There are a number of requirements that must be met for an invention to be patentable. The invention must be novel (unique) and nonobvious (i.e., a person skilled in the field of the invention would not have found the invention obvious based on the existing knowledge in the field). In addition, the patent application must meet other requirements, including written description (the application must contain a detailed, clear, and definite written description of the invention) and enablement (the application must describe how to make and use the invention). If the patent application satisfies all of the requirements, a patent is issued.
A third party can challenge an issued patent on several different grounds, either in litigation or in the Patent and Trademark Office’s Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB). If the challenge is successful, some or all of the patent’s claims will be invalidated. If only some of the claims are invalidated, those claims will be canceled from the patent and the remaining claims will be enforceable. Continue Reading
Lil Nas X broke onto the scene in spectacular fashion when he released the viral sensation “Old Town Road,” featuring Billy Ray Cyrus. Old Town Road broke the prior record for most consecutive weeks at No. 1 on the Billboard Hot 100 charts and eventually resulted in Lil Nas X receiving a Grammy award. Unfortunately, fortune and fame comes with its share of problems.
Lil Nas X was sued by producers Don Lee and Glen Keith (the “Producers”) in October 2019 for allegedly infringing their copyrighted material with his track “Rodeo.” According to the Producers, Rodeo bears a substantial similarity to their 2017 song “GwenXdonlee4-142[,]” which was subsequently incorporated into a song called “Broad Day” by PuertoReefa and Sakrite Duexe. Specifically, the lawsuit claims that there are substantial similarities between the chord progression, use of instruments, drumbeats, and other protectable characteristics from “GwenXdonlee4-142” and “Broad Day.” According to the Producers, the song was widely distributed in locations including Lil Nas X’s Continue Reading
Generally, the title to a single motion picture is not entitled to trademark protection. This is the same for the title to single books, songs and other singular creative works. Most non-trademark attorneys are surprised when I tell them this. I am sure you may be scratching your head as well. The logic behind the legal principle that the title to a single creative work cannot function as a trademark is as follows: a title to a single creative work such as a book serves to identify only the book and not the source of that book. Another reason trademark law generally refuses to acknowledge trademark rights in the title to a single creative work, such as a book, results from the interplay between copyright and trademark law. While trademarks endure as long as the mark is used, copyrights eventually expire. When a work falls into the public domain, others would have the right to reproduce the literary work. However, if the title to the book enjoyed trademark protection, this would compromise the policy of public domain under copyright law because a book with a trademarked title could only be published under a different title. Continue Reading
In Guardant Health, Inc. v. Foundation Medicine, Inc., 1-17-cv-01616 (DDE 2020-01-07, Order), the Court rejected the Plaintiff’s argument that an inequitable conduct claim must be related only to the prosecution of the patent-at-issue in ruling on plaintiff’s motion to dismiss defendants’ infectious unenforceability counterclaims. In the case, the Defendants’ theory as to the unenforceability of U.S. Patent No. 9,902,992 (the ’992 patent) was not based on inequitable conduct said to have occurred during the ’992 patent’s prosecution. Instead, it rested on the relationship between the ’992 patent and the prosecution of other related patents.
As some background, inequitable conduct regarding any single claim in the prosecution of a patent renders the entire patent unenforceable, not just that specific claim. Moreover, a finding of inequitable conduct can affect not just the improperly-prosecuted patent, but can also render unenforceable any other related patents and applications in the same patent family. This concept is what courts have referred to as the doctrine of “infectious unenforceability.” Continue Reading
In February 1996, faced with increasing public concern about the availability of pornography on the internet, as well as recent court decisions that seem to deter efforts to filter out such content, Congress enacted the Communications Decency Act (“CDA”). As part of the CDA, Congress granted immunity to internet service providers from liability for actions they took to help users block online content that a user found to be offensive or objectionable. Congress further declared its goals in enacting the CDA, and its immunity provision, were “to encourage the development of technologies which maximize user control;” “to empower parents to restrict their children’s access to objectionable or inappropriate online content;” and “to preserve the vibrant and competitive free market that presently exists for the internet and other interactive computer services.” In 2009, the Ninth Circuit decided the case, Zango, Inc. v. Kaspersky Lab, Inc., 568 F.3d 1169, which held that the immunity provisions of the CDA applied to computer software developers whose programs were intended to help users filter out or block objectionable material. It is against the backdrop of the history of the CDA and its decision in the Zango case that the Ninth Circuit was called upon to explore the limits of the immunity provided by the CDA in the case, Enigma Software Group USA, LLC v. Malwarebytes, Inc., decided December 31, 2019. In essence, the Ninth Circuit was called upon to determine whether the immunity provisions of the CDA, specifically section 230(c)(2), immunizes a software company whose blocking and filtering decisions are driven “by anti-competitive animus,” i.e., to deter users from accessing or using a competitor’s software products. Continue Reading
The Patent and Trademark Office (PTO) may reject a patent application on several different grounds. One of those grounds is obviousness. Under 35 U.S.C. § 103, if an invention is obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, then it is not patentable.
