Print Page
What happens when Artificial Intelligence (AI) systems start to ”invent”? Can companies list the AI system as an inventor in a Patent Application? The United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) answered this very question with a definitive no, when it denied a Petition in April.
June 18, 2020 | By S&H
Posted in: S&H IP Blog | USPTO News
Posted in: S&H IP Blog | USPTO News
LKQ Corporation and Keystone Automotive Industries, Inc. v. GM Global Technology
LKQ Corporation and its subsidiary Keystone Automotive Industries filed a petition to institute an inter partes review of GM”™s vehicle front upper bumper design patent...
June 18, 2020 | By S&H
Posted in: S&H IP Blog | USPTO News
Posted in: S&H IP Blog | USPTO News
Different Burdens of Proof for Printed Publications
In September 2018, the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) created a Precedential Opinion Panel (POP) to establish binding authority before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB)...
June 18, 2020 | By S&H
Posted in: S&H IP Blog | U.S. Supreme Court
Posted in: S&H IP Blog | U.S. Supreme Court
Oral Arguments – United States Patent and Trademark Office v. Booking.com
On May 4th, 2020, for the first time in history, the US Supreme Court heard oral arguments over the telephone and offered a live audio stream. In United States Patent and Trademark Office v. Booking.com, the question before the Court is whether Booking.com successfully established that it had acquired secondary meaning, which would support trademark protection for descriptive marks...
June 18, 2020 | By S&H
Posted in: S&H IP Blog | U.S. Supreme Court
Posted in: S&H IP Blog | U.S. Supreme Court
Romag Fasteners, Inc. v. Fossil, Inc.
On April 23rd, 2020, the U.S. Supreme Court unanimously held that willfulness is not required for trademark owners to recover damages from infringers, settling a Circuit Court split on the matter. Six Circuit Courts previously required willfulness in order to award profits to non-competitors while six other Circuit Courts did not...