sep 18, 2025 | Trademarks

The US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reversed and remanded a district court’s dismissal of a Lanham Act action, finding that this case was not the rare instance where there was no plausible likelihood that a reasonably prudent consumer would be confused about the origin of the goods that allegedly bore the distinctive marks at issue. Trader Joe’s Co. v. Trader Joe’s United, Case Nos. 24-720; -2826 (9th Cir. Sept. 8, 2025) (Sanchez, Thomas, Donato, JJ.)

Trader Joe’s, a US grocery store chain, owns the red typeface logo and sells reusable tote bags and other branded goods bearing its marks. Trader Joe’s United (TJU), a labor union representing certain Trader Joe’s employees, markets (for profit) various products via its website, including reusable tote bags. Its website header features a logo that uses the distinctive red typeface and the concentric circle design in Trader Joe’s logo. The image below shows totes from Trader Joe’s (left) and TJU (right).

TJU allegedly began using Trader Joe’s marks in commerce, and Trader Joe’s sent TJU a cease-and-desist letter. Trader Joe’s noted that its demand was directed solely at TJU’s commercial use of the marks on merchandise sold to consumers on the TJU website, not the reference to Trader Joe’s to identify the union or discuss the union’s cause.

Trader Joe’s sued TJU, asserting several claims, including trademark infringement, and sought to permanently enjoin TJU from using Trader Joe’s trademarks in connection with the sale of commercial merchandise on the TJU website. Trader Joe’s also sought the destruction of all infringing merchandise and recovery of damages. TJU moved to dismiss, arguing that Trader Joe’s filed its trademark infringement complaint in retaliation over an ongoing labor dispute and asserting that there was no plausible likelihood that a consumer would believe that products sold on TJU’s website were sponsored, endorsed, or approved by Trader Joe’s.

Applying the Sleekcraft likelihood-of-confusion factors, the district court agreed with TJU and noted several differences between the marks. The district court also explained that Trader Joe’s does not sell many of the products sold on TJU’s website, including buttons, t-shirts, and mugs. The district court concluded that confusion about the origin of these products was unlikely for a reasonable consumer because TJU’s website clearly identified itself as a website of a labor union and was openly critical of Trader Joe’s labor practices. Trader Joe’s appealed.

The Ninth Circuit concluded that when the allegations were viewed in the light most favorable to Trader Joe’s, the district court erred when applying the fact-specific likelihood-of-confusion test. To prevail on a trademark infringement claim, Trader Joe’s would need to establish that it had a protectible ownership interest in the mark and that TJU’s use of the mark was likely to cause consumer confusion. To determine whether a reasonably prudent consumer [...]

Continue Reading

Claims barred by laches: Prosecution delay doesn’t pay, nor does skipping evidence of concrete injury

by Courtney Seams | Sep 11, 2025 | Patents

The US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirmed a district court’s judgment for the US Patent & Trademark Office (PTO) on application of prosecution laches in an action under 35 USC § 145. The Federal Circuit also agreed that the district court lacked Article III jurisdiction over certain claims because the plaintiff failed to provide evidence of concrete injury when challenged after initial pleadings. Hyatt v. Stewart, Case Nos. 2018-2390; -2391; -2392; 2019-1049; -1038; -1039; -1070; 2024-1992; -1993; -1994; -1995 (Fed. Cir. Aug. 29, 2025) (Reyna, Wallach, Hughes, JJ.) (precedential).

Gilbert Hyatt filed four GATT bubble patent applications, all of which had claims rejected by the examiner. Hyatt appealed those rejections to the Patent Trial & Appeal Board, which affirmed various rejections of others. Following the Board decisions, Hyatt filed four separate actions in district court under 35 U.S.C. § 145, challenging the PTO rejections. In response, the PTO asserted prosecution laches as an affirmative defense and, in the alternative, invalidity, based on anticipation and lack of written description.

The district court initially ruled in Hyatt’s favor, finding that the PTO’s affirmative defenses failed with respect to the claims for which the Board affirmed the examiner’s rejection. The district court concluded that it lacked Article III jurisdiction over the remaining claims (those for which the Board reversed the examiner) because there was no final agency action as to those claims.

The PTO appealed, arguing that prosecution laches barred all of the claims or, in the alternative, that the claims were invalid. Hyatt cross-appealed, contending that prosecution laches did not apply in § 145 actions or that the district court abused its discretion in applying laches in these specific § 145 actions.

In an earlier appeal, Hyatt I, the Federal Circuit vacated the district court’s rulings on prosecution laches, holding that the district court applied the wrong standard for prosecution laches and had the burden of proving that Hyatt engaged in unreasonable and unexplained delay in prosecuting his applications and that the delay was prejudicial. The panel remanded the case held the issue of Article III jurisdiction in abeyance. On remand, the district court reversed course and found in favor of the PTO on prosecution laches, concluding that Hyatt had unreasonably delayed prosecution in a manner that prejudiced the agency.

