In a recent decision of the Australian Trade Marks Office, Karen Walker Limited successfully opposed the registration of the mark ‘Runaway the Label‘ for clothing, footwear and headgear (class 25) and online retail services (class 35). We focus here on Delegate’s findings on deceptive similarity under s 44 of the Trade Marks Act 1995 (Cth).
Read MoreIn the recent decision of NOCO Company v. Brown and Watson International Pty Ltd [2025] FCA 8871, Moshinsky J has provided welcomed clarity around the relevant date by which the best method known to the applicant is to be identified for divisional patent applications. Namely, the relevant date is the date from which the term of the patent is calculated. This means that for divisional patent applications, it is the filing date of the earliest complete or PCT application, not the individual filing date of each divisional application. And thus, it is at the time of filing the PCT application that the best method known to the applicant needs to be included in the specification.
Read MoreOn 25 July 2025, K&L Gates secured an important win for its client, Midas Green Technologies, LLC. Acting USPTO Director Coke Morgan Stewart granted Director review and denied institution of an inter partes review (IPR) petition filed by Midas Green’s competitor, Green Revolution Cooling, Inc., which had sought to invalidate U.S. Patent No. 10,405,457—currently being asserted by Midas Green in a parallel lawsuit pending in the Western District of Texas. The patent describes a modular immersion cooling system that circulates dielectric fluid to cool vertically mounted electronic appliances, such as computer servers, in a tank.
Read MoreEffective 1 September 2025, all hearings before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) will be conducted in person. Parties involved must attend these hearings physically and in person unless they can demonstrate a valid reason for not doing so. Acceptable justifications typically include situations such as significant financial difficulty for the arguing attorneys, medical issues, or similar substantial barriers to travel.
Read MoreOur first article in this series highlighted the financial and reputational damage counterfeiting causes to brand owners and the significant societal consequences associated with the reproduction, sale and dissemination of counterfeit products around the globe. We looked at how having strong Intellectual Property (IP) protection, selling through social or e-commerce platforms that have rigorous seller verification processes and educating consumers, retail and social platforms about the difference between genuine and counterfeit products, are all fundamental strategies which can be effective in the fight against online counterfeiting. Supplementing these steps with strategic enforcement action and IP protection measures are equally important.
Read MoreIn this two-part series, we show not only how to protect your brand from counterfeiting but also how your efforts to do so can simultaneously reduce organised crime, people trafficking, forced labour, toxic health risks and environmental crimes.
Read MoreEarlier this year, Chief Judge Boalick issued guidance on the USPTO’s recission of “Interim Procedure for Discretionary Denials in AIA Post-Grant Proceedings with Parallel District Court Litigation,” explaining how the Fintiv factors should be addressed going forward. Shortly after, Acting Director Stewart issued a memorandum titled “Interim Processes for PTAB Workload Management” that provided additional non-Fintiv discretionary factors that should be assessed to determine whether discretionary denial of an IPR petition is appropriate.
Read MoreThe intellectual property rights owner of The Lord of the Rings franchise, Middle-earth Enterprises, LLC (Middle-earth Enterprises) has renewed its pursuit against Lord of the Fries IP Pty Ltd (Lord of the Fries), having recently appealed the Australian Trade Marks Office’s decision allowing the registration of the word mark LORD OF THE filed by Lord of the Fries. We discuss below the key issues in dispute in the trade mark opposition filed by Middle-earth Enterprises.1
Read MoreThe Federal Circuit recently resolved a split among the district courts whether patent infringement defendants who bring inter partes review (IPR) challenges are estopped from raising new prior art challenges in a co-pending district court litigation. While some district courts had earlier found estoppel to have broad effect, and thus prevent challenges based on products on sale or public use, the Federal Circuit’s decision means that estoppel is limited only to challenges based on patents or printed publications, opening the door to use patents and publications to provide evidence of what subject matter was “on sale” or “in public use.”
Read MoreCopyright © 2025, K&L Gates LLP. All Rights Reserved.