CannabIP: Why the USPTO Will Not Register Marks for Cannabis-Related Goods or Services

Cannabis IP trademark

It is perplexing there is still a belief (even among some trademark practitioners) that it is possible to file federal trademark applications at the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office for cannabis-related goods or services when the likelihood of such registrations is virtually impossible.  The reason is the continued refusal by USPTO, affirmed by the Trademark …

Continue Reading

Fed Circuit Watch: Improper Patent Assignment Dooms Standing to Sue for Infringement

assignment fed circuit watch patent

On January 11, 2018, the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit ruled on the Advanced Video Technology, LLC v. HTC Corp., case.[1]  This case is a unique one dealing with the logistics of a patent assignment document, and the proper mechanisms to effect a proper transfer of rights.  Absent these things, and the party …

Continue Reading

Fed Circuit Watch: Gaming of Patent System Cannot Save Patent from Invalidation on Double Patenting Grounds

CIP divisional double patenting fed circuit watch patent restriction

On January 23, 2018, the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit handed down In re Janssen Biotech, Inc.,[1] which dealt with the specific issue of the double patenting safe harbor under 35 U.S.C. §121.[2]  This case is an example of playing games with the patent prosecution system in order to better position …

Continue Reading

CannabIP: Clarification on California’s Trademark Regime for Cannabis Goods & Services

Cannabis IP trademark

There have been a few observers, commentators, and practitioners who have been reporting that state trademarks/service marks can be freely registered through the Secretary of State’s office.  This is not accurate.  This post will hopefully clear up the misconceptions surrounding registration of a state trademark or service mark for cannabis-related goods or services. First, legislation …

Continue Reading

McAward as Precedential and Lower Standard for Indefiniteness During Prosecution

112 indefiniteness patent PTAB

Way back on August 25, 2017, the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office designated Ex parte McAward[1] as precedential authority for defining the USPTO and the PTAB’s policy on assessing indefiniteness as defined under 35 U.S.C. §112(b)[2] during prosecution.  However, McAward does not so much define the USPTO’s rules on indefiniteness but rather reasserts its position …

Continue Reading

Fed Circuit Watch: Finjan Survives Alice Test for Subject Matter Eligibility

101 fed circuit watch patent patent eligible subject matter

On January 10, 2018, the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit handed down Finjan, Inc. v. Blue Coat Systems, Inc.[1]  Finjan sued Blue Coat, a subsidiary of rival Symantec Corp., for patent infringement of four of its patents dealing with cybersecurity methods and systems: U.S. Patent Nos. 6,154,844 (‘844), 7,418,731 (‘731), 6,965,968 (‘968), and …

Continue Reading

IP Practicum: Maintenance Fees Required for All Reissue Family Members

fees IP Practicum patent reissue

On January 8, 2018, the USPTO quietly issued a notice that beginning on January 16, 2018, all reissue patent family members, as well as the original parent patent from which the reissue application(s) originated from, will be subject to payment of maintenance fees for each reissue family member (i.e., divisional and continuation reissue patents) (MPEP …

Continue Reading

IP Data Trends & Analysis

design patent plant PVP trademark

The World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) releases data and statistics[1] compiled over the world of various intellectual properties each year.  These include patent, trademark, industrial designs, utility models, and plant varieties.  The data is interesting and a few suggestions on the trends can be seen from this data. First, China (CN) continues to lead the …

Continue Reading