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

Don’t get too comfy: Prosecution disclaimer also applies to design patents

by | Jul 24, 2025 |

Concluding that the principles of prosecution history disclaimer apply to design patents, the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit reversed a district court’s denial of judgment as a matter of law and entry of a jury verdict that found liability for design patent infringement. Top Brand, LLC v. Cozy Comfort Company, LLC, Case No. 24-2191 (Fed. Cir. July 17, 2025) (Dyk, Reyna, Stark, JJ.)

Top Brand and Cozy Comfort compete in the market for oversized hooded sweatshirts. Cozy Comfort owns a design patent directed to “the ornamental design for an enlarged over-garment with an elevated marsupial pocket.” It accused Top Brand of infringing the patent through its sale of certain hooded sweatshirts and wearable blankets. In response, Top Brand filed a declaratory judgment action seeking findings of noninfringement and invalidity. Cozy Comfort counterclaimed for design patent and trademark infringement.

During prosecution, Cozy Comfort overcame an anticipation rejection by distinguishing the prior art under the ordinary observer test, pointing to specific features such as the shape and placement of the marsupial pocket and the bottom hem line. Top Brand argued that these statements constituted a clear disclaimer of claim scope, and that the accused products fell within the surrendered subject matter.

The district court disagreed, instructing the jury to compare the accused products to the design as claimed (without considering any prosecution disclaimer). The jury found infringement, and the court entered judgment accordingly, denying Top Brand’s motion for judgment as a matter of law. Top Brand appealed.

Top Brand argued that the district court erred by failing to apply prosecution history disclaimer, asserting that the accused design was within the scope of the subject matter Cozy Comfort had disclaimed. Cozy Comfort responded that the disclaimer doctrine does not apply to design patents and, even if it did, Cozy Comfort’s prosecution statements were not sufficiently clear to constitute a disclaimer.

The Federal Circuit disagreed, concluding that prosecution history disclaimer applies to design patents. The Court reasoned that allowing patentees to recapture disclaimed subject matter in litigation would undermine the integrity of the patent system. The Court emphasized that Cozy Comfort’s statements during prosecution clearly surrendered the identified features as supporting a finding of overall similarity. Because the accused design incorporated those surrendered features, the Court concluded that no reasonable jury could find infringement.

Accordingly, the Federal Circuit reversed the district court’s denial of judgment as a matter of law and vacated the jury’s verdict.



read more

Eleventh Circuit sides with Fourth, Fifth Circuits on bankruptcy discharge exception split

by | Jul 24, 2025 |

Addressing a split among bankruptcy courts in their interpretation of whether a corporate debtor, like an individual debtor, is subject to the exceptions to discharge outlined in 11 U.S.C. § 523(a) when confirming a nonconsensual Subchapter V plan, the US Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit reversed a US Bankruptcy Court for the Middle District of Florida decision. The Eleventh Circuit held that the cross-reference in 11 U.S.C. § 1192 to 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)’s exceptions to discharge applies to both corporate and individual debtors. BenShot, LLC v. 2 Monkey Trading, LLC, Lucky Shot USA, LLC, Case No. 23-12342 (11th Cir. July 9, 2025) (Branch, Lagoa, JJ.) (Luck, J., dissenting).

Prior to filing for chapter 11 protection under Bankruptcy Code Subchapter V, 2 Monkey Trading and Lucky Shot (together, the debtors) were sued by BenShot for violations of the Lanham Act in connection with the debtors’ false advertising that their competing products were produced in the United States. The jury found in favor of BenShot and awarded punitive damages, determining that the debtors acted “maliciously toward” BenShot or “in an intentional disregard” of BenShot’s rights. Following this decision, the debtors filed for bankruptcy and attempted to discharge the jury award owed to BenShot. BenShot argued that the jury award constituted an exception to discharge under § 523(a)(6) for claims involving “willful and malicious injury by the debtor to another entity.” The bankruptcy court, like many bankruptcy courts in other jurisdictions, found in favor of the debtors, holding that § 523(a)’s discharge exceptions exclude corporate debtors and therefore the debtors could discharge BenShot’s debt.

