Print Page
S&H IP Blog
By: Sunil Chacko, Associate The Citizen Centric Report put out annually by the Advisory Committee highlights the USPTO’s performance for the previous year and its goals for the upcoming year. This year’s report focused on the USPTO initiatives to respond to the COVID-19 pandemic, the USPTO performance, and its management […]
June 23, 2021 | By S&H
Posted in: S&H IP Blog | USPTO News
Posted in: S&H IP Blog | USPTO News
USPTO Taking Steps to Implement Provisions of the Trademark Modernization Act of 2020
By: Jeremy Stroh, Partner The United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) has recently proposed several changes to the Trademark rules of practice in an effort to implement the Trademark Modernization Act (TMA), which was enacted on December 27, 2020. Many of the changes are directed to providing new avenues […]
June 23, 2021 | By Mehdi D. Sheikerz
Posted in: S&H IP Blog | U.S. District Courts
Posted in: S&H IP Blog | U.S. District Courts
DivX LLC v Hulu LLC – Patent marking can impact damages.
By: Mehdi Sheikerz, Partner In the recent case of DivX LLC v. Hulu LLC, C.D. Cal., No. 21-cv-01615, June 11, 2021, a federal U.S. District Court in the Central District of California agreed with Hulu (Defendant) to dismiss the DivX’s (Plaintiff) claims for pre-suit damages on a patent. The Court […]
By: Gene M. Garner II, Partner On May 4, 2021, oral arguments were heard by the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (“CAFC”) relating to whether the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“the Board”) of the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”) could use statements made in an […]
June 23, 2021 | By S&H
Posted in: S&H IP Blog | U.S. Court of Appeals For The Federal Circuit
Posted in: S&H IP Blog | U.S. Court of Appeals For The Federal Circuit
IN RE BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE LELAND STANFORD JUNIOR UNIVERSITY
By: Raph Y. Kim, Associate In the two opinions issued in March (Appeal No. 2020-1012 (March 11) and 2020-1288 (March 25)), the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (“Federal Circuit”) held that that biotechnological patent applications owned by Stanford University and involving computational methods for predicting genetic outcomes […]