IP UPDATE
Exploring the Latest in Intellectual Property Law
IP UPDATE
Exploring the Latest in Intellectual Property Law
US Court of Appeals
Subscribe to US Court of Appeals's Posts

Beach Buggy Battle: Stipulation Insufficient to Establish Trademark Distinctiveness

by | Jan 30, 2025 |

The US Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit found that a district court does not need to accept both parties’ stipulation that a mark is distinctive but instead is permitted to make an evidentiary inquiry in determining whether the mark is distinctive or generic. Moke America LLC v. Moke Int’l Ltd., Case No. 23-1634 (4th Cir. Jan. 15, 2025) (King, Groh, JJ.) (Richardson, J., dissenting).

Starting in the 1960s, British Motor Corporation (BMC) sold vehicles colloquially referred to as “Mokes” in the United Kingdom, Australia, and Portugal. By the time BMC ceased production in 1993, Mokes had garnered a small but devoted following for use as beach buggies in the United States, the Caribbean, and Australia.

In August 2015, Moke International and Moke USA sold their first vehicle using the MOKE mark and subsequently sought trademark registration. One year later, Moke America began US sales of vehicles using the MOKE mark. Both parties described their vehicles as being reengineered and redesigned versions of the BMC Moke.

The present dispute began when Moke America opposed Moke International and Moke USA’s registration based on priority use of the MOKE mark. The Trademark Trial & Appeal Board dismissed the opposition. Moke America then filed a district court complaint seeking a declaration of trademark ownership and asserting trademark infringement. Moke International and Moke USA counterclaimed for a declaration of trademark ownership and trademark infringement, as well as affirmance of the Board’s dismissal.

A party claiming ownership of a mark bears the burden of proving distinctiveness. A generic term is not distinctive. Generic terms in trademark law are those that describe a genus or class of which a particular product is a member, such as “CONVENIENT STORE retail stores, DRY ICE solid carbon dioxide, and LIGHT BEER ale-type beverages.” Generic terms can never be protected. The purpose of denying protection for these terms is to safeguard the public from having commonly used words and phrases removed from the “linguistic commons.” Certain marks that are originally distinctive may become generic through the public’s pervasive use of the term through a process known as “genericide.” Genericide occurs when the trademark ceases to identify the particular source of a product or service to the public and instead identifies a class of product or service. Common examples include ASPIRIN and ESCALATOR.

Since both parties sought ownership of the MOKE mark, the parties stipulated that the mark was distinctive and not generic. The district court found that a stipulation was insufficient and noted that the parties must set forth evidence that the mark was distinctive and not generic. The district court concluded that MOKE was once inherently distinctive but had become generic before either party sold a vehicle bearing the MOKE mark. Both parties appealed.

Seeking to overturn the district court’s finding of genericness, the parties argued that the district court was required to accept their stipulation of the MOKE mark’s distinctiveness. The Fourth Circuit disagreed, finding that blindly accepting a stipulation was incompatible with the court’s role of [...]

Continue Reading



read more

What’s Shaking? Not an Interlocutory Appellate Decision on Damages

by | Jan 30, 2025 |

The US Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit dismissed and remanded a district court certified interlocutory appeal concerning the standard for calculating a reasonable royalty under the Defend Trade Secrets Act (DTSA). The Court explained that the rate instruction issued by the district court was erroneous because the parties had not yet gone to trial and the plaintiff had not yet proven liability. Therefore, the issue of damages might never arise. Silverthorne Seismic, L.L.C. v. Sterling Seismic Servs., Ltd., Case No. 24-20006 (5th Cir. Jan. 3, 2025) (Smith, Clement, Higginson, JJ.) (Higginson, J., dissenting).

Silverthorne licensed seismic data to Casillas Petroleum Resource Partners II, LLC, an oil and gas exploration company. Under this arrangement, Silverthorne provided data to Sterling, a seismic data processer, which processed the data and sent it to Casillas. Because Sterling’s data processing required more data than what Casillas had paid for, Sterling was only permitted to forward the data that Casillas had licensed. However, Sterling sent Casillas unlicensed data, which Casillas allegedly showed to potential investors.