In determining whether an invention is obvious, the PTO compares the invention to the “prior art” – all similar inventions that are publicly available at the time the application is filed. If the PTO rejects the invention as obvious, the applicant can respond by narrowing the invention or arguing that the PTO is wrong. In addition, the applicant can submit evidence of certain factors that the courts have held are relevant, objective indicia of nonobviousness. These factors are called “secondary considerations.” They include evidence of: unexpected results, commercial success, long-felt but unsolved needs, failure of others, skepticism of experts, and copying by competitors.
To use a textbook or other reference to challenge the validity of a patent in a petition for inter partes review (“IPR”), the textbook must have been “publicly accessible” prior to the date of the challenged patent to qualify as a printed publication. Is a copyright notice sufficient evidence that a textbook was publicly accessible? The short answer is no in most, if not all, cases. In Hulu, LLC v. Sound View Innovations, LLC, the PTAB denied Hulu’s IPR petition on the ground that Hulu had not provided sufficient evidence to show that a prior art textbook with copyright and ISBN dates was publicly available as of those dates. As a result, Hulu requested rehearing of the PTAB decision denying institution of inter partes review of the validity of Sound View’s patent, U.S. Patent No. 5,806,062. Hulu argued the decision was in conflict with other PTAB decisions “involving the public availability of an asserted ‘printed publication.’” Continue Reading
When Disney chose to delay the production and release of merchandise related to The Child—commonly referred to as Baby Yoda—from its hit series, The Mandalorian, it created a significant opportunity for unlicensed fans to create and sell such merchandise. According to statements released by the Walt Disney Company, it intentionally delayed the production of Baby Yoda merchandise to avoid any leaks about the character’s existence until The Mandalorian aired. Because the first episode of The Mandalorian was not released until November 12, 2019, the Walt Disney Company was left with minimal time to release related merchandise. In fact, the Walt Disney Company was only able to roll out limited merchandise in advance of the holiday season, presumably losing a substantial sum of money it would have earned if it had released its full assortment of Baby Yoda gear before the holidays. Of course, as is usually the case with Disney and Star Wars fans, when Disney and LucasFilms fail to deliver, the fans intervene—this is the way. Continue Reading
In the early 2000’s, an all-girl band called 3LW performed a song called “Playas Gon’ Play,” which was written by Sean Hall and Nathan Butler. “Playas Gon’ Play” was initially released in May, 2001 and rose to number 81 on the Billboard’s Hot 100 chart. The album on which “Playas Gon’ Play” appeared sold over One Million copies and 3LW performed the song numerous times on national television. The chorus of “Playas Gon’ Play” consists of the following lyrics:
Playas, they gonna play
And haters, they gonna hate
Ballers, they gonna ball
Shot callers, they gonna call
That ain’t got nothin’ to do
With me and you
That’s the way it is
That’s the way it is. Continue Reading
In a unanimous ruling, the U.S. Supreme Court in Peter v. NantKwest, case number 18-801, struck down the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office’s (USPTO) recent and often-criticized effort to recoup its legal fees – even in cases it loses – because it violates the so-called American Rule, which says U.S. litigants must typically pay for their own lawyers.
The Patent Act creates two mutually exclusive pathways to challenge an adverse decision by the USPTO. The first permits judicial review by direct appeal to the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. There is “no opportunity for the applicant to offer new evidence” in a §141 proceeding, and the Federal Circuit “must review the PTO’s decision on the same administrative record that was before the [agency].” Continue Reading