OCIPLA OCIPLA OCIPLA
  • Home
  • About
    • About OCIPLA
    • Committees
    • Past Presidents
    • Bylaws
  • Events
  • News
  • Membership
  • Contact
OCIPLA OCIPLA
  • Home
  • About
    • About OCIPLA
    • Committees
    • Past Presidents
    • Bylaws
  • Events
  • News
  • Membership
  • Contact
May 10

Federal Circuit Summaries (5 of 12)

  • May 10, 2022
  • staff
  • Uncategorized

Indefiniteness Is Not Determined by the Claim Language Alone

In Nature Simulation Systems Inc. v. Autodesk, Inc. Appeal No. 20-2257, the Federal Circuit held that it was improper for the district court to find patent claims indefinite without considering the specification and prosecution history.

Nature Simulation Systems, Inc. (“NSS”) sued Autodesk, Inc. alleging patent infringement. After a claim construction hearing, the district court found various claims invalid as indefinite. The district court recited several “unanswered questions” about terms in those claims and stated that such unanswered questions render a claim term indefinite as a matter of law, even if the specification answers those questions. NSS appealed.

The Federal Circuit reversed in a 2-1 decision. The majority held that the district court’s analysis involving “unanswered questions” applied an incorrect standard for indefiniteness. The majority emphasized that patent claims are viewed in light of the specification, the prosecution history, and other relevant evidence, and it faulted the district court for relying on the claim language alone. The majority noted that, during prosecution, indefiniteness rejections had been resolved by adding limitations to the claims, including by examiner’s amendment. After also considering the specification, the majority concluded that the claim terms at issue were not indefinite.

Judge Dyk dissented, arguing that the district court had read the patent claims in light of the specification and had properly determined the claim terms at issue were indefinite.  According to Judge Dyk, the specification does not explain certain claim limitations that the patent examiner suggested during prosecution, and the majority improperly relied on the fact that the examiner suggested those terms instead of requiring that the specification explain them.

(Computing, Indefiniteness; Prepared by Emily Asgari)

Generic Mark Lacked Sufficient Stylization to Serve as a Source Identifier

In In Re Vox Populi Registry Ltd. Appeal No. 21-1496, the Federal Circuit held that stylizing an otherwise generic character mark using ubiquitous lettering does make it a source identifier.

Vox is the domain registry operator for the .SUCKS generic top-level domain for Internet websites.  Vox submitted two trademark applications for the mark “.SUCKS” to the USPTO.  The first application was for a standard character mark, and the second application was for a stylized mark using pixelated letters.  The TTAB determined that neither the standard character mark nor the stylized mark was registerable because neither mark served as a source identifier.  The TTAB explained that the stylized .SUCKS mark did not create a separate commercial impression and was not sufficiently distinctive.  Vox appealed the TTAB’s decision regarding the stylized mark to the Federal Circuit.

The Federal Circuit affirmed the TTAB’s decision. The Federal Circuit acknowledged that design or stylization may make an otherwise unregistrable mark registerable if the design features create an impression separate from the words themselves. However, in this case the court found that substantial evidence supported the TTAB’s finding that “given the ubiquity” of pixelated lettering “in the ‘early days’ of computing consumers would view pixelated lettering as ordinary” and not as a source identifier.  Although marks with limited stylization may acquire distinctiveness, the ubiquity of the pixelated letter design mandated by earlier technological limitations rendered the .SUCKS stylization ordinary.

  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • LinkedIn
  • E-Mail

Comments are closed.

Recent Posts

  • Federal Circuit Summaries (1 of 8)
  • Federal Circuit Summaries (2 of 8)
  • Federal Circuit Summaries (3 of 8)
  • Federal Circuit Summaries (4 of 8)
  • Federal Circuit Summaries (5 of 8)

Archives

  • January 2023
  • September 2022
  • May 2022
  • December 2021
  • November 2021
  • September 2021
  • August 2021
  • March 2021
  • December 2020
  • November 2020
  • September 2020
  • June 2020
  • April 2020
  • February 2020
  • September 2019
  • July 2019
  • June 2019
  • May 2019
  • April 2019
  • March 2019
  • January 2019
  • November 2018
  • September 2018
  • July 2018
  • June 2018
  • May 2018
  • March 2018
  • February 2018
  • December 2017
  • November 2017
  • October 2017
  • August 2017
  • July 2017
  • April 2017
  • February 2017
  • October 2016

Categories

  • Amicus Briefs
  • Copyright
  • Education and Training
  • Employment
  • Federal Circuit Summary
  • News
  • Non-Obviousness
  • Patent
  • Patent Trial and Appeal Board
  • Trade secret
  • Trademark
  • Uncategorized


Serving the Orange County Intellectual Property law community since 1983.

Orange County Intellectual Property Law Association
P.O. Box 7632
Newport Beach, CA 92658

About
Membership
Bylaws
Contact

© 2023 OCIPLA | All Rights Reserved | Website design by SafeHouse Web