Silverthorne sued Sterling for trade secret misappropriation under the DTSA and sought reasonable royalties for Sterling’s improper disclosure. Shortly before trial, the district court issued an order adopting the Fifth Circuit’s definition of “reasonable royalty” in University Computing (1974), which, in this case, would have required Silverthorne to prove what the parties “would have agreed to for . . . use [of] the alleged trade secret.” University Computing predates the DTSA, which provides for reasonable royalties for “disclosure or use of a trade secret.” Silverthorne appealed the order, noting that it would not be able to prove what Sterling would have agreed to pay to use the data, since Sterling was a data processor and not an end user. The district court certified the following question for appeal:

[W]hether a plaintiff is entitled to prove reasonable royalty damages under the DTSA using willing buyer(s) detached from the parties to the litigation when willing buyers (here, oil and gas exploration companies) exist for plaintiff’s alleged trade secret (here, seismic data), but the defendant and comparable entities (here, seismic processors) do not buy or license that trade secret.

An administrative panel of the Fifth Circuit granted leave to appeal.

Majority Opinion

The Fifth Circuit dismissed the appeal as not involving a controlling question of law. The Court explained that interlocutory appeals are only permitted where an order involves a controlling question of law, the resolution of which would materially and immediately affect the outcome of litigation in the district court. The Fifth Circuit emphasized that a question is not controlling just because the answer would complicate a litigant’s ability to make its case or because the answer could save the parties from a post-judgment appeal. Applying these principles, the Court reasoned that damages issues generally do not control a case until the plaintiff establishes liability, unless the damages issue would be dispositive. Because Silverthorne had not yet established liability and was not barred from proving damages under the district court’s definition [...]

Continue Reading



read more

Bottling the Truth: Equivalence and Reverse Equivalence

by | Jan 30, 2025 |

The US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit ruled that the “substantially the same way” comparison in connection with a doctrine of equivalents (DOE) analysis involving a means-plus-function claim limitation should focus on the overall structure corresponding to the claimed function, not on unclaimed structure. Steuben Foods, Inc. v. Shibuya Hoppmann Corp., Case No. 23-1790 (Fed. Cir. Jan. 24, 2025) (Moore, Hughes, Cunningham, JJ.)

Steuben Foods holds patents for an aseptic bottling system designed to sterilize and fill bottles with foodstuffs at speeds exceeding 100 bottles per minute, making the technology suitable for high-volume food production. Steuben sued Shibuya for infringing its patents. At trial, Steuben successfully demonstrated that Shibuya’s aseptic bottling system infringed a patent claim related to a “second sterile region,” a feature designed to pre-sterilize a valve mechanism and prevent contamination. The jury awarded Steuben more than $38 million in damages and, in doing so, rejected Shibuya’s defense under the reverse doctrine of equivalents (RDOE). The RDOE is a rarely invoked defense that is asserted when an accused product, although meeting the literal terms of a claim, operates on fundamentally different principles and thus does not infringe. Despite the jury’s verdict, the district court granted judgment as a matter of law (JMOL) of noninfringement, holding that Shibuya’s RDOE defense precluded infringement. Steuben appealed.

The Federal Circuit reversed the JMOL based on the RDOE, finding that the district court improperly weighed evidence that should have been left to the jury. The Court emphasized that Steuben’s expert testimony constituted substantial evidence supporting the jury’s findings and warranted deference. The Court also rejected Shibuya’s narrow construction of the claimed “second sterile region,” which would have excluded food flow, and affirmed the broader interpretation adopted by the district court (an interpretation the Court noted better aligned with the claim language).

The Federal Circuit noted that it had “previously described RDOE as an ‘anachronistic exception, long mentioned but rarely applied.’” While the Court declined to definitively rule on the RDOE’s continued viability under the Patent Act of 1952, it favorably noted Steuben’s argument that “if a device literally falls within the scope of a claim, but the accused infringer believes the claim is too broad and its device should not infringe, the appropriate recourse is a § 112 challenge, not a claim of noninfringement under RDOE.” In this case, the Federal Circuit concluded that even if Shibuya had made a prima facie case under RDOE that the principle of operation of the accused product was so far removed from the asserted claim, “the jury’s verdict should not have been overturned under RDOE because [Steuben’s expert] provided rebuttal testimony that the jury was entitled to credit. JMOL of noninfringement was therefore improper.”