On appeal, the Eleventh Circuit reversed and extended the application of § 523(a) in nonconsensual Subchapter V cases to corporate debtors. It observed that § 1191(c) of Subchapter V enables a debtor, if certain conditions are met, to confirm a nonconsensual plan without adhering to the absolute priority rule, thereby allowing a debtor to receive a discharge and retain assets even when all unsecured creditors are not paid in full. The discharge granted under a confirmed Subchapter V nonconsensual plan is governed by § 1192, which includes an exception to discharge in the form of a cross-reference to § 523(a). The question of whether the exception applies to corporate debtors arises from the text of § 523(a)’s preamble, which uses the term “individual debtor” before listing the exceptions to discharge.

In reaching its decision, the Eleventh Circuit engaged in a plain reading of the language of § 1192, which makes no distinction between individual and corporate debtors. The statute uses the word “debtor,” a term applied elsewhere in the Bankruptcy Code to both individuals and corporate entities. The Court also acknowledged that § 1192 states that the discharge is of a “debt,” which does not distinguish between an individual and a corporation. The Court noted that Congress could have used the term “consumer debt” if it wanted the discharge to apply only to individuals.

The Eleventh Circuit also interpreted the language in § 1192(2) that references [...]

Continue Reading



read more

Clean bill of health: Only domestic activities count when analyzing likelihood of confusion

by | Jul 24, 2025 |

Affirming a summary judgment decision finding no trademark infringement under the Lanham Act, the US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit determined that the district court properly focused on domestic activity with regard to the allegedly infringing trademark. Doctor’s Best, Inc. v. Nature’s Way Products, LLC, Case No. 24-2719 (9th Cir. July 15, 2025) (Paez, Ikuta, Nelson, JJ.) (Ikuta, J., concurring).

Doctor’s Best (DB) manufactures nutritional supplements under the mark NATURE’S DAY at its California facility. Although the products bear English labels compliant with US regulations, they are marketed and sold exclusively in China, South Korea, and Taiwan.

Nature’s Way Products (NWP), owner of the long-standing US trademark NATURE’S WAY, opposed DB’s attempt to register NATURE’S DAY in the United States, citing potential consumer confusion. After NWP sent a cease-and-desist letter, DB preemptively sued for a declaratory judgment of noninfringement. NWP counterclaimed for trademark infringement under Sections 32 and 43(a) of the Lanham Act.

In June 2023, the Supreme Court held in Abitron Austria GmbH v. Hetronic Int’l, Inc. that the Lanham Act’s infringement provisions apply only to domestic “use in commerce.” DB moved for summary judgment, arguing that its only domestic activity – transporting products within the US – did not create a likelihood of confusion among US consumers. The district court agreed, finding that DB’s domestic transport of Nature’s Day products was insufficient to support a claim of infringement. The court concluded that no reasonable jury could find that this conduct would confuse US consumers and granted summary judgment in favor of DB. NWP appealed.

NWP argued that any domestic use in commerce, however minimal, triggered the full likelihood-of-confusion analysis, even if confusion occurred abroad. The Ninth Circuit rejected this interpretation, holding that Abitron requires courts to first identify domestic use before evaluating confusion. The Court found that DB’s manufacturing and transport activities were the only relevant domestic conduct.

Turning to likelihood of confusion, the Ninth Circuit applied the eight-factor test set forth in its 1979 decision in AMF Inc. v. Sleekcraft Boats:

  • Strength of the mark
  • Proximity or relatedness of the goods
  • Similarity of the marks
  • Evidence of actual confusion
  • Marketing channels used
  • Type of goods and the degree of care likely to be exercised by the purchaser
  • Defendant’s intent in selecting the mark
  • The likelihood of expansion of the product lines

Reviewing the Sleekcraft factors, the Ninth Circuit concluded that no genuine dispute existed as to the likelihood of confusion. DB’s products were sold exclusively overseas while NWP’s products were sold only in the US. The Court emphasized that confusion must occur among domestic consumers to be actionable under the Lanham Act, and that did not occur here.

In a concurring opinion, Judge Ikuta agreed with the outcome but clarified that DB’s transport of products constituted a domestic use in commerce. However, she found no genuine issue of material fact regarding whether that use caused domestic confusion, reiterating that Abitron excludes extraterritorial confusion from the analysis.



read more

Victory lap: Extraterritorial injunction permitted for breach of settlement agreement

by | Jul 24, 2025 |

The US Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit upheld a permanent injunction, concluding that the district court properly determined that a party’s violation of a settlement agreement would lead to irreparable harm. Wudi Industrial (Shanghai) Co., Ltd. v. Wong, Case No. 24-1186 (4th Cir. July 11, 2025) (King, Gregory, Rushing, JJ.)

