Law Commons^™

Obtaining Trademark Registration For Marks Containing Political Commentary: A Look Into Vidal V. Elster, Annick Runyon

University of Miami Law Review

For decades, courts have struggled with balancing trademark law with the First Amendment—specifically with cases challenging the denial of trademark registration of certain marks. Congress codified trademark registration through the Lanham Act, also known as the Trademark Act of 1946. This statute outlines the registration process and expands the rights of trademark owners. In recent years, a string of cases have ruled certain provisions of the Lanham Act that bar certain marks from registration unconstitutional.

Currently under review by the Supreme Court, the case Vidal v. Elster involves an applicant who was denied trademark registration for his mark “Trump Too …

Fashion Has No Function: Diminishing The Functionality Bar To Trademark Protection In The Fashion Industry, Seth Diasio

Mississippi College Law Review

The primary source of trademark law in the United States, The Lanham Act, outlines the requirements for trademark registration and protection. Marks which are distinctive, or that have acquired secondary meaning, can be registered on the Principal Register of the United States Patents and Trademarks Office (USPTO). Registered marks receive strong federal protection; however, those protections are unavailable to marks that are barred by the Act, but would otherwise meet the qualifications of registration. One of the strongest bars to registration is the functionality bar, which prevents registration of a functional mark regardless of whether it has a secondary meaning. …

Withdrawing Lanham Act Section 2(C) Consent: What Should Courts Do?, Zachary R. Semancik

Marquette Intellectual Property & Innovation Law Review

None

The Ungraceful Grace Period: Defining 35 U.S.C. § 102(B)'S Grace Period Exceptions Post-Helsinn, Adam Burstain

Cybaris®

No abstract provided.

Locke-Ing Down Nonsense Trademarks: Applying The Property Theory Of John Locke To The Issue Of Nonsense Trademarks, Jake H. Howell

Catholic University Journal of Law and Technology

In 2019, the United States Patent and Trademark Office received almost half a million trademark applications. This was the tenth year in a row in which the number of applications received broke the record from the previous year. Since 2015 there has been a marked increase in the number of applications for trademarks that are unusual. These applications are for trademarks that consist of an apparently random string of letters unpronounceable in English and with no meaning in another language. These unusual trademarks have come to be known as nonsense trademarks. Nonsense trademarks are a growing problem in intellectual property. …

Parallel Play: The Simultaneous Professional Responsibility Campaigns Against Unethical Ip Practitioners By The United States And China, Mark A. Cohen

Akron Law Review

“Parallel Play: The Simultaneous Professional Responsibility Campaigns Against IP Practitioners by the United States and China” describes efforts by the United States Patent and Trademark Office and the China National IP Administration to discipline trademark and patent practitioners through contemporaneous campaign-style approach directed to bad faith filings. At the USPTO, many of these bad faith filings have originated from China. In both countries, these bad faith activities have imposed significant burdens on IP agencies, the courts, and legitimate rights holders. The campaign is likely the largest professional responsibility campaign undertaken by an IP agency, and the largest cross-border IP disciplinary …

When Patent Litigators Become Neurosurgeons, Katie Chang

Washington Law Review Online

Patent law is where the law meets the most cutting-edge and innovative technology of its time. Usually, subject matter experts, with the help of lawyers, are the ones applying for patents. But when it comes to granting and enforcing patent rights, the job falls onto lawyers and judges, who, for the most part, are likely not experts in the relevant technical field. Bridging the gap between technological expertise and legal expertise has been a pain point in patent litigation, one that Congress has tried to rectify for many years. This Comment primarily examines one of Congress’s solutions—the Patent Pilot Program—and …

Psychedelic Drugs & The Prior Art Problem, Anneli E. Kawaoka

Indiana Law Journal

For the first time since the War on Drugs began in the 1970s, researchers have returned to the promise of psychedelic drugs for treating the growing mental health crisis in the United States. As research into psychedelic drugs as a conventional treatment method for mental health conditions grows, so does the number of filings at the U.S. Patent & Trademark Office for psychedelic-related patents. But the decades-long lapse in the development of psychedelic drugs creates the risk that low-quality psychedelic patents will issue, giving limited monopolies to companies that have not truly innovated in the psychedelic space. In this Note, …

A Named Inventor Of A Patent Should Be Expanded To Include Artificial Intelligence, Min Li

Touro Law Review

Why should patent inventors be limited to only natural persons under the current United States patent law? In fact, the present US patent law should be expanded to allow an Artificial Intelligence (“AI”) to be a named inventor of a patent. This would incentivize patent owners to use AI to produce more inventions that would benefit the public. There is no negative impact to expand the current US patent law. Many scholars, law professors, and practitioners believe that the patent law (or intellectual property law in general) is outdated due to the massive growth of modern technology. This Note argues …

Paper Of Record: Modernizing Ownership Disclosures For U.S. Patents, Jonathan Stroud, Levi Lall

West Virginia Law Review

No abstract provided.