The district court had also analyzed whether, under the DOE, claimed structures, such as conveyor plates and systems, were equivalent to Shibuya’s rotary wheels and neck grippers. The district court concluded they were not. The district court had construed the term “means for filling the aseptically disinfected plurality of bottles [...]

Continue Reading



read more

Vimeo’s Fleeting Interaction With Videos Doesn’t Negate Safe Harbor Protections

by | Jan 23, 2025 |

The US Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit affirmed a district court’s decision, granting Vimeo qualified protection under the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) safe harbor provision. Capitol Records, LLC v. Vimeo, Inc., Case Nos. 21-2949(L); -2974(Con) (2d Cir. Jan. 13, 2025) (Leval, Parker, Merriam, JJ.) This case addresses, for the second time, whether Vimeo had “red flag knowledge” of the defendant’s copyrighted works under the DMCA.

DMCA Section 512(c) provides a safe harbor that shelters online service providers from liability for indirect copyright infringement on their platforms under certain conditions. Congress provided two exceptions that would remove the safe harbor protection:

  • Actual or red flag knowledge of infringing content
  • The ability to control content while receiving a financial benefit directly attributable to the accused infringement activity.

EMI, an affiliate of Capitol Records, vehemently opposed Vimeo’s inclusion of videos containing EMI’s music on its site and initiated the present suit in 2009. The district court granted summary judgment in favor of Vimeo, dismissing the plaintiffs’ claims on the ground that Vimeo was entitled to the safe harbor protection provided by Section 512(c). EMI appealed.

In a 2016 appeal (Vimeo I ), the Second Circuit considered Vimeo’s activities under the DMCA. In Vimeo I, the Court (in the context of an interlocutory appeal) ruled that the copyright holder must establish that the service provider (e.g., Vimeo) had “knowledge or awareness of infringing content,” and that the service provider bore the initial burden to prove it qualified for the DMCA safe harbor, whereupon the burden shifted to the copyright holder to prove a disqualifying exception.

Knowledge of Infringement

In Vimeo I, the Second Circuit cited its 2012 decision in Viacom Int’l v. You Tube and  explained that red flag knowledge incorporates an objective standard. The facts actually known to the service provider must be sufficient such that a reasonable person would have understood there to be infringement that was not offset by fair use or a license. Vimeo I clarified that service provider employees who are not experts in copyright law cannot be expected to know more than any reasonable person without specialized understanding.

The Second Circuit explained that this knowledge analysis is a fact-intensive one, and that copyright owners cannot rely on service provider employees’ generalized understanding to prove red flag knowledge for any video (or other work). The Vimeo I court also noted that the DMCA did not place a burden on service providers to investigate whether users had acquired licenses. In Vimeo I, the Second Circuit further instructed that because the legal community cannot agree on a universal understanding of fair use, it would be unfair to expect “untutored” service provider employees to determine whether a given video is not fair use on its face.

Right and Ability to Control

In analyzing what constitutes the right and ability to control, the Second Circuit emphasized that Congress’ purpose behind the DMCA was to effect a compromise between rightsholders and safe harbor claimants: “Congress recognized that the [...]

Continue Reading



read more

Untwisting the Fixation Requirement: Flexible Rules on Moveable Sculptures

by | Jan 23, 2025 |

The US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reversed and remanded a district court’s dismissal of a claim of copyright infringement for kinetic and manipulable sculptures, finding that movable structures were sufficiently “fixed” in a tangible medium for copyright purposes. Tangle, Inc. v. Aritzia, Inc., et al., Case No. 23-3707 (9th Cir. Jan. 14, 2024) (Koh, Johnstone, Simon, JJ.)

