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.
*May exclude premium content
By Ben Clark
United States v. Arthrex, Inc.
Proving that even the driest of constitutional issues can have significant practical effect, the U.S. Supreme Court recently heard argument in United States v. Arthrex. Before the Court was whether administrative judges of the PTAB have been appointed unconstitutionally.
By Bruce M. Wexler, Aaron P. Selikson, Ashley N. Mays-Williams and Susan S. Hwang
The decision appears to take steps to harmonize the prior cases that appropriately were guided by the Wands factors with the cases discussing the “full scope” of enablement that have engendered some confusion in the law.
By Siraj Husain
As intellectual property continues to influence business operations, more companies are considering defensive patent pools as a strategic measure to guard against threats that can stifle innovation and growth for both businesses and industries.
By Kelvin Han
Federal Circuit Wasn’t Chicken to Grant Equitable Intervening Right in Poultry Processing Equipment Case
A dispute between the two titans in the poultry processing equipment market led the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit to construe the term “protection of investments” in 35 U.S.C. §252.