About
CAFC Blog (www.cafcblog.com), an Andrews Kurth Kenyon LLP resource, keeps practitioners up-to-date on the most recent IP decisions from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. About Andrews Kurth Kenyon LLP For more than...
Authors
The contributors to this blog are Andrews Kurth Kenyon Intellectual Property attorneys from throughout the country. Their backgrounds and areas of concentration allow them to provide comprehensive analyses of recent Federal Circuit Court opinions.  ...

Appeal of Discovery Order in BPCIA Patent Infringement Case Dismissed for Lack of Jurisdiction and Writ of Mandamus for Compelling Discovery Denied

AMGEN v. HOSPIRA:  August 10, 2017.  Before Dyk, Bryson and Chen.   Takeaway: The lack of immediate appeal over orders denying discovery of paragraph (l)(2)(A) information under BPCIA does not render such orders “effectively unreviewable” on appeal from a final judgment to qualify for interlocutory review. The reasonableness requirement of paragraph …

The Seventh Amendment Right to a Jury Trial Does Not Apply to Requests for Attorney’s Fees Under § 285 of the Patent Act

AIA AMERICA v. AVID RADIOPHARMACEUTICALS:  August 10, 2017.  Before Newman, Lourie, and Hughes.   Takeaway: The Seventh Amendment right to a jury trial does not apply to requests for attorney’s fees under § 285 of the Patent Act. The district court did not err by making factual findings not foreclosed by …

CAFC Upheld TTAB’s Decision to Deny Registration of a Mark Merely Descriptive of a Feature of Goods and Services

IN RE:  NORTH CAROLINA LOTTERY:  August 10, 2017.  Before Prost, Chen and Hughes.   Takeaway: As a legal matter, the TTAB did not err by considering the explanatory text of the specimens in the inquiry of whether the mark was descriptive. A mark that merely describes a feature of goods and …

Decision on Attorney’s Fees Vacated and Remanded Because the District Court Used an Incorrect Standard and Made Multiple Errors

ROMAG FASTENERS v. FOSSIL:  August 9, 2017.  Before Newman (concurring-in-part, dissenting-in-part), Dyk (majority), and Hughes.   Takeaway: The Lanham Act should have the same standard for recovering attorney’s fees as the Patent Act in light of Octane. In determining whether a case is exceptional for 35 U.S.C. § 285 fees, a district court …

Non-Profit Organization Appellee Described as Representing the Public Interest Not Excluded from Appearing in Court to Defend a PTAB Decision

PERSONAL AUDIO v. ELECTRONIC FRONTIER FOUNDATION: August 7, 2017.  Before Newman, Clevenger, and O’Malley   Takeaway: A non-profit organization appellee described as representing the public interest is not excluded from appearing in court to defend a PTAB decision in view of the Consumer Watchdog decision with the appellant satisfying the …

Disclaimer

Unless otherwise indicated, lawyers listed on this blog are not certified by the Texas Board of Legal Specialization. A past performance or prior result is no guarantee of a similar future result in another case or matter. Andrews Kurth Kenyon LLP is responsible for the content of this blog and monitors comments. Andrews Kurth, the Andrews Kurth logo, Straight Talk is Good Business and Intelligent Energy are registered service marks of Andrews Kurth Kenyon LLP. Andrews Kurth Kenyon and the Andrews Kurth Kenyon logo are service marks of Andrews Kurth Kenyon LLP. Andrews Kurth Kenyon LLP is a Texas limited liability partnership. Andrews Kurth Kenyon (UK) LLP is authorized and regulated by the Solicitors Regulation Authority of England and Wales (SRA Registration No.598542). Andrews Kurth (Middle East) DMCC is registered and licensed as a Free Zone company under the rules and regulations of DMCCA. Attorney Advertising. Neither the content on this website and/or blog nor any transmissions between you and Andrews Kurth Kenyon LLP through this website and/or blog are intended to provide legal or other advice or to create an attorney-client relationship. In communicating with us through this website and/or blog, you should not provide any confidential information to us concerning any potential or actual legal matter that you may have. Before providing any such information to us, you must obtain approval to do so from one of our lawyers. By commenting on this website and/or blog (and thereby choosing to communicate with us without such prior approval), you understand and agree that Andrews Kurth Kenyon LLP will have no duty to keep confidential any information you provide.