Careers

At M&G, we dedicate ourselves to finding the best solutions to our clients’ challenges, no matter where it takes us.

Case Studies

Industries

Offices

About Merchant & Gould

Pages

People

News Room

Practices

Staff

Home - Merchant & Gould P.C.

Rachel Atencio is the Attorney Recruiting Manager at Merchant &amp; Gould, where she spearheads full-cycle attorney recruitment. She advances and implements professional development, performance management, recruitment strategies, and diversity initiatives.&nbsp;

contentpilot/introduction

Rachel Atencio is the Attorney Recruiting Manager at Merchant &amp; Gould, where she spearheads full-cycle attorney recruitment. She advances and implements professional development, performance management, recruitment strategies, and diversity initiatives.&nbsp;

Through her extensive leadership experience, recruitment expertise, and teamwork proficiency, Rachel effectively elevates the professional experience for the firm’s attorneys and potential candidates.&nbsp;

core/paragraph

Through her extensive leadership experience, recruitment expertise, and teamwork proficiency, Rachel effectively elevates the professional experience for the firm’s attorneys and potential candidates.&nbsp;

Dedicated to Building Exceptional Legal Teams

core/heading

<h2 class="wp-block-heading">Dedicated to Building Exceptional Legal Teams</h2>

Rachel has been championing professional services and law firm talent acquisition management for over seven years. Her efforts are highly focused on developing successful relationships with candidates and placing them in positions where they can best realize their collaborative potential.&nbsp;

Rachel has been championing professional services and law firm talent acquisition management for over seven years. Her efforts are highly focused on developing successful relationships with candidates and placing them in positions where they can best realize their collaborative potential.&nbsp;

She discovers top talent and places them in their optimal professional roles through invested interest, pragmatic career coaching, and ongoing communication. Rachel’s ability to build dynamic professional relationships results in the formation of highly reputable legal teams.&nbsp;

She discovers top talent and places them in their optimal professional roles through invested interest, pragmatic career coaching, and ongoing communication. Rachel’s ability to build dynamic professional relationships results in the formation of highly reputable legal teams.&nbsp;

Rachel’s passionate commitment to establishing excellent candidate experiences helps bring together some of the brightest legal minds. By getting to know candidates and developing hiring strategies that center on employee satisfaction and retention, Rachel is an active participant in transforming people’s lives.&nbsp;

Rachel’s passionate commitment to establishing excellent candidate experiences helps bring together some of the brightest legal minds. By getting to know candidates and developing hiring strategies that center on employee satisfaction and retention, Rachel is an active participant in transforming people’s lives.&nbsp;

Accomplished in Developing Well-Rounded Professional Experiences

Introduce new sections and organize content to help visitors (and search engines) understand the structure of your content.

Heading

heading

Heading that resizes to fit its container.

stretchy-heading

Stretchy Heading

<h2 class="wp-block-heading">Accomplished in Developing Well-Rounded Professional Experiences</h2>

Rachel’s professional values are centered on collaboration, inclusivity, and professional development. She has worked closely with executive committees and department heads to create a balanced and comprehensive professional experience for legal teams. She supports the attorneys at Merchant &amp; Gould by designing, implementing, and directing:

Start with the basic building block of all narrative.

In a village of La Mancha, the name of which I have no desire to call to mind, there lived not long since one of those gentlemen that keep a lance in the lance-rack, an old buckler, a lean hack, and a greyhound for coursing.

Paragraph

paragraph

Paragraph that resizes to fit its container.

stretchy-paragraph

Stretchy Paragraph

Rachel’s professional values are centered on collaboration, inclusivity, and professional development. She has worked closely with executive committees and department heads to create a balanced and comprehensive professional experience for legal teams. She supports the attorneys at Merchant &amp; Gould by designing, implementing, and directing:

An organized collection of items displayed in a specific order.

core/list

List

<ul class="wp-block-list">
<li>Attorney and talent acquisition, integration, and retention</li>



<li>Professional advancement, training, career coaching, and mentoring programs</li>



<li>Ongoing professional development, evaluation, and performance management</li>



<li>Diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) initiatives</li>
</ul>

Attorney and talent acquisition, integration, and retention

core/list-item

List Item

<li>Attorney and talent acquisition, integration, and retention</li>

Professional advancement, training, career coaching, and mentoring programs

<li>Professional advancement, training, career coaching, and mentoring programs</li>

Ongoing professional development, evaluation, and performance management

<li>Ongoing professional development, evaluation, and performance management</li>

Diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) initiatives

<li>Diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) initiatives</li>

<ul><li>Attorney and talent acquisition, integration, and retention</li><li>Professional advancement, training, career coaching, and mentoring programs</li><li>Ongoing professional development, evaluation, and performance management</li><li>Diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) initiatives</li></ul>

