There are a number of intellectual property myths that attorneys
hear over and over again. Periodically, we'll feature
some of these myths and examine the reality.
Myth: Because my company sells only in the
United States, we don't need to worry about protecting our
Reality: Although trademark rights are
territorial in nature, in some countries use is not required to
obtain rights. In these countries, notably including China,
trademark priority goes to the first person to file an application
(often called "first-to-file" jurisdictions), regardless
of whether or not the applicant is using or even plans to use the
trademark in that country.
Consider, for example, a company located in the United States that
sells its products exclusively in the United States, but
manufactures goods or has suppliers in China. It would be
possible for a third party to register the U.S. company's
trademarks in China and then bring or threaten a lawsuit. It
might be that a Chinese court would dismiss these claims, but many
trademark owners decide that obtaining foreign trademark
registrations in first-to-file jurisdictions is a worthwhile
investment to reduce the risks of facing a foreign trademark threat
For another example, consider a company that sells a popular
consumer product in the United States. Even if the company
has no activity in China and never intends to -- it may want to
obtain a Chinese trademark registration as a way to try to deter
A trademark attorney can provide advice on whether it is possible
to obtain trademark protection in a foreign country without use in
that country and the benefits it may provide based on individual
As set forth in the decision, Mylan's failure to respond to a deficiency letter received from FDA in May 2014 "raise[d] serious questions in the Court's mind as to the viability of Mylan's ANDA product as currently formulated."
A few weeks ago, Airbus received a U.S. patent for an airplane. More specifically, Airbus' patent is for what every 5-year old boy has been flying since the invention of die cast toys: a plane that takes off nearly vertically...
Last week the PTAB sought to clarify the somewhat controversial requirement that a patent owner must "persuade the Board that the [amended] claim is patentable over the prior art of record, and over prior art not of record but known to the patent owner."
Fed Cir affirms judgment upholding the PTO's patent term adjustment calculation. The patentee had filed its original application in 2002, yet the PTO did not take any action until 2006, when it issued a restriction requirement.