The U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado on April 17, 2019, upheld United Cannabis Corp.’s (UCANN) patent claims concerning a liquid cannabinoid formulation, “wherein at least 95% of the total cannabinoids is a specified cannabinoid or combination of them.”1
Pure Hemp
Sens. Chris Coons (D-Del.) and Thom Tillis (R-N.C.), along with Reps. Doug Collins (R-Ga.), Hank Johnson (D-Ga.), and Steve Stivers (R-Ohio), have unveiled a bipartisan and bicameral framework on Section 101 patent reform. The framework, released last week, is short – only one page – but the intent is clear: temper the Section 101-based rejections
I have made it a practice not to immediately blog about big Supreme Court cases. While there is a rush to be the first to publish, I have found that there is a significant difference in the value between immediate analysis and analysis after people take a breath and think about the implications of the
Last month, the Federal Circuit affirmed the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board’s (TTAB) finding that Emporium Arcade Bar could not register the mark shown below without disclaiming EMPORIUM.
The TTAB found that the word EMPORIUM is descriptive of “video and amusement arcade services,” “bar services,” and “bar services featuring snacks.” The TTAB further found that
PWC has published the latest installment of its yearly patent litigation survey. This year’s study has a focus on recent changes and how those changes are affecting patentees. In particular, the PWC study provides eight key observations:
We often hear concerns with the ability or the willingness of the courts to handle sophisticated patent cases. While we feel the concern is overstated, there are legitimate concerns. Roy Strom examines a number of these concerns and how they are being remedied in this month’s issue of the Chicago Lawyer.
One remedy in