Hyatt appealed. The Federal Circuit consolidated the appeals with the earlier stayed jurisdictional issues. The Federal Circuit affirmed the district court’s application of prosecution laches, finding no clear error in its determination that Hyatt’s conduct met the standard for delay and prejudice. The Federal Circuit also agreed that the district court lacked Article III jurisdiction over claims that had not been finally rejected by the PTO, reinforcing that § 145 actions may only proceed where there is a final agency determination resulting in a justiciable controversy.

On the issue of prosecution laches, the Federal Circuit explained that it had already considered and rejected Hyatt’s argument that prosecution laches is unavailable in a § 145 action in Hyatt I, and [...]

Continue Reading

Use of general knowledge in IPR petitions will no longer work

by Ashley K. Justice | Aug 14, 2025 | Patents

On July 31, 2025, the US Patent & Trademark Office (PTO) issued a memo clarifying the requirements under 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(4) for inter partes review (IPR) petitions. The memo emphasizes that petitioners must clearly identify where each element of the challenged claims is found in the prior art patents or printed publications relied upon.

Historically, the Patent Trial & Appeal Board permitted petitioners to rely on applicant admitted prior art (AAPA), expert testimony, common sense, and other forms of general knowledge to fill in missing claim limitations. However, the new guidance states that such general knowledge, including AAPA, can no longer be used to supply missing claim elements. If an IPR petition relies on general knowledge to bridge gaps in the prior art, the Board will now deny institution.

The memo clarifies that § 104(b)(4) does not limit the use of general knowledge to support a motivation to combine or to demonstrate the knowledge of a person of ordinary skill in the art. However, § 104(b)(4) may be narrower than 35 U.S.C. § 311(b). Just weeks before the memo was issued, the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit’s decision in Shockwave Medical. v. Cardiovascular Systems held that AAPA can be used to supply missing claim limitations without violating § 311(b), highlighting a potential tension between the rule and judicial interpretation.

The PTO’s new requirements will apply to all IPR petitions filed on or after September 1, 2025.

Practice note: To meet the threshold for institution, IPR petitioners should ensure that each claim element is explicitly mapped to prior art patents or printed publications. Reliance on general knowledge to fill in missing elements will no longer be sufficient.

Kissing cousins? SUNKIST and KIST deemed confusingly similar

by Sydney E. McDermott | Jul 31, 2025 | Trademarks

The US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit reversed a Trademark Trial & Appeal Board decision, concluding that there was a likelihood of confusion between the marks KIST and SUNKIST when used in connection with soft drinks. Sunkist Growers, Inc. v. Intrastate Distributors, Inc., Case No. 24-1212 (Fed. Cir. July 23, 2025) (Prost, Taranto, Stark, JJ.)

For at least 90 years, Sunkist has offered soft drinks under the SUNKIST trademark both directly to consumers and through its licenses. Intrastate Distributors Inc. (IDI) purchased the KIST brand and proceeded to use the KIST mark for soft drink and sparkling water products. The KIST mark was active for about a decade before being cancelled in 2013. In 2019, IDI filed intent-to-use trademark applications for the KIST mark both in standard characters and in a stylized character form for “[s]oft drinks, namely, sodas and sparkling water; concentrates and syrups for making soft drinks.” Sunkist opposed the registration, arguing the KIST mark was likely to cause confusion with the SUNKIST mark.

Focusing its analysis on the SUNKIST standard character mark, the Board determined that all DuPont factors other than similarity of the marks favored likelihood of confusion. The Board found that the marks were not sufficiently similar because they conveyed different commercial impressions. According to the Board, while SUNKIST referenced the sun, the KIST mark referenced a kiss, relying on the image of lips that appear next to the KIST mark. The Board therefore found no likelihood of confusion between IDI’s marks and the registered SUNKIST marks. Sunkist appealed.

The Federal Circuit began by emphasizing that the KIST mark was not a design mark and the image of lips did not always appear beside the mark. The Court relied on the following image in its opinion, noting that “[n]one of the bottles include a lips image or reference a kiss” and instead “emphasize flavors.”

The Federal Circuit noted that the record contains no evidence concerning the degree of consumer exposure to the mark with the image of lips versus without lips. The Court found that the Board relied too heavily on the KIST mark’s appearance alongside an image of lips, and ultimately determined that substantial evidence did not support the finding that the mark referenced a kiss. The Court noted that while some of the SUNKIST marks contained a sun, many were standard character marks that did not include a sun. The Court thus concluded that substantial evidence did not support a finding that the similarity of the marks favored no likelihood of confusion.

Since the Board had previously found that the remaining DuPont factors favored likelihood of confusion and the Federal Circuit determined that the similarity of the marks also favored likelihood of confusion, the only remaining consideration was actual confusion. Although Sunkist had not proven instances of actual confusion, the Court noted that its precedents had never required actual confusion, [...]

Continue Reading

Older Posts »

« Newer Posts

BLOG EDITORS

Paul Devinsky

Amol Parikh

Jodi Benassi

BLOG EDITORS

STAY CONNECTED

TOPICS

ARCHIVES

RECENT POSTS