United States: IP Newsflash - February 12, 2016


The Supreme Court Denies Cert Challenging the Use of Third-Party Registrations and Website Printouts as Evidence of Actual Use

The U.S. Supreme Court denied New Millennium Sports, S.L.U.'s (New Millennium) writ to review the Federal Circuit's holding overturning a decision by the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board (TTAB). New Millennium is a Spanish company that owns a trademark with an animal paw print element and the word "KELME" in connection with sports clothing. In 2009, Jack Wolfskin Ausrustung Fur Draussen GmbH & Co. KGAA (Jack Wolfskin) applied for a trademark with a paw print design in connection with clothing. New Millennium filed an opposition against Jack Wolfskin in 2010.

The TTAB sustained New Millennium's opposition, finding that consumers are likely to confuse the parties' marks. The TTAB also refused to cancel New Millennium's mark. Jack Wolfskin appealed. In 2015, the Federal Circuit affirmed the TTAB with respect to the refusal to cancel New Millennium's mark but reversed the TTAB with respect to New Millennium's opposition. Specifically, the Federal Circuit disagreed with the TTAB's finding that the "other marks in use" factor was neutral. Instead, the Federal Circuit concluded that this factor demonstrates that New Millennium's mark is relatively weak because numerous third-parties have registered and used paw print designs in connection with clothing. Thus, the Federal Circuit held that there is no likelihood of confusion.

New Millennium filed a petition challenging the Federal Circuit's holdings. First, it contended that third-party registrations do not constitute evidence of actual use under prior case law. Second, it stated that the Federal Circuit improperly relied on third-party website printouts. It claimed that without proper authentication, such printouts lacks probative value and cannot demonstrate actual use. The Supreme Court denied the cert petition without explanation, leaving the Federal Circuit's holdings intact.

New Millennium Sports, S.L.U., v. Jack Wolfskin Ausrustung Fur Draussen GmbH & Co. KGAA, Case No. 15-660 (U.S. Supreme Court, Jan. 25, 2016).

- Author: Yimeng Dou


Claims for Pre-issuance Damages Require Actual Notice of and Substantially Identical Claims between the Published Application and the Issued Patent

In a case of first impression involving actual notice under 35 U.S.C. §154(d), the Federal Circuit affirmed the district court's grant of summary judgment denying Plaintiff's claim for pre-issuance damages.

Section 154(d), a rarely invoked statute, provides for damages that take place before a patent issues if the infringer had actual notice of the published application. Although actual notice is required, Section 154(d) does not specify what constitutes actual notice.

Adobe argued that actual notice requires Rosebud to provide notice about the published patent application to Adobe, which it did not do. Rosebud argued that Adobe had constructive notice of the published patent application based on the parties' prior litigation involving the published application's parent and grandparent patents.

The court rejected Rosebud's argument because actual notice requires more than mere knowledge of the related patents. But the court stopped short of requiring an affirmative act by an applicant to give notice to an accused infringer (c.f. 35 U.S.C. § 287). The panel judges also read actual notice to require notice of the claims because without it, the accused infringer cannot know the scope the claimed invention. Under this reading, giving notice of only the specification (e.g., from related applications or patents) is insufficient to establish actual notice.

Rosebud LMS Inc v. Adobe Sys., Inc. (Fed. Cir. Feb. 9, 2016) (Moore, Hughes & Stoll, JJ.).

- Author: Alex Chan

PTAB Not Required to Review All Patent Claims Challenged in IPR Petition

The Federal Circuit, in a 2-1 opinion, recently affirmed the Patent Trial and Appeal Board's (PTAB) regulation that the PTAB only has to provide a written opinion on the claims actually instituted for inter partes review, not on every claim raised in the original IPR petition. Petitioner Synopsys submitted an IPR petition to invalidate a number of claims in Mentor's patent—the same patent asserted against Synopsys in litigation. The PTAB instituted the IPR on roughly half of the submitted claims and ultimately invalidated only three claims. Synopsys appealed and argued that the AIA requires a written opinion by the PTAB on all claims submitted in the original petition, not just those claims instituted by the PTAB for review. The Federal Circuit rejected Petitioner's argument, noting the AIA "is quite clear that the PTO can choose whether to institute inter partes review on a claim by claim basis." After that initial decision by the PTAB, the court held the AIA only requires the PTAB to provide a written opinion on "challenged" claims—"claims for which inter partes review was instituted." The Federal Circuit recognized "the statue would make little sense if it required the Board to issue final decisions addressing patent claims for which inter partes review had not been initiated."

