* Disclaimer:The following case summaries should not be relied upon as or for legal advice. Click here for more details.

Thryv, Inc. v. Click-to-Call Technologies, LP, et al.
(U.S. 18-916)(S. Ct. 2020)(PDF, 42 pages)
The USPTO's decision to institute an IPR is not appealable when the decision hinges on the USPTO's interpretation of the one-year time bar in 35 U.S.C. §315(b).

In Re: Forney Industries, Inc.

(Docket #: 2019-1073)(Fed. Cir. 2020)(PDF, 12 pages)

A multi-color product packaging mark can be found inherently distinctive, and a multi-color product packaging mark does not need to be associated with a specific peripheral shape in order to be found inherently distinctive.

Arthrex, Inc. v. Smith & Nephew, Inc., et al.

(Docket #: 2018-2140)(Fed. Cir. 2020)(PDF, 62 pages)

The Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) will not rehear en banc a panel decision that administrative patent judges of the USPTO Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) are improperly appointed principal officers.

Celgene Corporation v. Laura A. Peter, Deputy Director of the USPTO

(Docket #: 2018-1167)(Fed. Cir. 2019)(PDF, 36 pages)

The retroactive application of IPR proceedings to pre-AIA patents does not violate the Fifth Amendment.
Iancu, Director, US Patent and Trademark Office v. Brunetti
(U.S. 18-302)(S. Ct. 2019)(PDF, 44 pages)
The Lanham Act's prohibition against trademark registration of immoral or scandalous trademarks violates the First Amendment.

In re: Siny Corp.

(Docket #: 2018-1077)(Fed. Cir. 2019)(PDF, 9 pages)

For a trademark associated with goods, a webage that advertises the goods, but contains purchase information for the goods that is limited to the phrase "For sales information" followed by a phone number, does not qualify as a point-of-sale display for the goods and therefore fails as a specimen of use.