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 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.

The Supreme Court made a very narrow ruling on the issue of “defense preclusion” in a trademark action in Lucky Brand Dungarees Inc. v. Marcel Fashions Group Inc., Docket No. 18-1086 (May 14, 2020).

The Supreme Court overturned a Second Circuit decision to find that a finding of willful infringement is not a prerequisite for an award of profits in a trademark action in Romag Fasteners, Inc. v. Fossil, Inc., Docket No. 18–1233 (April 23, 2020).

Earlier this year, I put together a series of blog posts on three sets of trademark applications directed to the marks “The,” “Tom Terrific” and “Taco Tuesday.”

The Supreme Court decided that states cannot be sued for copyright infringement due to their “sovereign immunity” in a decision that was entitled “Allen v. Cooper” on March 23, 2020.

The Supreme Court, in a unanimous decision entitled “Peter v. Nantkwest, Inc.,” held that the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (the “USPTO”) cannot recover an award for attorney’s fees at the end of certain types of patent appeals on Dec. 11, 2019.