A mark found to be disparaging.
| May 28, 2014
In re Geller
May 13, 2014
Panel: Newman, O’Malley, Wallach. Opinion by Wallach
Summary
The CAFC affirmed the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board’s refusal to register the mark STOP THE ISLAMISATION OF AMERICA in connection with the services of “understanding and preventing terrorism” because the mark may be disparaging to American Muslims pursuant to § 2(a) of the Trademark Act.
米国連邦巡回裁判所（CAFC）は、STOP THE ISLAMISATION OF AMERICA商標の出願は、米国商標法第2条(a)に基き、米国のイスラム教徒に対して中傷的（disparaging）であるとして、登録を却下した商標審判部（TTAB）の判断を支持した。
“Exceptional” Case for Attorney Fees under §285 is Determined with Simple Equitable Discretion by District Court Applying Preponderance of Evidence Standard.
| May 23, 2014
Octane Fitness, LLC v. Icon Health & Fitness (S. Ct. 2014)
April 29, 2014
Justice Sotomayor
Summary
Regarding “exceptional” cases under §285 to award attorney fees, CAFC previously followed the Brooks Furniture standard that a case is “exceptional” under §285 only “when there has been some material inappropriate conduct in litigation, such as willful infringement, fraud or inequitable conduct in procuring the patent, misconduct during litigation, vexatious or unjustified litigation, conduct that violates FRCP 11” etc. and that absent misconduct in litigation or in securing the patent, fees “may be imposed only if both (1) the litigation is brought in subjective bad faith, and (2) the litigation is objectively baseless.”
The Supreme Court held that the Brooks Furniture standard is unduly rigid, and it impermissibly encumbers the statutory grant of discretion to district courts. The Supreme Court held that the “exceptional” case for attorney fees in §285 simply means that the case stands out from others with respect to the substantive strength of a party’s position or the unreasonable manner in which the litigation was conducted and district courts may determine whether a case is “exceptional” with their equitable discretion, considering the totality of the circumstances. The Supreme Court rejected the Federal Circuit’s requirement of “clear and convincing evidence” for the entitlement to fees under §285, and held that the standard is a preponderance of the evidence standard.
米国特許法285条の弁護士費用賠償が認められる「例外的」事件に関して、CAFCはBrooks Furniture判決において、「故意侵害、フロード、不公正行為、訴訟中の不正行為などの不適正行為があったか、そのような不適正行為がない場合は、(1)訴訟が悪意で提訴され、(2)客観的に見て訴訟の根拠のないものである場合に限るとしていた。
米国最高裁は、Brooks Furniture基準は不当に限定的であり、地裁の裁量を制限しているとした。そして、285条の「例外的」事件とは、単純に、訴訟当事者の立場の強さまたは、訴訟での非常識な振舞いなどにより他の事件から際立っているということであり、地裁は全体的な状況を考慮して裁量で決定すべきであるとした。また、最高裁は、「例外的」事件の立証基準も、CAFCのいう「明白で説得力のある証拠」ではなく、一般の民事事件の基準と同じ「証拠の優越」であるとした。
CAFC holds “Dolly the Sheep” claims ineligible, but leaves door open to claims reciting clones “markedly different” from nature
| May 21, 2014
In Re Roslin Institute (Edinburgh)
May 8, 2014
Panel: Dyk, Moore, Wallach. Opinion by Dyk.
Summary
Although the method of creating a cloned animal was patent eligible, the CAFC held that claims directed to the clone itself were not patent-eligible. The court further holds that simply because something is made by man is insufficient to render it patent-eligible, absent a showing that the claimed composition is markedly different from that found in nature. Although a cloned animal may have some differences from the DNA donor animal, unless these differences are claimed, the CAFC will not consider them.
CAFC Makes Sure Pre- And Post-Issuance §112 Indefiniteness Are Distinct In Anticipation Of Nautilus, Inc. V. Biosig Instruments, Inc. Decision By SCOTUS.
| May 14, 2014
In Re Thomas G. Packard (2013-1204)
May 6, 2014
Panel: O’MALLEY, PLAGER, and TARANTO, Per Curiam. Concurrance by PLAGER.
Summary:
Packard appealed an affirmed 35 U.S.C. §112 (b) rejection by PTAB on the basis that the Board had used an inappropriately strict standard of “unclear” in finding the claims indefinite. Packard argued that an “insolubly ambiguous” judicial standard should have been applied. The CAFC affirmed the PTAB with plenty of dicta that pre-issuance indefiniteness at the USPTO is distinct from post-issuance indefiniteness at the judicial level.
Once again, the plain meaning controls.
| May 9, 2014
GE Lighting Solutions, LLC v. AgiLight, Inc.
May 2, 2014
Panel: Rader (Chief Judge), Moore (Author), and Reyna
Appeal from U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Ohio.
Summary
GE Lighting Solutions, LLC (GE) appealed the district court’s grant of summary judgment that AgiLight, Inc.’s (AgiLight) accused products and processes do not infringe asserted claims of GE’s U.S. Patent Nos. 7,160,140, 7,520,771, 7,832,896, and 7,633,055. The issues mostly involved claim construction. After resolving the claim construction issues, the CAFC reversed and remanded the grant of summary judgment with regard to the ’140, ’771 and ’896 patents and affirmed the grant of summary judgment with regard to the ’055 patent.
Read More/続きを読む
