Filewrapper®

New and Useful - January 23, 2013

January 23, 2013
Post by Blog Staff

· In Wax v. Amazon Techs., the Federal Circuit upheld the TTAB’s denial of registration of the mark AMAZON VENTURES. Applicant filed and intent-to-use application to register the mark for “investment management, raising venture capital for others, . . . and capital investment consultation.” Amazon Technologies, Inc.—online retailer and owner of several AMAZON.COM marks—opposed the registration. The TTAB concluded that Amazon Technologies, Inc. had priority in the AMAZON.COM marks, and that there was a likelihood of confusion between Amazon Technologies’ marks and those of the applicant. The Applicant challenged the TTAB’s findings that (1) Amazon Technologies’ marks are famous, (2) the similarity of Amazon Technologies’ mark to AMAZON VENTURES, and (3) the similarity of the parties' services and channels of trade. The Federal Circuit confirmed the TTAB’s findings, based in part on the wide latitude of protection afforded to Amazon Technologies’ on account of its fame within the buying public.

· The Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed a district court’s judgment and damages for Hallmark Cards, Inc. against a former employee for breach of contract and misappropriation of trade secrets. The district court entered the jury’s award of damages in the amount of $860,000. The Eight Circuit affirmed $735,000 of the damages as they related to breach of contract and disclosure of trade secrets, but overturned $125,000 the former employee earned in compensation from a competitor.

· The Federal Circuit has dismissed as moot an appeal from a patent infringement suit. Allflex U.S.A., Inc. sued Avid Identification Systems, Inc. seeking a declaratory judgment that six of Avid’s patents were unenforceable due to inequitable conduct. The district court granted partial summary judgment in favor of Allflex, at which time the parties entered into a settlement agreement that resolved all of the claims and issues between the parties upon payment of $6.55 million from Avid to Allflex, except for a provision that allowed Avid to appeal three specific issues. The agreement further provided that Allflex could contest any appeal on the merits, but could not dispute the existence of a live case or controversy, and that if Avid were successful on any issue on appeal, the payment to Allflex would be reduced by $50,000. The district court accepted the settlement agreement and entered a stipulated order of final judgment that stated the case was dismissed with prejudice with the exception of findings the court considered “final and ripe for appellate review.” Avid then appealed to the Federal Circuit, but Allflex declined to file a brief defending the judgment of the district court.

The Federal Circuit concluded that the appeal was moot. Avid argued that, although the case would be moot if it were not for the $50,000 contingency payment, that payment ensured that there was a real controversy between the parties. The court dismissed Avid’s argument, concluding that while the district court’s decision was effectively final and therefore appealable, Allflex no longer had a legally cognizable interest in any of the issues in the case, and the payment was insufficient to create any interest

· The USPTO has announced the new fee schedule. The changes, initiated under the Leahy-Smith America Invents Act, are set to take effect March 19, 2013. Among the notable changes are:

o A 75% reduction in most fees for micro entities, including Universities.

o Increase in basic filing fee: $1,600 (large entity); $800 (small entity); $400 (micro entity)

o Increase in appeal fees, due in large part to a new “Appeal Forwarding Fee for Appeal in Examination or Ex Parte Reexamination Proceeding or Filing a Brief in Support of an Appeal in Inter Partes Reexamination”: $2,800 (large entity); $1,400 (small entity); $700 (micro entity)

o Decrease in issue fees: $960 (large entity); $480 (small entity); $240 (micro entity)

o Increase in maintenance fees:

§ First (3.5 years): $1,600 (large entity); $800 (small entity); $400 (micro entity)

§ Second (7.5 years): $3,600; $1,800; $900

§ Third (11.5 years): $7,400; $3,700; $1,850

o Decrease in supplemental examination fees: $16,500 (large entity); $8,250 (small entity); $4,125 (micro entity)

The complete finalized rules are available here.


Post Categories

Comments (0)
Post a Comment



Captcha Image
Return to the Filewrapper Blog

Search Posts

Purpose

The attorneys of McKee, Voorhees & Sease, P.L.C. designed this blog as an informational and educational resource about intellectual property law for our clients, other attorneys, and the public as a whole. Our goal is to provide cutting-edge information about recent developments in intellectual property law, including relevant case law updates, proposed legislation, and intellectual property law in the news.

Disclaimer

McKee, Voorhees & Sease, P.L.C. provides this blog for general informational purposes only. By using this blog, you agree that the information on this blog does not constitute legal or other professional advice and no attorney-client or other relationship is created between you and McKee, Voorhees & Sease, P.L.C. Do not consider this blog to be a substitute for obtaining legal advice from a qualified, licensed attorney. While we try to revise this blog on a regular basis, it may not reflect the most current legal developments. We consciously refrain from expressing opinions on this blog and instead, offer it as a form of information and education, however if there appears an expression of opinion, realize that those views are indicative of the individual and not of the firm as a whole.

Connect with MVS

Enter your name and email address to recieve the latest news and updates from us and our attorneys.

Subscribe to: MVS Newsletter

Subscribe to: Filewrapper® Blog Updates

  I have read and agree to the terms and conditions of McKee, Voorhees & Sease, P.L.C.