Tangle, a toy company, holds copyright registrations for seven kinetic and manipulable sculptures, each made from 17 or 18 identical, connected 90-degree curved tubular segments. These sculptures can be twisted or turned 360 degrees at the joints, allowing for various poses. Aritzia, a lifestyle apparel brand, used similar sculptures in its retail store displays, leading Tangle to file a lawsuit alleging copyright and trade dress infringement. Aritzia’s sculptures were larger, were a different color, and had a chrome finish.

The Copyright Act requires that a work of authorship be “fixed in any tangible medium of expression.” 17 U.S.C. § 102(a). At the pleading stage, the district court concluded that the sculptures were not fixed and thus dismissed Tangle’s copyright claim. The district court also dismissed the trade dress claim for failure to provide adequate notice of the asserted trade dress. Tangle appealed.

While the Ninth Circuit agreed with the district court’s dismissal of the trade dress claim, it disagreed with the district court’s ruling on the copyright claim. Comparing the kinetic, movable sculptures to music, movies, and dance, the Court found that Tangle’s dynamic sculptures were entitled to copyright protection and that Tangle adequately alleged valid copyrights in its sculptures. The Court held that the works’ ability to move into various poses did not, by itself, support the conclusion that they were not “fixed” in a tangible medium for copyright purposes.

The Ninth Circuit held that under the “extrinsic test” test, which looks at “the objective similarities of the two works, focusing only on the protectable elements of the plaintiff’s expression,” as set forth in the Court’s 2018 decision in Rentmeester v. Nike, Tangle plausibly alleged copying of its protected works by alleging that the creative choices it made in selecting and arranging elements of its copyrighted works were substantially similar to the choices Aritzia made in creating its sculptures.

Since Aritzia failed to dispute that Tangle had properly alleged copying, the Ninth Circuit stated that Tangle only needed to show that the sculptures were substantially similar to prove infringement. Applying its 2004 decision in Swirsky v. Carey, the Ninth Circuit explained that “substantial similarity can be found in a combination of elements, even if those elements are individually unprotected.”

The Ninth Circuit found that the copyrighted and accused sculptures were similar enough to the ordinary observer to constitute infringement because both were comprised of identical, connected 90-degree curved tubular segments that could be twisted and manipulated to create many different poses. The Court further explained that the vast range of possible expressions could afford the sculptures broad copyright protection.



read more

Complex or Not Written Description Is Evaluated Against Claims

by | Jan 23, 2025 |

The US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit reversed a district court’s ruling of invalidity for lack of written description, finding that the district court erred in its analysis of written description because patents must be evaluated based on the claims themselves, not on their construction. In re Entresto, Case No. 23-2218 (Fed. Cir. Jan. 10, 2025) (Lourie, Prost, Reyna, JJ.)

Novartis owns an approved new drug application (NDA) for a combination therapy of valsartan and sacubitril that Novartis markets under the brand name Entresto®. The term “combination therapy” is used to describe pharmaceuticals where two or more active pharmaceutical ingredients are combined in a single method of treatment. Entresto® is protected by several patents, including the patent at issue. Several generic pharmaceutical manufacturers, including MSN, filed abbreviated new drug applications (ANDAs) seeking to market generic versions of Entresto® prior to the expiration of Novartis’ patent. Novartis sued for infringement.

A unique property of Entresto® is the specific form taken by the active pharmaceutical ingredients, valsartan and sacubitril. The valsartan and sacubitril in Entresto® are present in what is known as a “complex,” meaning the two drugs are bonded together by weak, noncovalent bonds. At issue before the district court was the construction of the claim term “wherein said [valsartan and sacubitril] are administered in combination.” The inquiry focused on whether “in combination” required the valsartan and sacubitril to be chemically separated molecules (not in the form of a complex). The district court adopted Novartis’ proposal to give the term its plain and ordinary meaning because the intrinsic record was silent as to whether the molecules must be separate and not complexed. The complexed form of valsartan and sacubitril was not developed until four years after the priority date of the patent.