The dispute originated in 2017 when Wudi registered the trademark GTRACING with the US Patent & Trademark Office. Wai L. Wong, asserting prior use of the similar mark GT OMEGA RACING, initiated cancellation proceedings before the Trademark Trial & Appeal Board. In 2020, the Board ruled in Wong’s favor. Wudi sought review in the Eastern District of Virginia under 15 U.S.C. § 1071(b), and Wong counterclaimed for trademark infringement.

In May 2021, the parties entered into a confidential global concurrent-use settlement agreement resolving their litigation. Under the agreement, Wudi was permitted to use GTRACING globally, except in designated regions including multiple European countries. Critically, paragraph 6(b) of the agreement prohibited Wudi from using the phrases “GTRACING” or “GT RACING” in online advertising or social media within the European carve-out. The district court subsequently granted a stay of the dispute pending compliance by the parties.

Following the compliance period, Wong alleged that Wudi violated the agreement by using prohibited terms in online marketing within the restricted regions. The district court granted Wong’s motion to enforce the agreement, ordering Wudi to remove specific content and cease future violations. The district court warned that continued noncompliance could result in contempt proceedings.

Wudi appealed, and the Fourth Circuit initially remanded the case, instructing the district court to apply the four-factor eBay test for injunctive relief. The district court found that Wudi had breached the agreement and that Wong had suffered irreparable harm to the goodwill of its marks. The court concluded that monetary damages were inadequate, the balance of hardships favored Wong, and enforcing the agreement served the public interest. The district court issued a permanent injunction. Wudi appealed again.

Wudi challenged the injunction on multiple grounds, including claims of extraterritorial overreach, improper application of the eBay factors, erroneous breach findings, exclusion of parol evidence, failure to apply the unclean hands doctrine, and improper award of attorneys’ fees.

The Fourth Circuit rejected Wudi’s arguments and affirmed the district court’s ruling. The Court held that the injunction merely enforced contractual obligations voluntarily undertaken by Wudi and that the district court properly applied the eBay test. The Court also found no abuse of discretion in the district court’s exclusion of parol evidence and its rejection of the unclean hands defense, finding that the district court properly concluded that reputational harm can demonstrate that irreparable injury will flow from the breach of a trademark-related settlement agreement.



read more

Valve turned: Prosecution history estoppel applies to closely related claims

by | Jul 24, 2025 |

The US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit reversed a jury’s infringement finding, concluding it was precluded by prosecution history estoppel. Colibri Heart Valve LLC v. Medtronic CoreValve LLC, Case No. 23-2153 (Fed. Cir. July 18, 2025) (Taranto, Hughes, Stoll, JJ.)

Colibri Heart Valve sued Medtronic CoreValve for infringing a patent covering a method of implanting an artificial heart valve. At trial, the district court denied Medtronic’s motion for judgment as a matter of law, allowing the jury to consider Colibri’s infringement theory under the doctrine of equivalents. The jury found in Colibri’s favor. Medtronic appealed.

The Federal Circuit reversed, finding that Colibri was estopped from asserting its equivalents theory. During prosecution, Colibri had canceled a claim that explicitly recited “retracting the movable sheath.” The asserted claim, while using different language, involved a similar concept: “pressing against the pusher member with a force that moves the pusher member outward from the moveable sheath.” The Court concluded that a skilled artisan would recognize these limitations as equivalent in light of basic physics.

Citing the Supreme Court’s 2002 Festo v. Shoketsu decision, the Federal Circuit emphasized that prosecution history estoppel can arise not only from formal amendments but also from the cancellation of closely related claims. Here, the cancellation of one claim effectively narrowed the scope of the remaining claims, triggering estoppel.

Accordingly, the Federal Circuit reversed the district court’s denial of judgment of noninfringement.



read more

Applicant-admitted prior art may inform but can’t be basis for IPR challenges

by | Jul 24, 2025 |

The US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit clarified that while applicant-admitted prior art (AAPA) may be cited as evidence of general background knowledge in inter partes review (IPR) proceedings, it cannot serve as the basis for an IPR ground. The Court also confirmed that the petitioner had Article III standing to cross-appeal based on concrete plans for future activity. Shockwave Medical, Inc. v. Cardiovascular Systems, Inc., Case No. 23-1864 (Fed. Cir. July 14, 2025) (Lourie, Dyk, Cunningham, JJ.)