Synopsys v. Mentor Graphics, Corp., C. A. No. 14-1516, 14-1530 (Fed. Cir. Feb. 10, 2016)

- Author: James Duncan

Federal Circuit Reluctantly Applies Mayo and Denies Petition for Rehearing en banc in Medical Diagnostic Case

On December 2, 2015, the Federal Circuit denied a petition for rehearing en banc to consider whether a three-judge panel had correctly affirmed a judgment of invalidity under 35 U.S.C. § 101. The court determined that although the nature of the claimed invention is such that it should be patentable, the Federal Circuit's hands are tied by the Supreme Court's two-part test in Mayo Collaborative Services v. Prometheus Laboratories, Inc., 132 S. Ct. 1289 (2012). The court also expressed concern about the implications of decisions like this on medical diagnostics patents: Judge Lourie stated, "[i]t is said that the whole category of diagnostic claims is at risk. It is also said that a crisis of patent law and medical innovation may be upon us, and there seems to be some truth in that concern."

The claims-at-issue were "directed to methods for detecting paternally-inherited fetal DNA in maternal blood samples, and performing a prenatal diagnosis based on such DNA." Applying the Supreme Court's two-step framework to § 101, the court found that the claims were directed to a natural phenomenon and failed to include an "inventive concept sufficient to 'transform' the claimed naturally occurring phenomenon into a patent-eligible application." Ariosa Diagnostics, Inc. v. Sequenom, Inc., 788 F.3d 1371, 1376 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (quoting Mayo).

Judges Lourie and Dyk each wrote concurring opinions that agreed with the court application of the Mayo framework but proposed alternative approaches to preserve the patentability of such valuable work–including possible further refinement of the standard by the Supreme Court. For example, Judge Lourie wrote, "[t]he claim to this invention...might have been better drafted as a...Jepson claim, which recites what is in the prior art and what is the improvement." Judge Dyk expressed concern that "there is a problem with Mayo insofar as it concludes that inventive concept cannot come from discovering something new in nature." He proposed "allowing narrow claims that have been actually reduced to practice when those claims embody an inventive, newly discovered law of nature..." and asserted that a "future case is likely to present a patent claim where the inventive concept resides in a newly discovered law of nature or natural phenomenon, but the claim is narrowly drawn and actually reduced to practice." Such a claim, he suggested, may allow "the Supreme Court...an opportunity to revisit the Mayo/Alice framework in this one limited aspect."

Ariosa Diagnostics, Inc. v. Sequenom, Inc., 2015 U.S. App. LEXIS 20842 (Fed. Cir. Dec. 2, 2015) (en banc).

- Author: Michael Kahn and Law Clerk Matt Weiss (not admitted to practice) co-wrote this article.


PTAB Institutes IPR and Grants Joinder of Patent Asserted Against Apple

On February 4, 2016, the Patent Trial and Appeal Board instituted inter partes review of a patent asserted by VirnetX Inc. against Apple Inc. The petitioner, Black Swamp IP LLC, requested an IPR of U.S. Patent No. 7,490,151 and also requested joinder with an IPR filed by Mangrove Partners Master Fund, Ltd. that was instituted against the same patent.

The PTAB stated that it would institute the IPR for the same reasons it had instituted the IPR filed by Mangrove Partners Fund. The patent owner, VirnetX, argued that Black Swamp's petition would prejudice VirnetX and accused Black Swamp's petition of being "an attempt at extortion." VirnetX also argued that allowing joinder would "tip the scale of resources" in favor of the petitioner. The PTAB was not persuaded by VirnetX's arguments.

The day before the PTAB's decision, a jury in the Eastern District of Texas awarded VirnetX a $625.6 million verdict against Apple in a case involving the '151 patent and three other patents. The claims of the '151 patent were asserted against Apple products with VPN on demand functionality.