After the district court declined to adopt MSN’s “complexed” claim construction, MSN stipulated to infringement. The case proceeded to a bench trial on the issue of validity. The district court found the patent not invalid for obviousness, lack of enablement, and indefiniteness. However, the district court ruled that because the patent did not disclose the complexed form of valsartan and sacubitril, it was invalid for lack of written description. Novartis appealed.

Novartis argued that a complex of valsartan and sacubitril was an after-arising invention that need not have been enabled or described. The Federal Circuit agreed, finding that because the patent did not claim the complexed form of valsartan and sacubitril, those complexes need not have been described. The Court cited its “long-recognized” rule that “the invention is, for purposes of the written description inquiry, whatever is now claimed.” All that was required to meet the written description requirement was a disclosure sufficient to show that the inventors possessed a pharmaceutical composition comprising valsartan and sacubitril administered in combination. The Federal Circuit found that by considering what the claims were “construed to cover,” the district court improperly conflated the distinct issues of patentability and infringement. The Federal Circuit reversed the district court’s finding of invalidity for lack [...]

Continue Reading



read more

A Lynk to the Past: Published Applications Are Prior Art as of Filing Date

by | Jan 23, 2025 |

The US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirmed a Patent Trial & Appeal Board decision finding challenged claims invalid based on a published patent application that, in an inter partes review (IPR) proceeding, was found to be prior art as of its filing date rather than its publication date. Lynk Labs, Inc. v. Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd., Case No. 23-2346 (Fed. Cir. Jan. 14, 2025) (Prost, Lourie, Stark, JJ.)

Samsung filed a petition for IPR challenging claims of a Lynk Labs patent. Samsung’s challenge relied on a patent application filed before the priority date of the challenged patent. However, the application was not published until after the priority date of the challenged patent. The Board rejected Lynk Labs’ argument that the application could not serve as prior art and determined the challenged claims to be unpatentable. Lynk Labs appealed to the Federal Circuit, raising three arguments.

Lynk Labs’ first argument was that the application could not serve as prior art because the publication date meant that it was not publicly available until after the priority date of the challenged patent. Pre-America Invents Act (AIA) law applied. Lynk Labs cited 35 U.S.C. § 311(b), restricting IPR petitioners to challenges “on the basis of prior art consisting of patents or printed publications.” While Lynk Labs admitted that the published application was a printed application, it denied that it was a prior art printed publication.

The Federal Circuit reviewed the issue de novo as a question of statutory interpretation. The Court noted that §§ 102(e)(1) and (2) carve out a different rule for published patent applications than the test for §§ 102(a) and (b) prior art. Under the statute, a patent application filed in the United States before an invention claimed in a later filed application qualifies as prior art if the application is published or a patent is granted on it.

Lynk Labs did not dispute that, under § 102(e)(2), an application resulting in an issued patent can be prior art, even if the patent is granted after an invention’s priority date, as long as the application is filed before the challenged invention priority date. However, Lynk Labs took issue with the fact that the Board applied the same principle, under § 102(e)(1), to applications that are published but do not become patents.

The Federal Circuit explained that the plain language of the statute permitted IPR challenges based on such applications and rejected Lynk Labs’ arguments that the statute should be interpreted differently. Lynk Labs argued that when Congress enacted § 311(b), it transplanted the term “printed publications” from case law, along with that case law’s “old soil” that established that the application would not be prior art.

In support of its argument, Lynk Labs cited case law that in its view suggested that patent applications are never prior art printed publications. However, the Federal Circuit distinguished those cases on the basis they were decided at a time before applications were published and therefore did not address published applications. Lynk [...]

Continue Reading



read more

No Co-Inventorship Absent Corroborated Conception

by | Jan 23, 2025 |

In a patent case concerning cryptocurrency data mining, the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirmed a district court’s grant of summary judgment and its ruling that a state law conversion claim was preempted by patent law of inventorship. The Court also affirmed the denial of a correction to the inventorship claim. BearBox LLC v. Lancium LLC, Case No. 23-1922 (Fed. Cir. Jan. 13, 2025) (Stoll, Chen, Bryson, JJ.)

