On June 19, 2017, the Supreme Court handed down its decision in Matal v. Tam, which considered the federal trademark act’s (known as the "Lanham Act") prohibition against registering trademarks comprised of disparaging names. In that case, "The Slants," an Asian-American band, were refused a trademark based on the potentially-offensive nature of the name. The Supreme Court ruled that prohibiting the registration of offensive trademarks is unconstitutional and violates the First Amendment. In this podcast, Finnegan partner Mark Sommers discusses the Supreme Court’s decision.

The federal district courts, located throughout the United States, are the trial courts in patent cases. Provided certain jurisdictional requirements are met, a party may also enforce their patent rights at the United States International Trade Commission (ITC). The ITC is a federal administrative agency that hears claims of patent infringement for imported goods accused of infringing U.S. patent rights.

Decisions from patent cases from district courts and the ITC are appealed to the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (Federal Circuit).

Litigants have some flexibility in selecting the venue for their case. This selection depends on, for example, the facts and strategy of the case, compliance with personal jurisdiction and venue requirements, and the available remedies. For example, patentees can obtain damages and/or injunctions in a district court, but in the ITC, only injunctive relief prohibiting importation into the United States is available. In this guide, Maressa A. Frederick and Clara N. Jiménez discuss patent law in the United States.

Counterfeiting has existed for as long as popular products have been produced. However, the Internet has created more complex methods for criminals to quickly and anonymously sell counterfeited products. In this podcast, Finnegan attorneys Naresh Kilaru and Morgan E. Smith provide insight into how counterfeiters are using new technology to avoid detection and what businesses can do to protect themselves before and after their rights have been infringed upon.

On March 21, the Supreme Court heard oral arguments in Impression Products, Inc. v. Lexmark International, Inc. The case focuses on whether a patent owner has the right under the patent laws to control the further use and resale of a patented article after an initial sale. In this case, Lexmark has argued that its patent was violated by Impression, which refilled and resold used Lexmark ink cartridges initially sold in the U.S. and abroad. Finnegan partner D. Brian Kacedon joins us now to tell us more about this case and provide a brief overview of the oral arguments.

On April 26, the Supreme Court will hear oral arguments in Amgen Inc. v. Sandoz Inc. and Sandoz Inc. v. Amgen Inc.—cases that could significantly impact makers of biosimilars and branded biologic drugs and how these drugs are brought to market. In this podcast, Finnegan partners Sanya Sukduang and Jonathan R. Davies discuss this historic case and provide a brief overview of the issues the Supreme Court is scheduled to consider.

Obviousness-type double patenting is a judicially-created doctrine designed to prevent a patent owner from applying for a second patent which isn’t “patentably distinct” from the claims of a first patent. In many cases, obviousness-type double patenting can occur accidentally, and it’s important for patent holders to know how to avoid this complication. In this podcast, Finnegan attorneys Alissa K. Lipton and Jeffrey M. Jacobstein discuss this issue.

In our global economy, securing protection for and enforcing intellectual property rights reaches far beyond any one country’s border. Yet there are continual challenges around harmonizing IP practice. One unresolved issue is attorney-client privilege: innovators want to be certain that their communications with IP counsel—no matter where they are located—are protected. However U.S. and European courts continue to find that such communications are not automatically immune from discovery. In this podcast, Finnegan attorneys Jennifer H. Roscetti and Erin M. Sommers provide insight into this issue.

In a referendum held on June 23, 2016, the people of the United Kingdom voted to leave the European Union. The possibility of a British exit from the European Union, known as "BREXIT," has caused concern not just in Britain and Europe, but for companies in the rest of the world that trade with Britain. In particular, companies are concerned about how their intellectual property rights might be affected, and are wondering what action they should take to safeguard their rights in the United Kingdom.

On June 20, 2016, the U.S. Supreme Court handed down a highly anticipated decision in Cuozzo Speed Technologies, LLC v. Lee. The court upheld the ability of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board, also known as the PTAB, to apply the broadest reasonable interpretation of patent claims during an inter partes review proceeding. It also declared that preliminary decisions by the PTAB during inter partes reviews are not judicially reviewable.

Trade secrets and confidential information comprise a significant portion of most companies' IP portfolios. However, it sometimes can be difficult to determine what information is considered a trade secret and how it should best be protected. Also, as more companies operate in both the U.S. and Europe, it is crucial to know how E.U. trade secret laws impact a company's information overseas.