--ARCHIVE_PAGE_LINK--
 
 
 
 
 
JANUARY 31, 2019
 
 
 
NLR Publish Ad
 
 
Quick Links
 
 
 
Stark & Stark

Mintz

Squire Patton Boggs (US) LLP


 
NLR Publish
 
 
Intellectual Property Legal News
In house attorneys looking for a better way to organize, vet and easily retrieve legal news created the National Law Review on-line edition.

Around the clock, the National Law Review's editors screen and classify breaking news and analysis authored by recognized legal professionals and our own journalists.

There is no log in to access the database and new articles are added hourly.
 
 
 
 
The Supreme Court recently issued its closely-watched decision in Helsinn Healthcare S.A. v. Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc., which has direct implications regarding the scope of § 102 prior art under the America Invents Act (“AIA”).  While the decision provides clarity as to what the Court understands § 102 (AIA) to cover, the Court at the same time injected potential controversy by endorsing a “catch-all” category of § 102 prior art.  At issue in the case was whether a sale of an invention continues to qualify as prior art under revised § 102 (AIA), even where the details of what was covered by that sale were not public.  In a unanimous decision authored by Justice Thomas, the Court held that such sales qualify as prior art under the AIA.    More on AIA On Sale Bar Here>
 
 
 
Addressing whether an entity should be named as a real-party-in-interest (RPI), the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) determined that Google did not need to be listed as an RPI in two separate sets of inter partes review (IPR) petitions. RPX Corp. v. Publishing Techs., LLC, Case Nos. IPR2018-001131, -001132 (Paper No. 10), Decision on Institution (PTAB Dec. 3, 2018) (Elluru, APJ); Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd. v. Seven Networks, LLC, Case Nos. IPR2018-01108 (Paper 21) and -01106 (Paper 22), Decision on Institution (Nov. 28, 2018) (Chang, APJ).  More on PTAB Google Decision Here>
 
 
 
Although it may be one of the most famous burgers in the world, on 15 January 2019, Supermac’s (Holdings) Ltd was successful in seeking the cancellation of McDonald’s International Property Company Ltd (McDonald’s) EU trade mark registration for BIG MAC for burgers or restaurants.   Read More About Big Mac Trademark Here>
 
 
 
 
Please let other interested professionals know about this valuable and free resource!

If you know someone interested in publishing with the National Law Review, kindly contact us at:
   
The National Law Review
National Law Forum, LLC
Jennifer Schaller, Esq.
 
 
 
 
NLR Publication Areas
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
​​​​
 
 
 
The National Law Review
 708-357-3317 | jschaller@natlawreview.com | www.natlawreview.com
4700 Gilbert Avenue Suite #47 #230
Western Springs, IL 60558