Shockwave Medical owns a patent directed to treating atherosclerosis using a balloon catheter in combination with shockwaves generated by electrodes and a pulse generator. The patent specification acknowledged that “over-the-wire angioplasty balloon catheters” were well known in the art. Cardiovascular Systems, Inc. (CSI) filed an IPR petition asserting that it would have been obvious to modify a European patent application with the angioplasty balloon catheter disclosed in the AAPA.

The Patent Trial & Appeal Board found all but one claim unpatentable as obvious, relying on the AAPA solely as evidence of background knowledge. Both parties appealed.

Shockwave challenged the Board’s reliance on the AAPA, arguing that 35 U.S.C. § 311(b) prohibits using AAPA as a basis for an IPR petition. The Federal Circuit disagreed, reaffirming its prior decisions in Qualcomm I and Qualcomm II. In Qualcomm I, the Court explained that AAPA cannot be the basis of a ground in an IPR petition but can be evidence of background knowledge. In Qualcomm II, the Court found that the Board erred in determining that the use of AAPA was proper when the petitioner expressly included AAPA in one of its grounds. Relying on these decisions, the Court explained that while AAPA cannot form the basis of a ground in an IPR petition, it may be used to demonstrate the general knowledge of a person of ordinary skill in the art and to supply missing claim limitations.

Shockwave pointed to a table in the Board’s final written decision listing AAPA under “reference(s)/basis” as evidence that the Board improperly relied on AAPA as a ground. The Federal Circuit rejected this argument, distinguishing Qualcomm II and emphasizing that the petitioner, not the Board, defines the grounds for review. Because CSI did not rely on AAPA as a ground, its use was permissible.

CSI cross-appealed the Board’s finding that one claim was not obvious. Shockwave challenged CSI’s standing, but the Federal Circuit found that CSI had Article III standing because it had concrete plans to begin clinical trials and because of Shockwave’s public statements suggesting it would assert the patent. The Court concluded that these facts created a substantial risk of future infringement.

On the merits, the Federal Circuit agreed with CSI that the Board erred by failing to consider the prior art as a whole. The Court reiterated that the obviousness inquiry requires evaluating the combined teachings of the prior art, not individual references in isolation. Finding no evidence to support the Board’s conclusion, the Court reversed the Board’s decision as to the remaining [...]

Continue Reading



read more

Don’t walk away: Trademark owner can’t bring infringement suit against co-owner

by | Jul 17, 2025 |

The US Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit upheld a district court’s summary judgment decision that a co-owner of a trademark cannot bring infringement or dilution claims under the Lanham Act against other co-owners or their licensees. Reed v. Marshall et al., Case No. 24-20198 (5th Cir. July 2, 2025) (Graves, Smith, Duncan, JJ.)

Originally formed by Di Reed, Joi Marshall, and Tonya Harris (aka Tonya Kelly), Jade was a music group that enjoyed commercial success before disbanding in 1995. In 2018, the trio attempted a reunion and jointly applied for the federal service mark JADE, which was registered in June 2019. The reunion ultimately did not materialize. In 2021, Marshall and Harris began performing under the JADE name with a new singer, Myracle Holloway, engaged under a six-month work-for-hire agreement. Reed objected, claiming they used the jointly owned mark without her consent, and filed suit in the US District Court for the Southern District of Texas, asserting claims under the Lanham Act and Texas law. The district court granted summary judgment in favor of Marshall and Harris. Reed appealed.

The Fifth Circuit affirmed. The central question was whether a co-owner of a federally registered trademark may bring an action under the Lanham Act against another co-owner for alleged unauthorized use of the mark.

The district court concluded that absent a contractual agreement to the contrary, co-owners of a trademark each have equal rights to use the mark. The Fifth Circuit affirmed that the Lanham Act does not authorize one co-owner to sue another for infringement or dilution; such disputes must be resolved through contract law or other private arrangements. Because Holloway’s use of the mark was authorized by two co-owners of the registration, she too was shielded from liability under the Lanham Act.

The Fifth Circuit also rejected Reed’s unfair competition and dilution claims, finding no evidence of misuse that would infringe the rights of an equal co-owner.

