My last blog post discussed two changes to the U.S. trademark prosecution process that were contained within the recently enacted Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2021 (CAA). This blog will discuss two new types of administrative proceedings that were created by the CAA.

My last blog post discussed one of the changes to U.S. trademark law that were contained within the recently enacted Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2021 (CAA).

My last blog post discussed the changes to U.S. copyright law that were contained within the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2021 (“CAA”), which was signed into law on Dec. 27, 2020, primarily to provide relief from the economic damage caused by COVID-19.

The Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2021 was signed into law on Dec. 27, 2020. The primary purpose of the law is to provide relief from the economic damage caused by COVID-19. However, the law also includes two significant changes to U.S. copyright law.

An initiative by the Chinese government to encourage its citizens to obtain United States trademark registrations and other intellectual property led to a substantial increase in filings in the United States Patent and Trademark Office.

A recent decision by the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, the second highest appellate court for patent cases in the United States, demonstrates the difference between inventorship and ownership ... again.

Patent-infringement disputes are very expensive. Most patent litigants will not even consider going to court to resolve a dispute unless the potential damages are over $1 million.

In United States PTO v. Booking.com B.V., the Supreme Court considered whether the trademark BOOKING.COM was generic for an online reservation system. United States PTO v. Booking.com B.V., 140 S. Ct. 2298 (June 30, 2020).

The Supreme Court issued a very important ruling on generic trademarks earlier this summer. United States PTO v. Booking.com B.V., 140 S. Ct. 2298 (June 30, 2020).

The Supreme Court held in Thryv, Inc. v. Click-To-Call Techs, Docket No. 18–916 (April 20, 2020), that a decision by the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“PTAB”) to institute an inter partes review proceeding is not reviewable in court.