by Dennis Crouch I always struggle to use these stud finders; I think its hard for them to focus when I’m around. Zircon Corp. v. International Trade Commission, No. 2022-1649 (Fed. Cir. May 8, 2024) The ITC is designed as a protector of United States domestic industry against unfair competition in the form of foreign imports. In the patent sphere, the ITC is authorized to bar importation of infringing products that threaten a domestic industry.  Of course, this assumes that such a domestic industry exists.  As a prerequisite to action, the law requires a negative impact on “an indus ..read more

Eolas is seeking a writ of certiorari from the Supreme Court — hoping that the court will overturn the Federal Circuit’s decision invalidating its distributed computing (WWW) claims as ineligible under Alice Corp. and Mayo and ostensibly under 35 U.S.C. § 101. The petition presents three key questions: Whether claims drawn to solving specific problems restricting the usefulness of an existing computer-network technology recite patent-eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101 and Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int’l, 573 U.S. 208 (2014). Whether Alice’s two-step eligibility analysis und ..read more

by Dennis Crouch This may be a useful case for patent prosecutors to cite to the USPTO because it creates a strong dividing line for the printed matter doctrine — applying the doctrine only to cases where the claims recite the communicative content of information.  IOEngine, LLC v. Ingenico Inc., 2021-1227 (Fed. Cir. 2024). In this decision, the Federal Circuit partially reversed a PTAB invalidity finding against several IOEngine patent claims. The most interesting portion of the opinion focuses on the printed matter doctrine.   Under the doctrine, certain “printed matter” is gi ..read more

by Dennis Crouch In its initial decision, the TTAB dismissed iFIT’s opposition to ERB’s I-FIT FLEX registration — finding no likelihood of confusion because the goods were in separate markets.  iFIT is a major manufacturer of exercise equipment like treadmills and stationary bikes and holds several trademark registrations for IFIT marks covering fitness machines, online fitness training services and content, software, and some ancillary products like apparel.  ERB Industries applied to register I-FIT FLEX for protective and safety eyewear sold at hardware stores such as Home Dep ..read more

by Dennis Crouch In a significant decision on personal jurisdiction in patent cases, the Federal Circuit held that using Amazon’s patent enforcement process (APEX) to target an alleged infringer’s listings can subject the patent owner to specific personal jurisdiction in the alleged infringer’s home state. SnapRays, LLC v. Lighting Def. Grp. LLC, No. 2023-1184 (Fed. Cir. May 2, 2024). Plaintiff SnapRays (d/b/a SnapPower) is a Utah company that designs and sells electrical outlet covers with USB ports and night lights. Defendant Lighting Defense Group (LDG), a Delaware company based in Arizona ..read more

by Dennis Crouch Araujo v. Framboise Holdings Inc., No. 23-1142 (Fed. Cir. Apr. 30, 2024). In this appeal, the Federal Circuit affirmed a Trademark Trial and Appeal Board (TTAB) decision sustaining an opposition proceeding and refusing registration of the standard character mark #TODECACHO for hair combs. Procedural and Substantive: the Federal Circuit held that the TTAB properly allowed Framboise to extend its trial period; and that substantial evidence supported the TTAB’s finding that Framboise established prior use.  Opinion by Judge Lourie, joined by Judges Linn and Stoll. In Brazil ..read more

by Dennis Crouch The Federal Circuit’s new decision in Intellectual Tech LLC v. Zebra Techs. Corp., No. 2022-2207 (Fed. Cir. May 1, 2024) offers some interesting insight into leveraged patent transactions, and the effect of a lender’s ability to license or assign a patent on the patent owner’s standing to sue for infringement, especially after default. For a party to have constitutional standing to bring a patent infringement suit, it must be able to show an injury in fact traceable to the defendant’s allegedly infringing conduct. In the patent context, the Federal Circuit has made clear ..read more

by Dennis Crouch This article explores the impact of Generative AI on prior art and potential revisions to patent examination standards to address the rising tidal wave of AI-generated, often speculative, disclosures that could undermine the patent system’s integrity. The core task of patent examination is identifying quality prior art.  References must be sufficiently accessible, clear, and enabling to serve as legitimate evidence of what was previously known.  Although documents are widely available today via our vast network of digital communications, there is also increasing jun ..read more

by Dennis Crouch Ikorongo Technology has filed a petition for certiorari asking the Supreme Court to overturn the Federal Circuit’s heightened disclosure standard for the “same invention” requirement in reissue patents. The petitioner argues that the Federal Circuit’s test, established in Antares Pharma, Inc. v. Medac Pharma Inc., 771 F.3d 1354 (Fed. Cir. 2014), directly contradicts the Supreme Court’s decision in U.S. Industrial Chemicals, Inc. v. Carbide & Carbon Chemicals Corp., 315 U.S. 668 (1942). Petition for Writ of Certiorari, Ikorongo Tech. LLC v. Bumble Trading LLC, No. 23-1118 ..read more

by Dennis Crouch Non-compete agreements fly under the radar for most American lawyers.  One reason is that such restrictions have long been banned within legal practice. As an example, the American Bar Association (ABA) Model Rule 5.6(a) prohibits lawyers from entering into agreements that restrict their right to practice law after terminating an employment, partnership, or other professional relationship. The rule’s stated aim is to protect clients’ freedom to choose their legal representation, but it also ensures that lawyers can practice their profession without restriction. The incre ..read more