The UKIPO has published an updated Design Practice Note on design applications for products that consist of multiple components. The Practice Note clarifies what is acceptable in a single design application under UK design practice. In line with section 1(2) of the Registered Design Act 1949, one of the requirements for acceptance is that a ..read more

“Brat summer”, “coquette aesthetic”, “strawberry milk makeup”: social media trends can achieve viral status essentially overnight. However, their popularity is frequently short-lived. As a result, brands will often quickly devise marketing strategies incorporating these trends and catchphrases as soon as possible to capitalise off the current popularity and appeal to consumers. Whether the creator of ..read more

IP Australia has updated its practice for the calculation and processing of excess claim fees. Currently, excess claim fees are charged at acceptance, on the basis of the final claim set as accepted, regardless of the number of claims examined during examination. Therefore, the applicant can often have a large claim set examined but avoid ..read more

On August 12, 2024, the United States Federal Circuit held that the enactment of the America Invents Act did not constitute a foundational change in the on-sale bar provision under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(1), finding the sale of products made using a secret process triggers the on-sale bar under pre-AIA precedent.1 The Court therefore affirmed ..read more

On 26 July 2024, the Federal Circuit entered its decision in SoftView LLC, v. Apple Inc.1 holding that patent owner estoppel2 applies to newly presented and amended claims, but does not apply to issued claims. The Federal Circuit also confirmed that patent owner estoppel prevents a patent applicant from later obtaining a patent claim that is ..read more

An Arizona federal judge denied Top Brand LLC’s motion for a new trial following an US$18.3 million jury award to Cozy Comfort Co. for infringement of two Cozy Comfort design patents and the “Comfy” trademarks used in connection with “The Comfy” hooded wearable blanket, which was featured on the television program “Shark Tank”. Top Brand argued that a new trial was warranted given the Federal Circuit’s recent May 21, 2024 LKQ Corp. v. GM Global Tech. Operations LLC decision, set a new test for evaluating the non-obviousness of design patents (see IP Law Watch writeup here). Top Brand argued th ..read more

The plant-based food industry is growing at a rapid pace, with popularity amongst consumers increasing because of its purported health and environmental benefits. However, a recent General Court decision in the EU highlights the difficulties brands face in obtaining trade mark protection for plant-based food if brands are not sufficiently distinctive (despite a tendency in the industry to develop brands which are a play on words of traditional food products). The Decision The Not Company SpA had applied to register the below figurative “NOT MILK” mark in the EU but the application was initiall ..read more

Earlier this month in Lifestyle Equities CV and another v Ahmed and another the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom held that the company directors of Hornby Street Limited, siblings Kashif and Bushra Ahmed, were not jointly liable with their company for trade mark infringement. The Decision Lifestyle Equities is the owner in the United Kingdom and European Union of the Beverly Hills Polo Club brand and trade marks and the Ahmeds were the directors of two companies that had been found to be infringing the Beverly Hills Polo Club trade marks through sales of their Santa Monica Polo Club clothin ..read more

On 21 May 2024, the Federal Circuit overturned the Rosen-Durling test used to assess non-obviousness of design patents. In LKQ Corporation v. GM Global Technology Operations LLC, the Court en banc ruled the same conditions for patentability that apply to utility patents apply to design patents, specifically holding the obviousness rationale articulated in KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398 (2007), will now apply to design patents. LKQ Corp. v. GM Glob. Tech. Operations LLC, No. 2021-2348, 2024 WL 2280728, at 1 (Fed. Cir. May 21, 2024) (en banc). LKQ argued in an Inter Partes ..read more

On 9 May 2024, the US Supreme Court (the Court) held that there is no three-year limit on monetary damages for timely filed copyright infringement claims. The 6–3 decision resolves a circuit split, opens the doors to larger potential damages awards for plaintiffs, is likely to lead to increased litigation over older infringements, and leaves open the question of whether the “discovery rule” applies to copyright infringement claims. Warner Chappell Music, Inc. v. Nealy, No. 22-1078, 601 U.S. – (2024). In the case, Sherman Nealy brought copyright infringement claims against Warner Chappel M ..read more