BearBox was an entity founded by Austin Storms that developed and designed mobile cryptocurrency data centers. It operated a half-megawatt data center but was unprofitable as a consequence of the high cost of electricity and the data center’s high energy requirements. Lancium was an entity that aimed to co-locate data centers at wind farms to use the highly variable power generated for data mining but sell excess electricity to the grid when electricity cost was high. BearBox and Lancium met in 2019 at a cryptocurrency mining summit. At that time, BearBox was looking to find customers for its newly developed BearBox containers, and Lancium was in the market for those containers. Both BearBox and Lancium had developed similar software to detect profitable time periods for cryptocurrency mining. Their systems aimed to mine cryptocurrency during periods when electricity prices were low, while selling the energy to the grid when prices were high. Lancium disclosed these concepts in an international patent application filed 15 months before Storms met anyone at Lancium.

BearBox’s system was discussed over dinner at the summit and in a single email exchange afterwards. However, BearBox never disclosed any source code associated with the BearBox system to Lancium. The email exchange was the last communication between the two parties. About five months after the meeting, Lancium filed a patent application that related to a set of computing systems configured to perform computational operations using electricity from a power grid and to a control system that monitored a set of conditions and received power option data based at least in part on a power option algorithm. After that application matured into a patent, BearBox filed suit asserting sole or joint inventorship of the patent and conversion under Louisiana state law.

Lancium moved for summary judgment on the conversion claim. The district court granted the motion, noting that federal patent law preempted the claim. However, the district court denied Lancium’s motion for summary judgment on the inventorship claims – claims that were then heard at a bench trial. At trial, the district court concluded that BearBox failed to prove by clear and convincing evidence that BearBox’s founder, Storms, conceived any part of the claimed invention. BearBox appealed.

The Federal Circuit began by assessing the ruling on preemption of BearBox’s conversion claim. Relying on its 2005 decision in Ultra-Precision Mfg. v. Ford Motor, the Court noted that although the state law of conversion does not squarely implicate federal patent law, the way a conversion claim is pled may “[stand] as an obstacle to the accomplishment and execution of the full purposes [...]

Continue Reading



read more

Lager Than Life: $56 Million Verdict in Beer Trademark Dispute Still on Tap

by | Jan 16, 2025 |

The US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit upheld a $56 million trial verdict in a trademark dispute, finding that the evidence supported the jury’s conclusion that a beer company’s rebranding of one its beers infringed a competitor’s trademark. Stone Brewing Co., LLC v. Molson Coors Beverage Company USA LLC, Case No. 23-3142 (9th Cir. Dec. 30, 2024) (Graber, Friedland, Bumatay, JJ.) (nonprecedential).

Stone Brewing sued Molson Coors in 2018 alleging that Molson changed its packaging of Keystone Light to emphasize the word “stone” in its “Own the Stone” marketing campaign, and that this change infringed Stone Brewing’s trademarks and caused consumer confusion. Molson raised a variety of defenses, all of which were rejected. A jury found infringement and ultimately awarded Stone Brewing $56 million. Molson appealed.

Molson argued that the district court erred in finding that the four-year laches clock did not bar Stone Brewing’s Lanham Act claims. The Ninth Circuit found that the laches clock began running in 2017 when Molson launched the “Own the Stone” campaign, to which all of Stone Brewing’s claims related. The Court noted that prior to 2017, Molson never referred to Keystone as anything other than Keystone in its packaging, marketing, or advertising materials, and specifically never broke up the product name “Keystone” and used the term “Stones” to refer to the number of beers in a case (“30 stones”) or as a catch phrase (e.g., “Hold my Stones”). Thus, the Court found that Stone Brewing brought the suit within the four-year statute of limitations period.

Molson also argued that the district court erred in refusing to set aside the jury verdict on the ground that Molson had a superior interest in the STONE mark. Stone Brewing applied to register the STONE mark in 1996, and the Ninth Circuit found there was substantial evidence that Molson did not approve production of packaging that used “Stone” before that date.