Practice note: When multiple parties intend to co-own a trademark, it is usually advisable to enter into an agreement that clearly defines each party’s rights and limitations on use. Without such an agreement, co-owners may find themselves with limited recourse in the event of a dispute.



read more

Que sera, sera: No declaratory relief after songwriter’s heir terminated copyright assignments

by | Jul 17, 2025 |

Addressing the intersection of a trust beneficiary’s rights to royalties and an heir’s copyright termination rights under 17 U.S.C. § 203, the US Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit affirmed the district court’s order dismissing the beneficiary’s request for declaratory relief for failure to state a claim. Tammy Livingston v. Jay Livingston Music, Inc. and Travilyn Livingston, Case No. 24-5263 (6th Cir. Jul. 7, 2025) (Readler, Siler, Clay, JJ.)

Jay Livingston was a prominent 20th century songwriter. In 1985, he established a family trust that granted the beneficiaries royalties from nearly 250 songs and transferred his reversionary copyright interests in the songs to the trust. The copyright interest was reversionary because in 1984, Livingston executed a contract that began assigning copyright interests in the songs to a company whose legal successor would become Jay Livingston Music. That contract laid the groundwork for successive agreements that would each transfer a specific song to the company. By 2000, Livingston had assigned his interests in each song to Jay Livingston Music.

In 2000, Livingston signed a second overarching contract, extending the company’s rights to the full duration of each song’s copyright protection. The songs’ copyrights expire around 2050. In 2003, after Livingston passed away, a California probate court ordered that the trust no longer held any rights in his copyright interests beyond the royalties.

In 2015, Travilyn Livingston (Livingston’s only child) terminated the assignment to Jay Livingston Music of 32 songs under § 203(a)(2)(B) of the Copyright Law, reverting all rights to Travilyn. Tammy Livingston, Travilyn’s daughter, sued Travilyn in 2022, requesting declaratory relief stating either that the termination notices Travilyn used were invalid or that Tammy remained entitled to royalties from the 32 songs under state law. The district court dismissed the case for failure to state a claim. Tammy appealed.

The Sixth Circuit affirmed the district court. The Sixth Circuit considered whether Livingston executed the 2000 contract as an individual or a trustee and to what extent that affected the validity of the assignment extensions. The Court determined that the probate court’s 2003 order had preclusive effect and that Livingston had signed the 2000 contract in his individual capacity. Therefore, the company – not the trust – held the valid assignments in 2015 when Tammy terminated them.

Tammy argued that Travilyn could only terminate the assignments if they had been transferred to a third party in 1984. Tammy claimed that Travilyn did not own the company when the 1984 contract was executed and that Livingston thus granted the rights to himself as the owner of the company. The Sixth Circuit was unpersuaded by this argument because the 1984 agreement stated that Travilyn owned the company on the date of execution. Tammy next argued that the district court committed reversable error when it stated that Travilyn owned the company “sometime before” the 1984 contract’s execution rather than on the day, as the contract itself stated. The Court found that this misstatement did not rise to reversible error.

Finally, to support her [...]

Continue Reading



read more

Appeal is too late to raise percolating claim construction dispute

by | Jul 17, 2025 |

The US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirmed a district court’s finding of noninfringement, concluding that the patent owner had improperly raised a claim construction issue for the first time on appeal – an argument not preserved at the district court level. Egenera, Inc. v. Cisco Systems, Inc., Case No. 23-1428 (Fed. Cir. July 7, 2025) (Prost, Taranto, Stark, JJ.)

Egenera owns a patent that enhances traditional server systems by enabling a one-time physical setup followed by flexible virtual reconfiguration. The company alleged that Cisco infringed specific claims of the patent.

During claim construction, the parties disputed the interpretation of two terms: “computer processor/processor” and “emulate Ethernet functionality over the internal communication network.” The district court adopted the ordinary meaning of “computer processor,” which excluded Cisco’s unified computing system from its scope. Regarding the term “emulate,” the district court considered whether it implied an absence from the internal communication network but made no further determinations as the parties did not explicitly raise a dispute regarding the remainder of the claim term. Based on its construction of “computer processor/processor,” the district court granted Cisco’s motion for summary judgment on certain claims. Later, at trial, a jury found no infringement of other asserted claims. Egenera moved for judgment as a matter of law (JMOL) or alternatively for a new trial, both of which the district court denied. Egenera appealed the post-trial rulings and the earlier summary judgment ruling.

