Intellectual Property News and Reports

Google’s copying of the Java SE API, which included only those lines of code that were needed to allow programmers to put their accrued talents to work in a new and transformative program, was a fair use of that material... Read more →

A term styled “generic.com” is a generic name for a class of goods or services only if the term has that meaning to consumers. Pp. 6–14. (a) Whether a compound term is generic turns on whether that term, taken as... Read more →

Held: Because Marcel’s 2011 Action challenged different conduct—and raised different claims—from the 2005 Action, Marcel cannot preclude Lucky Brand from raising new defenses. Pp. 6–12. (a) This case asks whether so-called “defense preclusion” is a valid application of res judicata:... Read more →

Inter partes review is an administrative process that permits a patent challenger to ask the U. S. Patent and Trademark Office to reconsider the validity of earlier granted patent claims. For inter partes review to proceed, the agency must agree... Read more →

A plaintiff in a trademark infringement suit is not required to show that a defendant willfully infringed the plaintiff’s trademark as a precondition to a profits award. The Lanham Act provision governing remedies for trademark violations, §1117(a), makes a showing... Read more →

Held: Congress lacked authority to abrogate the States’ immunity from copyright infringement suits in the CRCA. Pp. 4–17. (a) In general, a federal court may not hear a suit brought by any person against a nonconsenting State. But such suits... Read more →

SOTOMAYOR, J., delivered the opinion for a unanimous Court. The PTO cannot recover the salaries of its legal personnel under §145. Pp. 3–10. (a) The “American Rule”—the bedrock principle that “[e]ach litigant pays his own attorney’s fees, win or lose,... Read more →

Held: The Lanham Act’s prohibition on registration of “immoral[ ] or scandalous” trademarks violates the First Amendment. In Matal v. Tam, 582 U. S. ___, this Court declared unconstitutional the Lanham Act’s ban on registering marks that “disparage” any “person[... Read more →

US Supreme Court holds that the Government is not a “person” capable of instituting the three AIA review proceedings in Return Mail, Inc. v. Postal Service. Download Return Mail Inc. v. Postal Service Read more →

Petitioner Mission Product Holdings, Inc., entered into a contract with Respondent Tempnology, LLC, which gave Mission a license to use Tempnology’s trademarks in connection with the distribution of certain clothing and accessories. Tempnology filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy and sought... Read more →