Jim Patterson and Brad Pedersen were named to the 2018 Minnesota Super Lawyers® listing for intellectual property. Sarah Stensland was recognized on the Rising Stars® listing for intellectual property litigation.
Just last year, in Matal v. Tam, the U.S. Supreme Court opened the door to the registration of trademarks that could be considered offensive when it ruled that the disparagement clause in the federal trademark law was unconstitutional. Now the U.S. Federal Circuit Court of Appeals has taken a similar stance, striking down the bar against the registration of trademarks that are “immoral or scandalous.”
Although in 2014 the U.S. Supreme Court announced a standard for assessing whether patent language is fatally indefinite, the limits of the Court’s decision are still being determined. More recently, the U.S. Federal Circuit Court of Appeals provided additional guidance — and it seems to favor patentees.
Mistakes happen — but, thanks to a new ruling by the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals, mistakes in a copyright registration application don’t necessarily doom the resulting registration. According to a recent case, the registration will be upheld unless it contains material inaccuracies and the registrant intended to conceal relevant information from the Copyright Office.
Patentees have long struggled when trying to enforce method patents in “divided infringement” cases, where multiple parties carried out the required steps. The Federal Circuit Court of Appeals seems to have come to their rescue, though. The court, which hears all appeals in patent-related cases, recently made clear that it’s applying a looser standard when it comes to establishing direct infringement liability in divided infringement cases.
We are proud to be listed among the top patent firms in the world in this year’s IAM Patent 1000 for the sixth year in a row. Patterson Thuente appears in the prestigious publication, published by Globe Business Media Group of London, as one of the world’s leading patent service providers. IAM is acknowledged within the industry as the leading IP business media platform. Patterson Thuente was included in the IAM Patent 1000 2018 publication as a recommended firm for both litigation and prosecution. Four attorneys – Eric Chadwick, Jim Patterson, Brad Pedersen, and Amy Salmela – were also recognized for their individual talents.
Conventional wisdom tells us that, in business disputes, mediation works best when it is voluntary. So why do judges regularly force litigants into mediation? Perhaps it’s because, in their experience, reality is quite different from the conventional wisdom. Namely, that mediation, whether voluntary or coerced, often helps litigants avoid unnecessary and costly litigation.
Patterson Thuente IP is pleased to present the June/July 2018 issue of Ideas on Intellectual Property Law. We encourage you to read through it for ideas on how to best protect your intellectual property.
Shortly after filing a trademark application, with the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) or with another non-US, government trademark agency, a growing number of our clients inevitably receive one or more official-looking letters or invoices seeking payment related to the trademark registration. You may have received one of these notices in the mail or via email yourself—a solicitation, formatted to look like an official government document, that lists data about your trademark application and even an image of your trademark (all of which is publicly available information). Many of these companies use terms that resemble an official agency name including one or more of the terms “United States,” “U.S.,” “Trademark,” “Patent,” “Registration,” “Office,” or “Agency.” The truth is, these solicitations have absolutely no legal or other significance to your trademark registration.
What’s in a name? The answer to that question might determine whether a mark that includes someone’s surname is eligible for trademark registration. The Federal Circuit Court of Appeals has shed some light on when a mark with a surname is—and isn’t—registrable as a trademark.