Black Swamp IP LLC v. VirnetX Inc., IPR2016-00167 (PTAB Feb. 4, 2016) [Siu (opinion), Tierney, Easthom].

- Author: Justin Chi

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.

To print this article, all you need is to be registered on Mondaq.com.

Click to Login as an existing user or Register so you can print this article.

Similar Articles
Relevancy Powered by MondaqAI
Jones Day
In association with
Related Topics
Similar Articles
Relevancy Powered by MondaqAI
Jones Day
Related Articles
Related Video
Up-coming Events Search
Font Size:
Mondaq on Twitter
Register for Access and our Free Biweekly Alert for
This service is completely free. Access 250,000 archived articles from 100+ countries and get a personalised email twice a week covering developments (and yes, our lawyers like to think you’ve read our Disclaimer).
Email Address
Company Name
Confirm Password
Mondaq Topics -- Select your Interests
 Law Performance
 Law Practice
 Media & IT
 Real Estate
 Wealth Mgt
Asia Pacific
European Union
Latin America
Middle East
United States
Worldwide Updates
Registration (you must scroll down to set your data preferences)

Mondaq Ltd requires you to register and provide information that personally identifies you, including your content preferences, for three primary purposes (full details of Mondaq’s use of your personal data can be found in our Privacy and Cookies Notice):

  • To allow you to personalize the Mondaq websites you are visiting to show content ("Content") relevant to your interests.
  • To enable features such as password reminder, news alerts, email a colleague, and linking from Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to your website.
  • To produce demographic feedback for our content providers ("Contributors") who contribute Content for free for your use.

Mondaq hopes that our registered users will support us in maintaining our free to view business model by consenting to our use of your personal data as described below.

Mondaq has a "free to view" business model. Our services are paid for by Contributors in exchange for Mondaq providing them with access to information about who accesses their content. Once personal data is transferred to our Contributors they become a data controller of this personal data. They use it to measure the response that their articles are receiving, as a form of market research. They may also use it to provide Mondaq users with information about their products and services.

Details of each Contributor to which your personal data will be transferred is clearly stated within the Content that you access. For full details of how this Contributor will use your personal data, you should review the Contributor’s own Privacy Notice.

Please indicate your preference below:

Yes, I am happy to support Mondaq in maintaining its free to view business model by agreeing to allow Mondaq to share my personal data with Contributors whose Content I access
No, I do not want Mondaq to share my personal data with Contributors

Also please let us know whether you are happy to receive communications promoting products and services offered by Mondaq:

Yes, I am happy to received promotional communications from Mondaq
No, please do not send me promotional communications from Mondaq
Terms & Conditions

Mondaq.com (the Website) is owned and managed by Mondaq Ltd (Mondaq). Mondaq grants you a non-exclusive, revocable licence to access the Website and associated services, such as the Mondaq News Alerts (Services), subject to and in consideration of your compliance with the following terms and conditions of use (Terms). Your use of the Website and/or Services constitutes your agreement to the Terms. Mondaq may terminate your use of the Website and Services if you are in breach of these Terms or if Mondaq decides to terminate the licence granted hereunder for any reason whatsoever.

Use of www.mondaq.com

To Use Mondaq.com you must be: eighteen (18) years old or over; legally capable of entering into binding contracts; and not in any way prohibited by the applicable law to enter into these Terms in the jurisdiction which you are currently located.

You may use the Website as an unregistered user, however, you are required to register as a user if you wish to read the full text of the Content or to receive the Services.

You may not modify, publish, transmit, transfer or sell, reproduce, create derivative works from, distribute, perform, link, display, or in any way exploit any of the Content, in whole or in part, except as expressly permitted in these Terms or with the prior written consent of Mondaq. You may not use electronic or other means to extract details or information from the Content. Nor shall you extract information about users or Contributors in order to offer them any services or products.