Patent Inconsistency, Saurabh Vishnubhakat

Indiana Law Journal

Despite the promise of efficiency through the use of expert agency adjudication in U.S. patent law, administrative substitution continues to fall short. In a variety of ways, the decade-old system of Patent Office adjudication is simply an additional place to litigate rather than the robust technocratic alternative it was meant to be. These problems have arisen from important defects in the statutory design, but also from the enormous expansion and ascendancy of the Patent Office itself. Moreover, while duplicative litigation over patent validity is recognized and criticized, its scale and scope has eluded detailed empirical analysis until now. This Article …

Cannabis Derivatives And Trademark Registration: The Case Of Delta-8-Thc, W. Michael Schuster

Indiana Law Journal

The legal environment surrounding the cannabis industry is ambiguous and constantly changing. While cannabis is prohibited under federal law, a 2018 statute legalized a variant of the cannabis plant (“hemp”) that is low in its most common intoxicating agents. Recognizing this, entrepreneurs began to process hemp to extract and sell chemicals contained therein. Included in this trend is the extraction of Delta-8 Tetrahydrocannabinol (Δ8-THC)—a psychoactive drug with an increasing market presence in states where most cannabis (e.g., “marijuana”) is illegal.

As competition in the Δ8-THC field emerged, firms sought to distinguish their wares through brand recognition and federal trademark registration. …

A Functional Approach To Agency (In)Action, Lidiya Mishchenko

SMU Law Review

In the last five years, the Supreme Court has had a frenzied approach to judicial review of agency action, with two wings of the Court pulling it in opposite directions. The ideological divide of the Court on deference to agency action was on stark display in three recent cases dealing with the Patent and Trademark Office’s (PTO’s) new proceeding for reevaluating issued patents (inter partes review (IPR)). Specifically, in three vacillating opinions, the Court expanded, contracted, and then again expanded the scope of whether and to what extent a decision by the PTO Director to institute this new proceeding can …

Ostrich With Its Head In The Sand: The Law, Inventorship, & Artificial Intelligence, Ben Kovach

Northwestern Journal of Technology and Intellectual Property

As artificial intelligence (AI) system’s capabilities advance, the law has struggled to keep pace. Nowhere is this more evident than patent law’s refusal to recognize AI as an inventor. This is precisely what happened when, in 2020, the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) ruled that it will not accept an AI system as a named inventor on a patent.

This note explores untenable legal fiction that the USPTO’s ruling has created. First, it explores the current state of AI systems, focusing on those capable of invention. Next, it examines patent law’s inventorship doctrine and the USPTO’s application of that …

Trademarks And The Covid-19 Pandemic: An Empirical Analysis Of Trademark Applications Including The Terms "Covid," "Coronavirus," "Quarantine," "Social Distancing," "Six Feet Apart," And "Shelter In Place", Irene Calboli

Akron Law Review

True to its nature as a (hopefully) once in a lifetime event, the COVID-19 pandemic has led to a tsunami of trademark applications. These include the terms “COVID,” “Coronavirus,” and other medical and pandemic-management related terms. This unprecedented number of applications has been highlighted by several commentators in general terms in the past months. This Article examines these applications in detail. Notably, the Article presents the first and most complete survey of the applications filed between the onset of the pandemic and the end of 2020, which include the following terms: “COVID,” “Coronavirus,” “Quarantine,” “Social Distancing,” “Six Feet Apart,” and …

Whole Designs, Sarah Burstein

University of Colorado Law Review

In the past decade, there has been a renewed interest in the concept of patentable subject matter-that is, what kinds of things can you get a patent for? But this attention has, to date, been focused on utility patents, the patents that protect how things work. There has been scant attention paid to statutory subject matter and design patents, the patents that protect how things look. These patents have gained prominence in both practice and scholarship since the $1 billion verdict in Apple v. Samsung. The time has come to take the question of design patentable subject matter seriously. Today, …

Patent And Trademark Resource Center Websites: A Content Analysis, Jared Hoppenfeld

Journal of the Patent and Trademark Resource Center Association

Patent and Trademark Resource Centers (PTRCs) serve as an off-site connection to the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO). Approximately 85 PTRCs exist to assist inventors, entrepreneurs, and researchers by providing facilities, resources, and expertise. Most of these libraries also have a website which, in addition to USPTO webpages, serves as a gateway to the world of patent and trademark research. These websites provide access to various resources while also functioning as an outreach tool to the public.

This study included a content analysis of 79 websites belonging to PTRC libraries. After a literature review of other website studies, …

A Siri-Ous Societal Issue: Should Autonomous Artificial Intelligence Receive Patent Or Copyright Protection?, Samuel Scholz

Cybaris®

No abstract provided.

