Tag:IP Litigation

1
A Quest Against Middle-earth: Lord of the Fries Successfully Registers LORD OF THE Mark
2
Estoppel Estopped?
3
Last Mile Logistics Comes to the End of the Road – Dei Gratia v Commissioner of Patents [2024] FCA 1145
4
Best Method Challenge Continues to Offer “a Material Advantage” – Zoetis Services LLC v Boehringer Ingelheim Animal Health USA Inc [2024] FCAFC 145
5
Patent Trial and Appeal Board Designates “Informative” Decision Regarding Claim Construction
6
No Copyright Protection for Birkenstock Sandals: A Significant Decision from the German Federal Court of Justice
7
Federal Circuit Broadens ITC Economic Prong
8
US$18.3 million Wearable Blanket Infringement Award Stands Despite Newly Announced Design Patent Standard
9
UK Supreme Court Judgment Finds Directors may not be Liable for IP Infringement Without Knowledge of Essential Facts
10
Federal Circuit Relaxes Standard for Design Patent Obviousness Challenges

A Quest Against Middle-earth: Lord of the Fries Successfully Registers LORD OF THE Mark

The 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 More

Estoppel Estopped?

The 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 More

Last Mile Logistics Comes to the End of the Road – Dei Gratia v Commissioner of Patents [2024] FCA 1145

In Dei Gratia Pty Ltd v Commissioner of Patents [2024] FCA 1145 (Dei Gratia), the Federal Court of Australia dismissed an appeal by Dei Gratia and confirmed the decision of the Commissioner of Patents to refuse the patent application for ‘last mile logistics’. The claimed invention purported to facilitate the delivery of goods from the last point in a distribution chain to end consumers. By selecting a preferred local outlet, customers would be able to overcome delivery issues such as the need to be at home at a specific time and the protection of perishable goods that have been left at doors in high temperatures.

Read More

Best Method Challenge Continues to Offer “a Material Advantage” – Zoetis Services LLC v Boehringer Ingelheim Animal Health USA Inc [2024] FCAFC 145

Finding against Zoetis, the Full Federal Court held that Zoetis’ three patent applications relating to pig vaccines were invalid due to the failure to disclose the best method.

Read More

Patent Trial and Appeal Board Designates “Informative” Decision Regarding Claim Construction

On 20 March 2025, the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) designated as “Informative” the majority opinion in the Decision Denying Institution in IPR2024-00952, a decision originally entered on December 13, 2024.

Read More

No Copyright Protection for Birkenstock Sandals: A Significant Decision from the German Federal Court of Justice

On 20 February 2025, the German Federal Supreme Court (BGH) delivered a landmark ruling in a case concerning the copyright protection of Birkenstock sandals. In its decision, the BGH firmly rejected the claim that Birkenstock’s sandal designs qualify for copyright as “applied art” under German copyright law. This judgment not only clarifies the scope of protection for industrial design works but also contrasts with prior rulings from regional courts in Hamburg and Cologne, highlighting the challenges of determining what constitutes “creative” or “artistic” design in functional products.

Read More

Federal Circuit Broadens ITC Economic Prong

In the recent decision of Lashify, Inc. v. International Trade Commission, the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit rejected the long-standing approach concerning the interpretation of the domestic-industry requirement under Section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930. The complainant, an American company importing eyelash extensions from international manufacturers, which alleged that certain other importers were infringing on its patents.

Read More

US$18.3 million Wearable Blanket Infringement Award Stands Despite Newly Announced Design Patent Standard

An Arizona federal judge denied Top Brand LLC’s motion for a new trial following an US$18.3 million jury award to Cozy Comfort Co. for infringement of two Cozy Comfort design patents and the “Comfy” trademarks used in connection with “The Comfy” hooded wearable blanket, which was featured on the television program “Shark Tank”.

Read More

UK Supreme Court Judgment Finds Directors may not be Liable for IP Infringement Without Knowledge of Essential Facts

Earlier this month in Lifestyle Equities CV and another v Ahmed and another the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom held that the company directors of Hornby Street Limited, siblings Kashif and Bushra Ahmed, were not jointly liable with their company for trade mark infringement.

Read More

Federal Circuit Relaxes Standard for Design Patent Obviousness Challenges

On 21 May 2024, the Federal Circuit overturned the Rosen-Durling test used to assess non-obviousness of design patents. In LKQ Corporation v. GM Global Technology Operations LLC, the Court en banc ruled the same conditions for patentability that apply to utility patents apply to design patents, specifically holding the obviousness rationale articulated in KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398 (2007), will now apply to design patents. LKQ Corp. v. GM Glob. Tech. Operations LLC, No. 2021-2348, 2024 WL 2280728, at 1 (Fed. Cir. May 21, 2024) (en banc).

Read More

Copyright © 2025, K&L Gates LLP. All Rights Reserved.