Prior Patenting of Functional Trademark Invalidates the Mark

Specialized Seating, Inc. v. Greenwich Indus., L.P., 472 F. Supp.2d 999 (N.D. Ill. Feb. 2, 2007) (Holderman, C.J.).

Judge Holderman held declaratory judgment defendant's, Greenwich Industries ("Greenwich"), trademark invalid and held that Greenwich committed fraud on the USPTO while prosecuting its trademarks.  Declaratory judgment plaintiff, Specialized Seating ("Specialized"), and Greenwich are competing manufacturers of folding chairs.*  Greenwich has a trademark to a configuration of a folding chair with certain physical characteristics.  Because Greenwich secured patents for most or all of the features identified in its trademark, the Court held that Greenwich's trademark was functional and, therefore, invalid.  In addition to having held patents on the claimed features, Greenwich had also touted the functional benefits of the features in advertising.

The Court also held that Greenwich committed fraud on the USPTO because it only disclosed one of its four patents which covered functional elements of the claimed mark.  In a first Office Action the Examiner rejected the mark as functional and requested that Greenwich identify any patents that cover elements of the mark.  In response to that request, Greenwich disclosed only one of its four patents and distinguished it.  The Examiner rejected the mark again and posed interrogatories to Greenwich, which Greenwich answered without disclosing its three other patents.  The mark was ultimately issued on a Request for Reconsideration, without disclosure of Greenwich's remaining three patents.  The Court held that Greenwich deliberately misled the USPTO by not disclosing its other three patents during prosecution of its mark.

* Specialized's founder and president was previously the President of the entity that became Greenwich's folding chair business.  Specialized and Greenwich had a long history of litigation prior to this suit, which has all been resolved through various settlements or voluntary dismissals of suit. 

Chicago IP Day

Last Wednesday the Chicago IP Alliance held its second annual Chicago IP Day at Loyola.  It was, no surprise, an excellent program providing an information-packed day.  I do not have the time to summarize all of the presentations, but I will give some highlights.  George McAndrews, McAndrews, Held & Malloy, gave a very interesting presentation outlining his views on the Supreme Court's recent eBay v. MercExchange opinion requiring the use of the standard permanent injunction test to determine whether a permanent injunction should be granted after a patent infringement judgment.  Essentially, he argued that the Supreme Court's ruling contradicts the constitutional grant of a limited monopoly.  His presentation led to some spirited debate at various tables during the excellent lunch in Loyola's beautiful new conference room atop the law school.

The day's keynote presentation was by the USPTO's Deputy General Counsel and Solicitor General John Whealan.  John's presentation lived up to my advance billing.  He gave his take on the Supreme Court's recently increased interest in the patent laws.  While I cannot do all of his remarks justice, he outlined three instances in which he felt the Supreme Court was taking patent appeals.  First, circuit splits -- splits between the Federal Circuit  case law and the law of a regional circuit pre-Federal Circuit.  Second, and maybe the most obvious, splits between different Federal Circuit panels.  And third, on Cert. View of the Solicitor General ("CVSG").  CVSG is a process initiated by the Court, when they ask the Solicitor General for its view on whether the Court should grant cert.  The Solicitor General works with the relevant governmental entity, the USPTO in the case of patents, and hears arguments from each side of the case before sending the Supreme Court its recommendation.  Whealan stated that CVSG had been used once for a patent issue prior to 2000 and 17 times since then.  Once again, if you get the chance to hear Whealan speak, do not pass it up.  You always learn something and he is always an entertaining speaker.

Great job to the folks at Loyola and Kent for putting together an excellent and educational day.