Remove topics prior-use
article thumbnail

What Are the DuPont Factors in a Trademark Confusion Analysis?

Erik K Pelton

A topic that comes up all the time in our line of work is the DuPont factors, and the analysis of them. The fame, if any, of the prior mark. The number and nature of similar marks in use on similar goods and services. The variety of goods on which the mark is used or not used. This famous case (called I n re E.

Trademark 130
article thumbnail

Federal Circuit Rules on Inventor-as-Lexicographer Definitions and the Proper Scope of Reply and Sur-Reply Briefing Following Patent Owner Responses to IPR Institution Decisions

Intellectual Property Law Blog

The Federal Circuit also engaged in a fact-specific obviousness inquiry regarding capacitor elements disclosed in the prior art. The patent owner response further argued that cited prior art Tayloe’s capacitors were not “storage elements” because they were not part of an energy transfer system. ParkerVision, Inc., Katherin K.

Inventor 130
Insiders

Sign Up for our Newsletter

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.

Trending Sources

article thumbnail

Making a Proper Determination of Obviousness

Patently-O

” In Graham , the court held Section 103 was intended to simply codify the common law of its prior cases – with the one exception of rejecting a “flash of creative genius test” to the extent one existed. The guidelines do not reference the US Constitution or any other Supreme Court cases besides Graham and KSR. .”

Art 120
article thumbnail

Ninth Circuit Pulls Back Rogers Test in Light of Jack Daniels Decision

The IP Law Blog

The question in that case was whether the creator of an expressive work, a work that enjoys First Amendment protection, could be liable under the Lanham Act and state right of publicity laws for using a celebrity’s name in the title of that expressive work. AJ Press was founded by two journalists who used to write for Politico.

article thumbnail

[UPCKat] Preliminary injunctions in the UPC: CUP&CINO v Alpina Coffee Systems

The IPKat

Because there was no infringement, relevant topics such as the weighing of the parties' interest and the question of urgency are left open by the Court (see p. Rule 5(6) RoP includes an exemption to that rule and determines that if an “action” has been filed prior to opt out, the opt-out will be ineffective.

article thumbnail

Court Determines Scope of Corporate 30(b)(6) Patent Witness Topics

Chicago IP

Of particular note: Carjams’ claim that Putco should be limited to ten topics, without some agreement by the parties, was not supported by the Federal Rules or the law. The Court would not prevent damages topics because Carjams intended to use a damages expert. Damages was still an appropriate topic for a corporate deposition.

Patent 40
article thumbnail

Can amending the description to summarize the prior art add matter to the patent application as filed? (T 0471/20)

The IPKat

This requirement usually manifests with a request from the Examiner for the description to be amended to identify the closest prior art. In contrast to other types of description amendment, amending the description so as to mention known prior art seems a relatively innocuous requirement. D8 is a patent relating to a filing unit.

Art 113