For many patent and trademark filing deadlines that would have been due between March 27, 2020 and May 31, 2020, the USPTO will consider them timely filed so long as: (1) they are filed on or before June 1, 2020; and (2) they are accompanied by a statement that the delay in filing was due to the COVID19 outbreak.Read More
The answer – No.
Plaintiff in a patent infringement matter concerning Plaintiff’s ceiling fan patents asked the court to delay all deadlines 90-days in light of the COVID19 crisis. Plaintiff noted that the parties and attorneys are all located in states that imposed social distancing guidelines and other stay at home...Read More
The answer – Yes.
Pierce Manufacturing secured a preliminary injunction prohibiting E-One from selling its Metro 100 single rear axle quint. That preliminary injunction prohibits E-One from selling the Metro 100 during the pendency of the patent infringement litigation Pierce Manufacturing is pursuing against E-One.
The United States Patent and Trademark Office today extended certain deadlines in connection with patent and trademark related matters due to the COVID19 crisis. Similarly, the United States Copyright Office has announced modifications to deadlines in light of the crisis.Read More
No.Erbaviva, LLC, a California LLC, sent a demand letter to Era Organics, a Florida company. The letter identified a number of Erbaviva federal trademark registrations, and "request[ed]" Era Organics:
- Request the USPTO expressly abandon certain Era Organics trademark registrations;
- Permanently refrain from using ERA...
Micro Processing Technology, Inc. sent a letter to Plasma-Therm alleging that Plasma-Therm was infringing MPT's patent. Plasma-Therm filed a declaratory judgment action seeking a declaration that it did not infringe. Six months into the litigation, MPT served preliminary infringement contentions, which were based...Read More
If she or he is not a lawyer, no.Read More
The owner of the TEMPUR-PEDIC bedding brand ("Plaintiff") has sued a number of defendants, including a former retailer as well as the owner of the THERAPEDIC bedding brand. Through that lawsuit, Plaintiff seeks to enjoin sales of the THERAPEDIC bedding.Read More
Nope. The party seeking fees pursuant to a rejected Rule 68 Offer of Judgment still has the burden of showing a proper offer was made, was served, and was not accepted.Read More
Yes. Thursday, LLC and Klhip, Inc. are both retailers that use Amazon to sell nail clippers online. Klhip filed a number of claims with Amazon about Thursday. In response, Amazon would take Thursday down and investigate. Each time, Klhip's allegations have been found baseless (and Thursday's Amazon presence has been...Read More
- Intellectual Property Rights in the Metaverse: Hermès v. Rothschild and the MetaBirkins Saga
- Implementation of the Trademark Modernization Act (TMA): What Trademark Owners Need to Know
- Minerva Surgical, Inc. v. Hologic Inc.: The Supreme Court Limits the Scope of Assignor Estoppel
- United States v. Arthrex: The Supreme Court Provides the Director of the USPTO with Review Authority over Final PTAB Decisions
- Starting a Business?: Trademark Considerations for Startups
- Congress Passes CASE Act of 2020 and Law Regarding Unauthorized Streaming Services
- Romag Fasteners v. Fossil: Willful Infringement is Not Required to Recover an Award of Profits in Trademark Infringement
- Trademark Squatting or Lucrative Opportunity? Time Will Tell
- Patent and Trademark Deadlines Further Extended Due to the COVID-19 Crisis
- Does the COVID Crisis Warrant Ex Parte Relief to Address Price Gouging under Trademark Theories?
- Senior Associate