Supreme Court Rules Trademark Plaintiffs Can Only Recover Profits from Defendants Named in the Action
On February 26, 2025, the United States Supreme Court unanimously held that a prevailing plaintiff in a trademark infringement case may recover profits only from the defendant named as a party to the proceeding, and may not also recover profits from the defendant’s affiliates who are not parties to the proceeding. Dewberry Group, Inc., fka Dewberry Capital Corp. v. Dewberry Engineers Inc., No. 23-900, _____ U.S. ____ (Feb. 26, 2025). The Court’s decision reinforced the principle of corporate separateness, but also left open the possibility that the federal trademark statute (the “Lanham Act”) might allow trial courts to consider evidence related to a defendant’s affiliates when exercising the discretion to adjust a profits award upwards or downwards for the sake of fairness. IP attorneys Alex MacKay and Sam Miller take a look at the decision in this Stites & Harbison Client Alert.
UPDATE: Corporate Transparency Act Back on as Potential Changes Loom
Compliance with the Corporate Transparency Act (the “CTA”) is no longer voluntary. Businesses subject to the CTA, which includes the majority of entities formed or registered to do business in the United States, will have until March 21, 2025, to file their beneficial ownership information reports with the U.S. Treasury Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (“FinCEN”).
Evaluating and Mitigating the Impact of Trump’s Tariffs on Construction Projects
On February 1, 2025, President Trump announced that tariffs of 25% will be imposed on goods imported from Mexico and Canada (with the exception of Canadian energy resources which will be subject to a 10% tariff). In addition, a 10% tariff will also be imposed on certain goods imported from China. The administration’s stated justification for this emergency action is to address the threat posed by illegal aliens and drugs, including fentanyl, that are flowing into the United States. While the details of the tariffs remain unclear, these tariffs will undoubtedly impact both the cost and availability of critical materials required for construction projects across the United States. Accordingly, all contractors would be wise to immediately evaluate applicable clauses in existing contracts that may offer some relief from the time and cost impact resulting from tariffs. Construction attorneys Tyler Lloyd and Steven Henderson take a look at what this will mean to the construction industry in this Stites & Harbison Client Alert.
Changes Impacting Intellectual Property and Innovation Policies Under the New Trump Administration
Since his inauguration on January 20, 2025, President Donald Trump has implemented several initiatives that significantly impact intellectual property (IP) and innovation in the United States. IP attorney Mandy Decker takes a look at those initatives in this Stites & Harbison Client Alert.
Pre-AIA Patent Applications Filed Before but Published After the Priority Date of a Challenged Patent are “Printed Publications” for IPRs
On January 14, 2025, the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) issued a ruling in Lynk Labs, Inc. v. Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd., No. 23-2346, clarifying whether a patent application that is § 102(e)(1) prior art qualifies as a prior art printed publication in an IPR proceeding. Senior Patent Agent Samantha Page and IP attorney Kimberly Vines take a look at that ruling in this Stites & Harbison Client alert.
University Wins Jury Verdict Over Online Retailer for Trademark Infringement
A trial over a trademark dispute relating to an unlicensed online retailer’s sale of apparel and other merchandise bearing historic or retro logos and images of universities has concluded. In 2021, the Pennsylvania State University (“Penn State”) brought suit against Vintage Brand (“Vintage”) for trademark infringement and other claims in federal court in the Middle District of Pennsylvania, styled as The Pennsylvania State University v. Vintage Brand, LLC et al., 4:21-cv-1091. Since that time, at least a dozen other schools have sued Vintage on similar grounds, but this was the first case to go to trial and it has been watched intently by the trademark world as a bellwether case in the sports merchandising industry landscape and perhaps beyond.
Second Time’s No Charm: Delaware Court Rejects Elon Musk’s Tesla Incentive Package Despite Shareholder Ratification
Tesla, Inc. (“Tesla”) and Elon Musk suffered another setback in their continuing efforts to overcome a legal challenge to a 2018 performance-based stock option grant (the “Grant”) that, at today’s stock price, would be worth over $100 billion to Musk. Brian Cromer takes a look at the case in this Stites & Harbison Client Alert.
New Trademark Fees at the PTO Starting January 18, 2025
The United States Patent and Trademark Office (the “PTO”) will update its trademark fee schedule effective January 18, 2025. Alex MacKay takes at look at the changes in this Stites & Harbison Client Alert.