The Federal Circuit affirmed the district court’s grant of summary judgment. It concluded that the record lacked sufficient evidence to show that Cisco’s system “emulated” Ethernet functionality as required by the asserted claims. The Court emphasized that Egenera’s argument focused narrowly on the construction of the term “emulate,” rather than on the evidentiary record. Moreover, neither party clearly indicated that the dispute centered on unresolved claim construction rather than factual issues. The Court noted that it will not address claim construction on appeal where the issue was not preserved in the district court and was inadequately presented on appeal. As a result, the Court confined its analysis to the sufficiency of the evidence and upheld the district court’s finding of noninfringement.

The Federal Circuit also affirmed the district court’s denial of JMOL. The Court emphasized that it needed to address only one of Cisco’s proposed noninfringement grounds to determine whether substantial evidence supported the jury’s verdict. It concluded that the jury had a sufficient evidentiary basis to find that Egenera failed to prove infringement.

Finally, the Federal Circuit upheld the district court’s denial of Egenera’s motion for a new trial. It rejected all of Egenera’s arguments, which alleged errors related to jury selection, jury instructions, expert testimony, closing arguments, and a verdict contrary to the weight of the evidence.



read more

State court action doesn’t create reasonable apprehension of related federal claims

by | Jul 17, 2025 |

Addressing whether a federal district court had jurisdiction over an action for declaratory relief that certain trade secrets and trademarks were invalid and not infringed, the US Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit concluded that state law claims for breach of contract, trade secret misappropriation, and trademark infringement did not create a reasonable apprehension of federal litigation sufficient to give rise to federal jurisdiction. Thunderhead of Ankeny, Inc. v. Chicken Bones of Kearney, Inc., Case No. 24-2741 (8th Cir. July 8, 2025) (Colloton, Arnold, Gruender, JJ.)

Nearly 20 years ago, David Anders sold his equity in Chicken Bones of Kearney, Inc., which ran a bar and grill called the Chicken Coop. Anders subsequently opened a new Chicken Coop restaurant. Chicken Bones sued Anders for misappropriating Chicken Bones’ trade secrets, trademarks, and trade dress. The parties settled, and Anders received a limited license to the Chicken Coop intellectual property. Anders then opened several other Chicken Coop locations under that license.

Believing that Anders had not complied with the license in opening the new restaurants, Chicken Bones sued Anders in state court for breach of the settlement agreement, misappropriation of trade secret recipes, and infringement of the Chicken Coop trademarks and trade dress. In response, Anders sued Chicken Bones in federal court, seeking declarations of noninfringement and invalidity. The district court dismissed the suit for lack of jurisdiction. Anders appealed.

The parties and the Eighth Circuit assumed that the district court would have jurisdiction only if the suit presented a federal question. The Eighth Circuit explained that to assess federal question jurisdiction in the case of a declaratory action, the Court must imagine a traditional action that presents the same controversy and determine whether a federal claim would appear on the face of the resulting complaint. “If, but for the availability of the declaratory judgment procedure, the federal claim would arise only as a defense to a state created action, jurisdiction is lacking.”

Applying this principle, the Eighth Circuit concluded that the district court did not have jurisdiction over Anders’ declaratory action because he primarily sought vindication of his defenses to Chicken Bones’ pending state law claims. While the Court recognized that Anders also sought declaratory relief in anticipation of potential federal trade secret, trademark, and trade dress claims, the Court reasoned that any federal law controversy between the parties was too speculative to support jurisdiction. While a threat of litigation can give rise to a justiciable controversy, there was no evidence that Chicken Bones would assert overlapping and duplicative federal law claims against Anders. The Eighth Circuit further found that Chicken Bones’ petition to cancel Anders’ federal trademark registration of a Chicken Coop logo did not change its analysis, because the petition merely confirmed the existence of a trademark infringement dispute between the parties, which Chicken Coop elected to adjudicate in state court.

The Eighth Circuit distinguished cases involving state law trade secret claims concerning a patented invention. Because there is no state patent system, such trade secret claims can [...]

Continue Reading



read more

BLOG EDITORS

Paul Devinsky

Amol Parikh

Jodi Benassi

STAY CONNECTED

Subscribe

TOPICS

ARCHIVES