In your use of the Website and/or Services you shall: comply with all applicable laws, regulations, directives and legislations which apply to your Use of the Website and/or Services in whatever country you are physically located including without limitation any and all consumer law, export control laws and regulations; provide to us true, correct and accurate information and promptly inform us in the event that any information that you have provided to us changes or becomes inaccurate; notify Mondaq immediately of any circumstances where you have reason to believe that any Intellectual Property Rights or any other rights of any third party may have been infringed; co-operate with reasonable security or other checks or requests for information made by Mondaq from time to time; and at all times be fully liable for the breach of any of these Terms by a third party using your login details to access the Website and/or Services

however, you shall not: do anything likely to impair, interfere with or damage or cause harm or distress to any persons, or the network; do anything that will infringe any Intellectual Property Rights or other rights of Mondaq or any third party; or use the Website, Services and/or Content otherwise than in accordance with these Terms; use any trade marks or service marks of Mondaq or the Contributors, or do anything which may be seen to take unfair advantage of the reputation and goodwill of Mondaq or the Contributors, or the Website, Services and/or Content.

Mondaq reserves the right, in its sole discretion, to take any action that it deems necessary and appropriate in the event it considers that there is a breach or threatened breach of the Terms.

Mondaq’s Rights and Obligations

Unless otherwise expressly set out to the contrary, nothing in these Terms shall serve to transfer from Mondaq to you, any Intellectual Property Rights owned by and/or licensed to Mondaq and all rights, title and interest in and to such Intellectual Property Rights will remain exclusively with Mondaq and/or its licensors.

Mondaq shall use its reasonable endeavours to make the Website and Services available to you at all times, but we cannot guarantee an uninterrupted and fault free service.

Mondaq reserves the right to make changes to the services and/or the Website or part thereof, from time to time, and we may add, remove, modify and/or vary any elements of features and functionalities of the Website or the services.

Mondaq also reserves the right from time to time to monitor your Use of the Website and/or services.


The Content is general information only. It is not intended to constitute legal advice or seek to be the complete and comprehensive statement of the law, nor is it intended to address your specific requirements or provide advice on which reliance should be placed. Mondaq and/or its Contributors and other suppliers make no representations about the suitability of the information contained in the Content for any purpose. All Content provided "as is" without warranty of any kind. Mondaq and/or its Contributors and other suppliers hereby exclude and disclaim all representations, warranties or guarantees with regard to the Content, including all implied warranties and conditions of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, title and non-infringement. To the maximum extent permitted by law, Mondaq expressly excludes all representations, warranties, obligations, and liabilities arising out of or in connection with all Content. In no event shall Mondaq and/or its respective suppliers be liable for any special, indirect or consequential damages or any damages whatsoever resulting from loss of use, data or profits, whether in an action of contract, negligence or other tortious action, arising out of or in connection with the use of the Content or performance of Mondaq’s Services.


Mondaq may alter or amend these Terms by amending them on the Website. By continuing to Use the Services and/or the Website after such amendment, you will be deemed to have accepted any amendment to these Terms.

These Terms shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of England and Wales and you irrevocably submit to the exclusive jurisdiction of the courts of England and Wales to settle any dispute which may arise out of or in connection with these Terms. If you live outside the United Kingdom, English law shall apply only to the extent that English law shall not deprive you of any legal protection accorded in accordance with the law of the place where you are habitually resident ("Local Law"). In the event English law deprives you of any legal protection which is accorded to you under Local Law, then these terms shall be governed by Local Law and any dispute or claim arising out of or in connection with these Terms shall be subject to the non-exclusive jurisdiction of the courts where you are habitually resident.

You may print and keep a copy of these Terms, which form the entire agreement between you and Mondaq and supersede any other communications or advertising in respect of the Service and/or the Website.

No delay in exercising or non-exercise by you and/or Mondaq of any of its rights under or in connection with these Terms shall operate as a waiver or release of each of your or Mondaq’s right. Rather, any such waiver or release must be specifically granted in writing signed by the party granting it.

If any part of these Terms is held unenforceable, that part shall be enforced to the maximum extent permissible so as to give effect to the intent of the parties, and the Terms shall continue in full force and effect.

Mondaq shall not incur any liability to you on account of any loss or damage resulting from any delay or failure to perform all or any part of these Terms if such delay or failure is caused, in whole or in part, by events, occurrences, or causes beyond the control of Mondaq. Such events, occurrences or causes will include, without limitation, acts of God, strikes, lockouts, server and network failure, riots, acts of war, earthquakes, fire and explosions.

By clicking Register you state you have read and agree to our Terms and Conditions