Scarinci Hollenbeck, LLC, LLCScarinci Hollenbeck, LLC, LLC

Firm Insights

U.S. Supreme Court Intellectual Property Wrap-Up

Author: Fred D. Zemel

Date: July 28, 2017

Key Contacts

Back

SCOTUS issued several key decisions involving intellectual property in its recently concluded October 2016 Term

The U.S. Supreme Court issued several key decisions involving intellectual property in its recently concluded October 2016 Term. From offensive trademarks to design patent, it was a landmark year for patent, trademark, and copyright decisions.

SCOTUS Wraps Up Intellectual Property Term Oct 2016
Photo courtesy of Stocksnap.io

We provided in-depth coverage of many of the Supreme Court’s IP decisions on this website as well as the Constitutional Law Reporter. In case you missed any of our articles, below is a brief summary of several important cases:

Impression Products, Inc. v. Lexmark International, Inc.

In clarifying the patent exhaustion doctrine, the justices held that a patent holder’s decision to sell a product exhausts all of its patent rights in that item, regardless of any restrictions it purports to impose. The Court further found that an authorized sale exhausts all rights under the Patent Act regardless whether the product is sold inside or outside of the United States.

TC Heartland v. Kraft Foods

The Court held that patent infringement lawsuits must be filed where the defendant is incorporated. Reversing U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, the Court concluded that “a domestic corporation ‘resides’ only in its state of incorporation for purposes of the patent venue statute.” 

Matal v. Tam

The Court struck down the Lanham Act’s prohibition of registering disparaging trademarks with the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, concluding that the ban was unconstitutional under the First Amendment.

Sandoz Inc. v. Amgen Inc.

The Court unanimously held that Section 262(l)(2)(A) of the Biologics Price Competition and Innovation Act of 2009 is not enforceable by injunction under federal law. However, it remanded the case to the Federal Circuit with instructions to determine whether a state-law injunction may be available. Reversing the Federal Circuit, the Court further held an applicant may provide notice of commercial marketing of a biosimilar under Section 262(l)(8)(A) prior to obtaining licensure from the U.S. Food and Drug Administration.

Samsung Electronics Co. v. Apple

In addressing how to calculate damages in design patent infringement cases, the Court held that the Samsung could be liable for only those profits associated with the infringing components of the cell phone rather than the whole device. According to the unanimous Court, the relevant “article of manufacture” for determining damages award is not limited to the end product sold to the consumer, but may also be only a component of that product. The justices remanded the case back to the Federal Circuit to develop a test for determining whether the profits should apply to a product as a whole or its individual components. The Federal Circuit further delegated the task to the district court.

Star Athletica, LLC v. Varsity Brands

The Court held that the design of a cheerleading uniform is eligible for copyright protection. In so ruling, it established a two-part test to determine separability: “if the feature (1) can be perceived as a two- or three-dimensional work of art separate from the useful article and (2) would qualify as a protectable pictorial, graphic, or sculptural work either on its own or in some other medium if imagined separately from the useful article.” 

SCA Hygiene Products Aktiebolag v. First Quality Baby Products, LLC

The Court held that the equitable doctrine of “laches” does not bar a claim for patent infringement brought within the Patent Act’s six-year statutory limitations period.

Life Technologies Corporation v. Promega Corporation

The Court interpreted 35 U.S.C.§ 271(f)(1), which states it is an act of patent infringement to “suppl[y] …in or from the United States all or a substantial portion of the components of a patented invention, …in such manner as to actively induce the combination of such components outside the United States.” It held that patent infringement does not occur when a product is made abroad and all components but a single commodity article are also supplied from overseas.

Do you have any questions? Would you like to discuss the decisions further? If so, please contact me, Fred Zemel, at 201-806-3364.

No Aspect of the advertisement has been approved by the Supreme Court. Results may vary depending on your particular facts and legal circumstances.

