Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
Depravity or lust, hostility or prejudice? Whatever those might be. In Ogilvie v. Gordon, No. 20-cv-01707 (N.D. Cal. Nov. 24, 2020), the Northern District of California found that California DMV regulations excluding plaintiffs’ personalized plates were like the PTO trademark registration restrictions of SLANTS and FUCT — restrictions struck down by the U.S. Supreme Court for violating the First Amendment. The district court followed the Supreme Court in the trademark cases Matal v. Tam, 137 S. Ct. 1744 (2017) and Iancu v. Brunetti, 139 S. Ct. 2294 (2019), finding the PTO’s refusal to register certain trademarks was improper viewpoint discrimination. The result for would-be vanity license plates holders? The California DMV may not prevent registration of vanity plates like QUEER, BO1LUX, DUK N A, or OGWOOLF.
Continue reading by getting
started with a subscription.
By Jonathan Moskin and Rachel Pauley
The emerging cases by authors and copyright owners challenging various generative AI programs for using copyrighted materials are certain to create new troubles for the courts being asked to apply the fair use doctrine to this important new technology.
By Jim Soong
Each decision involves reversal of a prior art rejection and contrasts with the other decisions on subject matter eligibility, revealing different PTAB approaches and results that can inform prosecution and appeal strategies.
By Leanne Rakers and Caley McCarthy
The future of antibody claiming in the United States is uncertain following the U.S. Supreme Court’s May 2023 ruling in Amgen Inc. v. Sanofi, a highly anticipated decision concerning enablement and whether the traditional way to claim antibodies — claiming antibodies by their function — will survive as a valid claiming strategy.
By Mark Liang, Paige Hardy and Grace McFee
Part Two of a Two-Part article
While the last decade has seen a dramatic increase in the number of AI patents, such patents face difficulty in overcoming the patent-eligibility challenges under §101 and Alice. Section 101, however, is not the only hurdles AI patents must overcome. Section 112, with its written description, enablement, and definiteness requirements, presents additional obstacles.