High Court “Zips” Up Honest Concurrent Use
In a decision with major implications for brand strategy, the High Court of Australia has upheld a high bar for traders to adopt a brand name “honestly”.
Read MoreIn a decision with major implications for brand strategy, the High Court of Australia has upheld a high bar for traders to adopt a brand name “honestly”.
Read MoreIn an important decision, the Full Federal Court in The NOCO Company v Brown and Watson International 1 held that the relevant date for assessing the best method known to the applicants is the filing date of each divisional application. This judgment carries significant implications for patent filing and litigation strategies, as patentees must consider the adequacy of the best method disclosures in existing and future divisional patent specifications.
Read MoreIn an Official Gazette notice dated 1 April 2026, the USPTO announced a new procedure allowing patent owners to submit a limited “pre order” paper addressing whether a third party ex parte reexamination request raises a Substantial New Question (SNQ) of patentability under 35 U.S.C. § 303(a).
Read MoreThe High Court of Australia has handed down its highly anticipated decision in Taylor v Killer Queen LLC [2026] HCA 5 in a narrow 3-2 majority, ending a decade-long trade mark battle between American pop star Katy Perry (born Katheryn Hudson) and Australian fashion designer Katie Taylor (born Katie Perry).
Read MoreOn 17 February 2026 in U.S. v. Heppner, 1:25-cr-503 (S.D.N.Y., Feb. 17, 2026), Judge Rakoff held that a defendant’s written exchanges with a public generative AI platform were not protected by the attorney-client privilege or the work product doctrine. The Government had seized approximately thirty-one documents memorializing the defendant’s interactions with the public platform. Defense counsel asserted privilege because the inputs included attorney-learned information, were created to facilitate consultations with counsel, and were later shared with counsel.
Read MoreThe Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) recently designated a post-grant review (PGR) decision as precedential. In the decision, the Director issued a discretionary denial decision confirming that the proper analysis was a “totality of the circumstances” type analysis, taking into account all facts and arguments presented by the parties.
Read MoreThe United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) has proposed significant changes to the rules governing Inter Partes Review (IPR) proceedings before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB). These revisions aim to enhance fairness, efficiency, and predictability in patent disputes, while curbing duplicative and costly litigation. Notably, these changes do not apply to Post-Grant Review (proceedings that must be filed within nine months of the patent issue date).
Read MoreThe recent decision in Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Inc v Sandoz shows how a strong noninfringement position can be powerful to resisting a preliminary injunction. The dismissal of the Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (Regeneron) and Bayer Australia Ltd and Bayer Consumer Care AG (together Bayer) parties’ application for interlocutory relief aligns with the recent trend away from granting preliminary (interlocutory) injunctions in pharmaceutical patent cases. While the trend has primarily arisen from the court’s recognition that the calculation of damages for a new market entrant is likely to be more difficult than that for the patentee, this was a, but not the main driving, factor in this case.
Read MoreIn Paige v Sage and Paige1, the Federal Court considered the existence of brand collaborations in the fashion industry, colloquially known as “collabs”, in assessing the deceptive similarity of trade marks.
Read MoreThe Federal Circuit recently issued its first review of a derivation proceeding, a rarely used proceeding provided for by the America Invents Act (AIA).
Read MoreCopyright © 2025, K&L Gates LLP. All Rights Reserved.