Scarinci Hollenbeck, LLC, LLC

Related Posts

See all
Dissolving Your Business: Essential Legal Steps to Protect Your Interests post image

Dissolving Your Business: Essential Legal Steps to Protect Your Interests

If you’re considering closing your business, it’s crucial to understand that simply shutting your doors does not end your legal obligations. Unless you formally dissolve your business, it continues to exist in the eyes of the law—leaving you exposed to ongoing liabilities such as taxes, compliance violations, and potential lawsuits. Dissolving a business can seem […]

Author: Christopher D. Warren

Link to post with title - "Dissolving Your Business: Essential Legal Steps to Protect Your Interests"
The Role of Corporate Restructuring in Mergers & Acquisitions post image

The Role of Corporate Restructuring in Mergers & Acquisitions

Contrary to what many people think, corporate restructuring isn’t all doom and gloom. Revamping a company’s organizational structure, corporate hierarchy, or operations procedures can help keep your business competitive. This is particularly true during challenging times. Corporate restructuring plays a critical role in modern business strategy. It helps companies adapt quickly to market changes. Following […]

Author: Dan Brecher

Link to post with title - "The Role of Corporate Restructuring in Mergers & Acquisitions"
Crypto Enforcement: A Former Prosecutor’s Warning to Criminals and the Public post image

Crypto Enforcement: A Former Prosecutor’s Warning to Criminals and the Public

Cryptocurrency intimidates most people. The reason is straightforward. People fear what they do not understand. When confusion sets in, the common reaction is either to ignore the subject entirely or to mistrust it. For years, that is exactly how most of the public and even many in law enforcement treated cryptocurrency. However, such apprehension changed […]

Author: Bryce S. Robins

Link to post with title - "Crypto Enforcement: A Former Prosecutor’s Warning to Criminals and the Public"
Understanding Chattel Paper: A Key Component in Secured Transactions post image

Understanding Chattel Paper: A Key Component in Secured Transactions

Using chattel paper to obtain a security interest in personal property is a powerful tool. It can ensure lenders have a legal claim on collateral ranging from inventory to intellectual property. To reduce risk and protect your legal rights, businesses and lenders should understand the legal framework. This framework governs the creation, sale, and enforcement […]

Author: Dan Brecher

Link to post with title - "Understanding Chattel Paper: A Key Component in Secured Transactions"
Crypto Compliance: A Comprehensive Guide post image

Crypto Compliance: A Comprehensive Guide

For years, digital assets operated in a legal gray area, a frontier where innovation outpaced the reach of regulators and law enforcement. In this early “Wild West” phase of finance, crypto startups thrived under minimal oversight. That era, however, is coming to an end. The importance of crypto compliance has become paramount as cryptocurrency has […]

Author: Bryce S. Robins

Link to post with title - "Crypto Compliance: A Comprehensive Guide"
Supreme Court and Title VII: Implications for Reverse Discrimination post image

Supreme Court and Title VII: Implications for Reverse Discrimination

Earlier this month, the U.S. Supreme Court issued a decision in Ames v. Ohio Department of Youth Services vitiating the so-called “background circumstances” test required by half of federal circuit courts.1 The background circumstances test required majority group plaintiffs pleading discrimination under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act to meet a heightened pleading standard […]

Author: Matthew F. Mimnaugh

Link to post with title - "Supreme Court and Title VII: Implications for Reverse Discrimination"

No Aspect of the advertisement has been approved by the Supreme Court. Results may vary depending on your particular facts and legal circumstances.

Sign up to get the latest from our attorneys!

Explore What Matters Most to You.

Consider subscribing to our Firm Insights mailing list by clicking the button below so you can keep up to date with the firm`s latest articles covering various legal topics.

Stay informed and inspired with the latest updates, insights, and events from Scarinci Hollenbeck. Our resource library provides valuable content across a range of categories to keep you connected and ahead of the curve.

Let`s get in touch!

* The use of the Internet or this form for communication with the firm or any individual member of the firm does not establish an attorney-client relationship. Confidential or time-sensitive information should not be sent through this form.

Sign up to get the latest from the Scarinci Hollenbeck, LLC attorneys!