Multiple Claims Can Be "Such a Claim" in 135(b) to Support an Interference

Pioneer Hi-Bred International, Inc. v. Monsanto Technology, LLC, [2011-1285] (February 28, 2012) [CLEVENGER, Prost, Reyna] The Federal Circuit affirmed the BPAI's decision that Monsanto's claims were not time barred under 35 USC 135(b)(1), and that Monsanto had seniority.
DISCUSSION: The Federal Circuit agreed with the BPAI's interpretation of 35 USC 135(b) that Multiple pre-critical date claims, considered together, can provide the foundation necessary for a later claim to be found timely. Thus Monsanto was able to support a single post-critical date claim in its application in inteference, with a plurality of pre-critical date claims which taken together, supported the subject matter in interference.

Coach thought it had Fame in the Bag, but Failed to Establish Dilution

Coach Services, Inc., v. Triumph Learning LLC, [2011-1129] (February 21, 2012) [O'MALLEY, Newman. Reyna] The Federal Circuit affirmed the TTAB 's dismissal of Coach Services' opposition to Triumph Learning's application to register COACH. The Federal Circuit remanded for further consideration of TRIUMPH's substantially exclusive and continuous use of its marks.
DISCUSSION: Triumph was seeking to register COACH for services relating to the preparation for standardized tests, while COACH, the make of designer goods sought to block the registration. The TTAB found that it weighed the DuPont factors and found there was no likelihood of confusion because the parties marks had different meaning and engender different commercial impressions and the goods involved. The Federal Circuit agreed. The Federal Circuit noted that the same marks can create different commercial impressions in connection with the goods on which they are used. The Federal Circuit agreed that applicant's use of COACH brought to mind different impression than Opposer's list. The Federal Circuit also agreed with the TTAB that the goods were unrelated. Finally the Federal Circuit agreed that the channels of trade and customers were different. The Federal Circuit also agreed with the TTAB that there was no dilution. finding that Opposer had not show sufficient fame of its COACH mark. However, the Federal Circuit found question of whether applicant's mark was merely descriptive, and remanded for further consideration of whether applicant had adequately shown secondary meaning.

Teachign Away Only Applies to Obviousness, Not Anticipation

Clearvalue, Inc. v. Pearly River Polymers, Inc., [2011-1078, -1100] (February 17, 2012) [MOORE, Prose, Schall] The Federal Circuit reversed the denial of JMOL of invalidity under §102, and affirmed the grant of JMOL of no trade secret misappropriation.
DISCUSSION: The district court premised its denial of JMOL of anticipation under §102 because of testimony that the reference taught away from the claimed invention. The Federal Circuit rejected this,noting that whether a reference teaches away from an invention is inapplicable to an anticipate analysis. The Federal Circuit also affirmed the JMOL on the trade secret claim noting that the anticipatory reference disclosed the alleged trade secret.