Molson argued that the district court erred in refusing to set aside the jury verdict on likelihood of confusion. The Ninth Circuit disagreed, explaining that Stone Brewing provided evidence from which a jury could plausibly conclude there was “actual confusion” by distributors and customers who thought that Stone Brewing sold Keystone Light. The Court noted that Molson expressly de-emphasized “Keystone” and instead highlighted “Stone” in its 2017 product refresh. The Court also explained that both brands compete in the same beer space, use the same marketing and distribution channels, and are relatively inexpensive products, all of which allowed the jury to plausibly conclude that Molson’s 2017 product refresh of Keystone Light was likely to cause consumer confusion.

Molson also challenged the damages award. At trial, Stone Brewing sought damages in three categories:

  • $32.7 million for past lost profits
  • $141.4 million for future lost profits
  • $41.8 million for corrective advertising.

The jury returned a verdict of $56 million in general damages, which was about one quarter of the requested damages, but did not indicate what amount came from each category. Molson argued that [...]

Continue Reading



read more

Pink Is Not the New Black: See Functionality Doctrine

by | Jan 16, 2025 |

The US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirmed a Trademark Trial & Appeal Board decision canceling trademarks for the color pink for ceramic hip components, stating that substantial evidence supported the Board’s findings that the color pink as used in the ceramic components was functional. CeramTec GmbH v. CoorsTek Bioceramics LLC, Case No. 23-1502 (Fed. Cir. Jan. 3, 2025) (Lourie, Taranto, Stark, JJ.)

Trademarks cannot be functional. The functionality doctrine prevents the registration of useful product features as trademarks. As explained by the Supreme Court (1995) in Qualitex v. Jacobson Prods.:

The functionality doctrine prevents trademark law, which seeks to promote competition by protecting a firm’s reputation, from instead inhibiting legitimate competition by allowing a producer to control a useful product feature. It is the province of patent law, not trademark law, to encourage invention by granting inventors a monopoly over new product designs or functions for a limited time, 35 U.S.C. §§ 154, 173, after which competitors are free to use the innovation. If a product’s functional features could be used as trademarks, however, a monopoly over such features could be obtained without regard to whether they qualify as patents and could be extended forever (because trademarks may be renewed in perpetuity).

CeramTec manufactures ceramic hip components made from zirconia-toughened alumina (ZTA) ceramic containing chromium oxide (chromia). The addition of chromia gives the ceramic a characteristic pink color. CeramTec obtained trademarks for the pink color as used in these components. CoorsTek Bioceramics, a competitor, challenged the trademarks, arguing that the pink color of the ceramic was functional. The Board agreed, finding that the pink color was functional because it resulted from the addition of chromia, which provided material benefits to the ceramic, such as increased hardness. CeramTec appealed.

The Federal Circuit applied the four-factor Morton-Norwich (CCPA 1982) test to determine functionality:

  • Existence of a utility patent
  • Advertising materials
  • Availability of functionally equivalent designs
  • Comparatively simple or cheap manufacture.

The Federal Circuit found the first and second Morton-Norwich prongs were strongly in CoorsTek’s favor, as CeramTec held multiple patents that disclosed the functional benefits of chromia, such as toughness, hardness, and stability of the ZTA ceramic. Similarly, the Court found that CeramTec had multiple advertising materials that promoted its product’s functional advantages.

The Federal Circuit found that there was no evidence of alternative designs that were functionally equivalent to the pink ZTA ceramic, rendering the third factor neutral. The Court also found the fourth factor neutral because there was conflicting evidence regarding whether chromia reduced manufacturing costs.

Finally, CeramTec argued that CoorsTek should be precluded from challenging the trademarks based on the doctrine of unclean hands. The Federal Circuit acknowledged that the Board spoke too strongly in suggesting that the unclean hands defense is categorically unavailable in functionality proceedings but found any error to be harmless. The Court confirmed that the Board had adequately considered the defense and found it inapplicable in this case.



read more

BLOG EDITORS

Paul Devinsky

Amol Parikh

Jodi Benassi

STAY CONNECTED

Subscribe

TOPICS

ARCHIVES