This is an opinion from the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit regarding PT Medisafe Technologies' attempt to register a dark green color for medical examination gloves as a trademark. The court affirmed the decision of the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board, which had denied registration because the proposed color mark was found to be generic. Applying a two-step test specifically for color marks, the court agreed that the color was too common within the relevant class of goods (chloroprene medical examination gloves) to identify a single source. Therefore, the court concluded that the proposed mark failed to function as a source indicator and was ineligible for trademark protection.

This podcast is for entertainment purposes only and does not create an attorney-client relationship. The AI-generated hosts are not attorneys and are not providing legal advice. The choice of a lawyer is an important decision and should not be based solely upon advertisements.

This is an opinion from the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit concerning an appeal involving Qualcomm Incorporated and Apple Inc., with the United States Patent and Trademark Office as an intervenor. The core issue revolves around Apple's challenge to a Qualcomm patent (U.S. Patent No. 8,063,674) in an inter partes review (IPR) proceeding. Specifically, the dispute focuses on whether Applicant Admitted Prior Art (AAPA) can form "the basis" of a ground for challenging a patent's validity under 35 U.S.C. § 311(b), which limits such grounds to "prior art consisting of patents or printed publications." The court examines the Patent Trial and Appeal Board's prior decisions, PTO guidance memoranda, and relevant case law, ultimately finding that the Board erred in its interpretation and application of the statute by concluding that AAPA used in combination with other prior art does not form the basis of the ground.

This podcast is for entertainment purposes only and does not create an attorney-client relationship. The AI-generated hosts are not attorneys and are not providing legal advice. The choice of a lawyer is an important decision and should not be based solely upon advertisements.

This episode is about a United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit opinion regarding a patent dispute between Recentive Analytics, Inc. and Fox Corp. The core issue on appeal is the patent eligibility of Recentive's patents, which relate to using machine learning for generating television broadcast schedules and network maps. The district court had dismissed Recentive's case, finding the patents were directed to ineligible abstract ideas. The Court of Appeals affirms this decision, concluding that merely applying generic machine learning to a new domain without demonstrating an inventive concept or improvement to the machine learning itself is not patent eligible.

This podcast is for entertainment purposes only and does not create an attorney-client relationship. The AI-generated hosts are not attorneys and are not providing legal advice. The choice of a lawyer is an important decision and should not be based solely upon advertisements.

This episode is about an opinion from the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit regarding a patent dispute between Sage Products, LLC and the Acting Under Secretary of Commerce for Intellectual Property. Sage appealed the Patent Trial and Appeal Board's decision that certain claims in two of its patents were unpatentable based on prior art. The court reviewed the Board's findings concerning anticipation, the knowledge of a skilled artisan, and alleged procedural errors, ultimately affirming the Board's judgment that Sage's patent claims were anticipated by prior art.

This podcast is for entertainment purposes only and does not create an attorney-client relationship. The AI-generated hosts are not attorneys and are not providing legal advice. The choice of a lawyer is an important decision and should not be based solely upon advertisements.

This  is a decision from the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit regarding an appeal by Donald K. Forest. The central issue is whether the Patent Office can grant a patent, specifically U.S. Patent Application No. 15/391,116, after its potential twenty-year term has already expired. The court ultimately dismisses Forest's appeal, reasoning that patent law, particularly 35 U.S.C. § 154, intends provisional rights to exist as a temporary precursor to, and in conjunction with, the standard exclusionary rights of a patent, which cannot exist if the patent term has lapsed. Therefore, an expired patent cannot confer either exclusionary or provisional rights.

This podcast is for entertainment purposes only and does not create an attorney-client relationship. The AI-generated hosts are not attorneys and are not providing legal advice. The choice of a lawyer is an important decision and should not be based solely upon advertisements.

This episode is about an opinion from the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit addresses a dispute concerning a patent application for an integrated logistics system. The core issue revolves around whether a prior published patent application, referred to as Lettich, can be considered prior art against the current application. The court is specifically examining if Lettich can claim the earlier filing date of its provisional application, which would impact its status as prior art. Ultimately, the court vacates and remands the Patent Trial and Appeal Board's decision because the Board did not adequately analyze whether the specific content in Lettich relied upon to reject the current application was supported by Lettich's provisional application.

This podcast is for entertainment purposes only and does not create an attorney-client relationship. The AI-generated hosts are not attorneys and are not providing legal advice. The choice of a lawyer is an important decision and should not be based solely upon advertisements.

This Federal Circuit opinion details an appeal by Maquet Cardiovascular against a district court's judgment that Abiomed did not infringe Maquet's U.S. Patent No. 10,238,783, which concerns intravascular blood pump systems. The appeal specifically challenges the lower court's interpretation of certain terms within the patent claims, arguing that the district court improperly applied prosecution disclaimer to narrow their meaning. The appellate court agreed with Maquet, finding errors in the district court's claim constructions regarding the "guide mechanism" and "guide wire" limitations. As a result, the Federal Circuit vacated the judgment of non-infringement for the '783 patent and remanded the case for further proceedings consistent with their claim interpretations, while leaving the non-infringement ruling for a related '238 patent undisturbed as it was not part of the appeal.

This podcast is for entertainment purposes only and does not create an attorney-client relationship. The AI-generated hosts are not attorneys and are not providing legal advice. The choice of a lawyer is an important decision and should not be based solely upon advertisements.