By James Grace
The Trademark Blog reported that Hershey’s has filed a Notice of Opposition with the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office concerning Mars’ application to register a design mark for “a cross-section of a candy bar showing layers within the candy, namely, a middle light brown layer containing several tan colored peanut shapes and a bottom tan layer, all surrounded by a brown layer.” U.S. Trademark Application Serial No. 85441471 (filed Oct. 6, 2011). As one of four grounds of opposition, Hershey’s alleges that the design mark is functional, since the configuration of ingredients is the result of a commonly used “layering” process for manufacturing candy bars that is efficient and cost effective. Notice of Opposition, ¶¶ 13-17, 23-29.
Medtronic v. Boston Scientific – Oral Argument
On November 5, 2013, the Supreme Court of the United States heard oral argument in the case of Medtronic v. Boston Scientific, No. 12-1128 (U.S. Nov. 5, 2013). Medtronic, a medical device manufacturer, licensed patents from Boston Scientific and subsequently sought declaratory judgment that it did not infringe Boston Scientific’s patents and was therefore not obligated to pay royalties. In a typical patent infringement suit, the patent holder bears the burden of proving infringement, and this burden does not shift in a declaratory judgment action. However, the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Court recently held that where a licensee is seeking a declaration of non-infringement, the licensee should bear the burden of proving non-infringement because the patentee is not in a position to counterclaim for infringement. Medtronic v. Boston Scientific, 695 F.3d 1266 (Fed. Cir. 2012), slip op. at 12. Medtronic appealed to the Supreme Court. PatentlyO and SCOTUSblog provide a summary of the issues raised in oral argument before the Court.
Proposed Tweak to Law Would Pull Shield From Generic-Drug Makers
On November 8, 2013, the Food and Drug Administration (“FDA”) issued a press release outlining a proposed rule aimed at speeding up the dissemination of safety information concerning generic drugs. Under the current rules, generic drug manufactures must wait for approval by the FDA and the corresponding brand name manufacturer before updating product labeling to reflect new safety information. The proposed rule would provide generic manufacturers with the same ability as brand name manufactures to update product labeling based on newly acquired safety information prior to review by the FDA. The Wall Street Journal discusses how the proposed rules relate to the recent of case of Mutual Pharmaceutical Co. , Inc. v. Bartlett , No. 12–142 (U.S. 2013), in which the Supreme Court overturned a $21 million judgment to a woman for injuries allegedly caused by a generic drug.