Hot "off the presses" trademark news...

 

According to the PBS news story (https://lnkd.in/eerRKVJD) and main other media sources, many are steaming mad that a company (Momofuku) could trademark "chili crunch" for a historic Asian cuisine condiment (generically known as "chili crisp." While this PBS news story is a bit vague as to the real beef, a little poking around and it appears the issue of this hot topic is that many believe the U.S. Trademark Office should not have granted a trademark registration for "chili crunch" based on the mark being descriptive of the product (i.e. its chili and it crunches when chewed) and not a sufficient recognition of the trademark registrant (Momofuku) as the recognized origin of the condiment.

What do you think?

Continue on to the full OP-IP Law Blog

© Stephen J. Weyer 2024

(* Disclaimer: All views expressed are exclusively those of the authors and do not reflect the views of Stites & Harbison, PLLC)

Does Alice [Work] Here Anymore?

Determining whether computer-implemented technology is eligible for U.S. patent protection continues to be an endeavor subject to scholarly disputes and patent litigation.  For example, a dispute over patent eligibility of claims to a system and method for processing (transmitting and visualizing) three dimensional images from two dimensional images is the subject of a recent U.S. Federal Circuit decision.   AI Visualize, Inc. v. Nuance Communications, Inc.

Distilling the two competing arguments (for and against patentability) were (1) improved functionality of a computer vs (2) abstract idea without an inventive concept transforming the abstract idea to something more.

The Court found the claims were the later and not the former using the U.S. Supreme Court’s two step analysis of Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank Int'l :: 573 U.S. 208 (2014).  In a nutshell, the Court found the claims essentially directed to non-patent eligible data manipulation.

After you read the decision, see if you…

            (1) agree with the Fed. Cir. and find the claims are directed to an abstract idea and nothing more, or

            (2) disagree with the Fed. Cir. and believe the claims improve the function of a computer and therefore should be considered patent eligible.

Then, please opine if you find the two-step analysis works or if you find “Alice Does Not [Work] Here Anymore.”

I have some thoughts to improve a likelihood patent claims will satisfy the current Alice test for subject matter eligibility but would like to hear what others have to say before adding what I consider to be a successful strategy.

Also, comments on improvements of claim language that would be more likely to establish “something more” than data manipulation.

Continue on to the full OP-IP Law Blog

© Stephen J. Weyer 2024

(* Disclaimer: All views expressed are exclusively those of the authors and do not reflect the views of Stites & Harbison, PLLC)