Source: https://www.lexislegalnews.com/mealeys-intellectual-property
Timestamp: 2019-04-20 14:26:19+00:00

Document:
ALEXANDRIA, Va. — A recent final written decision by the Patent Trial and Appeal Board that a prior art reference anticipates five patent claims should be vacated, and the claims should instead be confirmed as patentable, the patent owner told the board April 17 (Power-Packer North America Inc., d/b/a GITS Manufacturing Co., v. G.W. Lisk Company Inc., No. IPR2017-02034, PTAB).
WASHINGTON, D.C. — A divided panel of the Federal Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals on April 17 left intact a Delaware federal judge’s denial of motions for judgment as a matter of law (JMOL) regarding infringement and invalidity of a composite laminate patent (E.I. du Pont de Nemours & Company v. Unifrax LLC, No. 17-2575, Fed. Cir., 2019 U.S. App. LEXIS 11207).
TRENTON, N.J. — Allegations that two banks breached their agreements to settle patent infringement claims by causing a third party to challenge the patent in an inter partes review (IPR) proceeding were dismissed April 15 by a New Jersey federal judge (Verify Smart Corp. v. Askeladden LLC, et al., No. 17-4248, D. N.J., 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 64070).
WASHINGTON, D.C. — At oral arguments before the U.S. Supreme Court April 15, an attorney for the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (PTO) told the justices that the Federal Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals erred in declaring the agency’s ban on registrations for “immoral and scandalous” trademarks unconstitutional (Andrei Iancu v. Erik Brunetti, No. 18-302, U.S. Sup.).
WASHINGTON, D.C. — In an April 11 decision, the Federal Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals reversed findings by the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (PTO)’s Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) that a patent owner had not established that an inventor acted diligently to reduce his invention to practice (ATI Technologies ULC v. Andrei Iancu, Nos. 2016-2222, -2406, -2608, Fed. Cir., 2019 U.S. App. LEXIS 10704).
WASHINGTON, D.C. — A group of five disparate religious organizations teamed up to file an amicus curiae brief April 5, asking the U.S. Supreme Court to consider a standard used by the Second Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals in finding the “Universal Church” trademark to be generic, arguing that religious trademarks merit the same consideration and protection as any other trademarks and suggesting that issues of religious liberty are implicated in the present case (The Universal Church Inc. v. Calvin Toellner, et al., No. 18-1159, U.S. Sup.).

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.