A Serendipitous Experiment In Percolation Of Intellectual Property Doctrine, Daniel R. Cahoy, Lynda J. Oswald

Indiana Law Journal

This Article fills a gap in the literature by providing novel and unique empirical evidence of the impact of percolated intellectual property doctrine versus the impact of isolated doctrine from a specialized court. It relies on the U.S. Supreme Court’s paired decisions in 2014 in Octane Fitness, LLC v. ICON Health & Fitness, Inc.15 and Highmark, Inc. v. Allcare Health Management Systems, Inc.16 to highlight a natural forum for evaluating the effects of percolation on federal legal doctrine. At issue in those cases was the fee-shifting language of Section 285 of the Patent Act: “The court in exceptional cases may …

The International Intellectual Property Commercialization Council’S 3rd Annual U.S. Conference: The State Of Innovation In The Union, Jeffery P. Langer, Neel Sukhatme, Paul R. Zielinski, G. Nagesh Rao, Pj Bellomo, Matthew Byers, Meghan Gaffney Buck, Everardo Ruiz, Andrei Iancu, Patrick Kilbride, Carl J. Schramm, Colman Ragan, Ami Patel Shah, Randall R. Rader

Catholic University Journal of Law and Technology

The International Intellectual Property Commercialization Council (“IIPCC”) presented its third annual policy conference at the United States Capitol on May 6, 2019. The conference’s theme explored the question of “what is the state of innovation in the United States?” Panelists included The Honorable Andrei Iancu – Under Secretary of Commerce for Intellectual Property and Director of the United States Patent and Trademark Office; Dr. Carl J. Schramm – University Professor, Syracuse University and Former President of the Ewing Marion Kauffman Foundation; Mr. Patrick Kilbride – Senior Vice President of the Global Innovation Policy Center (“GIPC”) at the U.S. Chamber of …

What Is The Trade-Off: Are New Trade Deals Worth The Changes To Pharmaceutical Patents?, Kaitlyn Carter

Marquette Intellectual Property Law Review

None.

Anything You Can Do, Ai Can't Do Better: An Analysis Of Conception As A Requirement For Patent Inventorship And A Rationale For Excluding Ai Inventors, Kaelyn R. Knutson

Cybaris®

No abstract provided.

Patently Inconsistent: State And Tribal Sovereign Immunity In Inter Partes Review, John Mixon

St. John's Law Review

(Excerpt)

This Note is composed of four parts. Part I reviews the origins, development, and purpose of both tribal and state sovereign immunity, compares the two doctrines, and concludes that the two are functionally the same despite deriving from different historical roots. Part II provides an overview of the history and purpose behind the patent system, the America Invents Act, and IPRs. Part II also analyzes the constitutionality of IPRs, as decided by the Supreme Court in Oil States Energy Services, LLC v. Greene’s Energy Group, LLC. Part III introduces and addresses the five IPR decisions on state sovereign …

Biotechnology Patent Law Top Ten Of 2018 Broad Wins, Sovereignty Loses, And Patent Dance, Kevin E. Noonan, Andrew W. Torrance

Akron Law Review

In this article, we discuss what we consider to be the ten important and influential biotechnology patent law judicial decisions of 2018. These hinged on a variety of patent doctrines. An abbreviated new drug application (ANDA) for the multiple sclerosis drug Ampyra set the stage for the Acorda Therapeutics, Inc. v. Roxane Laboratories, Inc. (Fed. Cir. 2018) decision, in which the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (Federal Circuit) provided guidance on how to conduct an obviousness analysis (35 U.S.C. §103). The Berkheimer v. HP Inc. (Fed. Cir. 2018) decision, although addressing a software invention, provided valuable insight into …

That Is Northern Lights Cannabis Indica . . . No, It's Marijuana: Navigating Through The Haze Of Cannabis And Patents, Dawson Hahn

Concordia Law Review

By their very nature, patents are exclusionary. A patent grants the right to exclude others from making use of an invention or process. But patents are also tools to promote innovation. However, when an invalid patent is granted, the patent becomes an exclusionary tool that also chills innovation. Invalid cannabis patents may be chilling innovation in the cannabis market, but they may not be the only thing. While the Controlled Substances Act continues to prohibit cannabis at a federal level, researchers and medical professionals will be unsure of the legality of their actions. This naturally leads to another chilling effect …

A Few Words And A Brief Recap Of The Jptrca’S Journey, David R. Irvin

Journal of the Patent and Trademark Resource Center Association

The Journal of the Patent and Trademark Resource Center has transitioned to TigerPrints at Clemson University. Here we offer some insight about why the Publications Committee recommended the move.

Patent Citation Analysis And Patent Damages, Dr. Peter A. Malaspina

Chicago-Kent Journal of Intellectual Property

No abstract provided.

Petitioner Estoppel From Patent Trial And Appeal Board Proceedings After Sas Institute Inc. V. Iancu, Jennifer Esch, Paula Miller, Stacy Lewis, Tom Irving

Chicago-Kent Journal of Intellectual Property

No abstract provided.

All Or Nothing: Why The Supreme Court Sas Mandate Does Not Eliminate The Shaw Safe Harbor, Matt Johnson, Michael Lavine, Daniel Kazhdan Ph.D, Lisa Furby, David Anderson

Chicago-Kent Journal of Intellectual Property

No abstract provided.

The Post-Alice Jurisprudence Pendulum And Its Effects On Patent Eligible Subject Matter, John Robert Sepúlveda

Touro Law Review

No abstract provided.