Posted on Jun 20, 2017 in Blog

The Supreme Court ruled on June 19, 2017 that the United States Patent and Trademark Office may no longer refuse to register a mark because it is disparaging. The Decision in Matal v Tam No. 15-1293 was unanimous that Section 1052(a) of the Lanham Act was unconstitutional as a violation of the Free Speech Clause.

Posted on Jun 14, 2017 in Blog

The U.S. Supreme Court on June 12, 2017 issued an opinion in the consolidated cases of Sandoz Inc. v. Amgen Inc. et al. and Amgen Inc. et al. v. Sandoz Inc. which should result in more competition in the biologicals market more quickly.

Posted on Jun 5, 2017 in News

Eleven Caesar Rivise attorneys have been selected to the 2017 Pennsylvania Super Lawyers list. Each year, no more than five percent of the lawyers in the state are selected through a combination of peer nominations, evaluations, and independent research.

Posted on Jun 1, 2017 in Blog

On May 30, the Supreme Court in Impression Products v Lexmark International, Inc. in a 7-1 opinion written by Justice Roberts ruled that “once a patentee decides to sell-whether on its own or through a licensee, that sale exhausts its patent rights, regardless of any post-sale restrictions the patentee purports to impose, either directly or through a license.”

Posted on May 31, 2017 in Blog

In the recent Supreme Court case, SCA Hygiene Products Aktiebolag, et al. v. First Quality Baby Products, LLC , 137 S. Ct. 954 (2017), the Court ruled that a laches defense to a patent infringement damages is not permitted when the suit is filed within six years of the term set forth in 35 U.S.C. §286.

Posted on May 25, 2017 in Blog

On Monday, May 22, 2017, the Supreme Court issued a unanimous decision in TC Heartland LLC v. Kraft Food Group Brands LLC, drastically changing where patent infringement cases can be litigated in the United States.

Posted on May 25, 2017 in Articles

One of the most frequent ­errors ­committed by inexperienced ­inventors is the untimely sale or public use of their invention. The sale of a ­product that includes a new invention—before a patent application is filed—destroys patent rights in many countries. Not so in the United States, where U.S. law provides a 12-month “grace period” to file for patent protection after a public use or sale.

Posted on May 22, 2017 in News

In the case of Roxane Laboratories, Inc. v. Camber Pharmaceuticals Inc., InvaGen Pharmaceuticals Inc., Civil Action No. 14-4042 (D.N.J.), the Honorable Stanley R. Chesler issued an Order on May 18, 2017 granting defendants’ motion to declare the case exceptional pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 285, and ordering plaintiff to pay attorneys’ fees in the amount of $1,983,420.60 to defendants.

Posted on May 22, 2017 in Events

Caesar Rivise, PC is hosting a CLE entitled “Preparing Witnesses to Testify / Strategies for Successful Deponent and Witness Preparation” presented by Michael A. Biek of DecisionQuest. This one-credit CLE is being provided on May 22, 2017 from noon-1pm at the CR offices at 1635 Market Street, 12th Floor, Philadelphia, PA 19103.

Posted on Apr 27, 2017 in Articles

Have you ever noticed patent ­numbers on a product that you purchased? Those patent numbers show up everywhere: on the back of an appliance, on the bottom of a candy dispenser—even on the cardboard insulator for a hot coffee cup. Placing a patent number on a patented product is called “patent marking” and it is strictly voluntary, but doing so can afford the patent holder with significant rights.