IP Law Daily, WORTH NOTING—Other IP law developments, (Jan 2, 2026)

By WK Editorial Staff

A periodic roundup of other items of interest to the Intellectual Property community.

PATENT—Fed. Cir.: The Patent Trial and Appeal Board did not err in affirming an examining attorney’s rejection of claims of 29–41 of U.S. Patent No. 7,068,684 (“’684 patent”), owned by Estech Systems IP, as unpatentable as obvious following ex parte reexamination, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit has ruled. The challenged claims relate to methods for im-proving quality of service in voice over internet protocol (VoIP) telephone systems by giving priority to audio information. Substantial evidence supported the Board’s construction of “telephone” and its finding that U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2002/0071424 (“Chiu”) (filed Dec. 12, 2000; published June 13, 2002) discloses the claimed “telephone,” which is separate from the claimed “workstation.” Further, U.S. Patent No. 5,313,454 (“Bustini”) (filed April 1, 1992; issued May 17, 1994) discloses the “sufficiently throttling” limitation and the Board did not err in its underlying factual findings related to motivation to combine or reasonable expectation of success (In re Estech Systems IP, LLC, No. 24-1935 (Fed. Cir. Dec. 23, 2025)).

PATENT—E.D. Va.: The federal district court in Norfolk, Virginia found testimony from an antitrust expert opining that inaction by governmental agencies underscored or otherwise established that Johnson & Johnson’s decision to acquire and not divest patents was reasonable, but will allow testimony that such inaction would give a reasonable company in J&J’s position no reason to think that the acquisition was anticompetitive. CareFirst of Maryland, Inc. alleged that Johnson & Johnson and Janssen Biotech, Inc. used monopoly power to unlawfully delay the introduction of biosimilar competitors for their drug ustekinumab (sold under the brand name “Stelara”) by defrauding the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office to obtain the patent that covers the use of ustekinumab to treat ulcerative colitis and by acquiring a portfolio of biosimilar manufacturing patents from Momenta to delay biosimilar competition from the market. The expert’s testimony about J&J’s intent in acquiring Momenta and the extent to which there was any competition between J&J and Momenta at the time was reliable and could be helpful to the jury (CareFirst of Maryland, Inc. v. Johnson & Johnson, No. 2:23-cv-00629-JKW-LRL (E.D. Va. Dec. 23, 2025)).

PATENT—E.D. Va.: The federal district court in Norfolk, Virginia declined to prevent a doctor from offering an expert opinion in an antitrust suit alleging pharmaceutical companies unlawfully monopolized the market for an ulcerative colitis drug. CareFirst of Maryland, Inc. alleged that Johnson & Johnson and Janssen Biotech, Inc. used monopoly power to unlawfully delay the introduction of biosimilar competitors for their drug ustekinumab (sold under the brand name “Stelara”) by defrauding the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office to obtain the patent that covers the use of ustekinumab to treat ulcerative colitis and by acquiring a portfolio of biosimilar manufacturing patents from Momenta to delay biosimilar competition from the market. J&J sought to exclude Dr. Aaron Kesselheim as a pharmaeconomics expert. Dr. Kesselheim’s first opinion discusses the historical impacts of “biosimilar competition on the market for biologic drugs” since the passage of the Biologics Price Competition and Innovation Act (BPCIA). The second opinion discussed the likely “effects of biosimilar competition on the ustekinumab market if one or more biosimilars launched in or around September 25, 2023.” The court found that the doctor’s opinions were reliable, grounded in scientific research, and relevant (CareFirst of Maryland, Inc. v. Johnson & Johnson, No. 2:23-cv-00629-JKW-LRL (E.D. Va. Dec. 23, 2025)).

TRADEMARK NEWS: World Champ Tech, LLC (“WCT”), owner of a trademark registration for “BIKE+” and a mobile app called “Bike+,” has filed a petition asked the Supreme Court to review a Ninth Circuit summary ruling, holding that a California district court properly found that Peloton Interactive as a matter of law did not infringe WCT’s Bike+ mark by producing a home exercise bike called the “Peloton Bike+.” The Ninth Circuit agreed with the district court that that no reasonable trier of fact could find that confusion is probable in this reverse confusion case because most of the likelihood of confusion factors overwhelmingly favored Peloton, including the third factor, which turns on the similarity of the marks as they are encountered in the marketplace, the sixth factor, which asks whether a reasonably prudent consumer would take the time to distinguish between the two product lines, and the fourth factor, actual confusion. The question presented is "whether lower courts must, to comply with the summary judgment standard, avoid a factor-by-factor analysis that balances competing evidence and the weight to be given likely confusion factors" (World Champ Tech, LLC v. Peloton Interactive, Inc., No. 25-736 (U.S. filed Dec. 22, 2025)).

TRADEMARK NEWS: Zioness Movement, Inc., a nonprofit organization, has filed a petition asking the Supreme Court to review a Second Circuit decision holding that trial evidence supported a jury’s finding that the registered trademark ZIONESS was co-owned by Zioness Movement and another nonprofit organization, the Lawfare Project, Inc., because both organizations had substantially contributed to the creation of the mark and use of the mark. The petition poses three questions: (1) Whether, under the Lanham Act, a court or jury may find joint ownership of a trademark between competing entities—neither of which pleaded or proved co-ownership—without violating the fundamental principle that a trademark must indicate a single source of goods or services to consumers; (2) Whether a party that does not object to a verdict sheet that includes “both” as a potential response to the question of ownership has waived the legal argument that joint ownership of a trademark by two entities that compete in the same market, without any guardrails to protect against consumer confusion, violates the Lanham Act; and (3) Whether the district court was required to instruct the jury to consider which entity used the trademark in a source-identifying way, and whether the district court erred by instructing the jury to consider the scope of Amanda Berman’s employment but failing to instruct the jury that a purported transfer of trademark rights via a naked or oral license effects an abandonment (Zioness Movement, Inc. v. The Lawfare Project, Inc., No. 25-753 (U.S. filed Dec. 29, 2025)).

Attorneys: Fred Williams (Williams Simons and Landis PC) for Estech Systems IP, LLC. Kip A. Harbison (Glasser And Glasser, P.L.C.) for Carefirst of Maryland, Inc. Christina Guerola Sarchio (Dechert LLP) for Johnson & Johnson and Janssen Biotech, Inc. Gregory S. Gilchrist (Verso Law Group LLP) for World Champ Tech, LLC. Kristie Marie Blase (Felicello Law P.C.) for Zioness Movement, Inc.

Companies: Estech Systems IP, LLC; World Champ Tech, LLC; Carefirst of Maryland, Inc.; Johnson & Johnson; Janssen Biotech, Inc.; Peloton Interactive, Inc.; Zioness Movement, Inc.; The Lawfare Project, Inc.

News: Copyright Patent Trademark FedCirNews VirginiaNews USPTO