Rachel believes everyone has something to bring to the table and greatly values diversity and inclusivity. By providing equitable recruitment strategies and ongoing mentoring programs, she maintains a company culture of team appreciation and collaboration.&nbsp;

Rachel believes everyone has something to bring to the table and greatly values diversity and inclusivity. By providing equitable recruitment strategies and ongoing mentoring programs, she maintains a company culture of team appreciation and collaboration.&nbsp;

Rachel places great importance on professional growth and is committed to providing professional development opportunities. These opportunities help teams develop their strengths and knowledge, and empower each team member to reach professional success.&nbsp;

Rachel places great importance on professional growth and is committed to providing professional development opportunities. These opportunities help teams develop their strengths and knowledge, and empower each team member to reach professional success.&nbsp;

Rachel loves the outdoors and is often found hiking and paddleboarding in her spare time. She has two beautiful children who accompany her on her traveling adventures. Rachel is also passionate about culinary arts and enjoys cooking and trying out the latest restaurants.

Rachel loves the outdoors and is often found hiking and paddleboarding in her spare time. She has two beautiful children who accompany her on her traveling adventures. Rachel is also passionate about culinary arts and enjoys cooking and trying out the latest restaurants.

contentpilot/expand-more

<section class="wp-block-contentpilot-expand-more"><div class="wp-block-contentpilot-expand-more__excerpt is-visible" data-selector="expand-more"></div><div class="wp-block-contentpilot-expand-more__full-content" data-selector="expand-more"><h2 class="wp-block-heading">Accomplished in Developing Well-Rounded Professional Experiences</h2>Rachel’s professional values are centered on collaboration, inclusivity, and professional development. She has worked closely with executive committees and department heads to create a balanced and comprehensive professional experience for legal teams. She supports the attorneys at Merchant &amp; Gould by designing, implementing, and directing:<ul><li>Attorney and talent acquisition, integration, and retention</li><li>Professional advancement, training, career coaching, and mentoring programs</li><li>Ongoing professional development, evaluation, and performance management</li><li>Diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) initiatives</li></ul>Rachel believes everyone has something to bring to the table and greatly values diversity and inclusivity. By providing equitable recruitment strategies and ongoing mentoring programs, she maintains a company culture of team appreciation and collaboration.&nbsp;Rachel places great importance on professional growth and is committed to providing professional development opportunities. These opportunities help teams develop their strengths and knowledge, and empower each team member to reach professional success.&nbsp;Rachel loves the outdoors and is often found hiking and paddleboarding in her spare time. She has two beautiful children who accompany her on her traveling adventures. Rachel is also passionate about culinary arts and enjoys cooking and trying out the latest restaurants.</div><button class="wp-block-contentpilot-expand-more__more-button is-visible" data-selector="expand-more">Show More</button><button class="wp-block-contentpilot-expand-more__less-button" data-selector="expand-more">Show Less</button></section>

she / her / hers

Denver

<div class="sqs-html-content">
Last week, the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit issued an opinion in <a href="http://www.cafc.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/opinions-orders/18-1218.Opinion.4-1-2019.pdf" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Cleveland Clinic Foundation v. True Health Diagnostics LLC</a>, 2018-1218 (April 1, 2019). Cleveland Clinic sued True Health for infringing patents relating to tests to determine whether an individual has increased risk of cardiovascular disease (“CVD”). Specifically, the patents related to evaluating CVD risk by measuring the concentration of myeloperoxidase (“MPO”) in the blood using an immunoassay and comparing the MPO concentration to those of healthy control subjects. According to the patents, this was more accurate than prior methods. In granting a Rule 12(b)(6) motion brought by True Health, the district court found the asserted claims directed to ineligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101. Cleveland Clinic appealed.
The patents in suit matured from continuation applications claiming priority from a parent patent, the validity of which had already been adjudicated by the Federal Circuit. In Cleveland Clinic Foundation v. True Health Diagnostics LLC, 859 F.3d 1352 (Fed. Cir. 2017), the Court held the parent patent was directed to the ineligible natural law that blood MPO levels correlate with CVD risk. Cleveland Clinic argued the newly asserted claims were different, and valid, because using an immunoassay to detect the correlation between blood MPO levels and CVD risk supplied an inventive concept sufficient to transform the asserted claims into patent-eligible subject matter. True Health responded that the correlation of CVD risk and blood MPO levels is a natural law that exists apart from human intervention regardless of the technique to observe it. The Federal Circuit agreed with True Health. Cleveland Clinic raised a number of additional arguments, each of which the Court rejected in affirming the district court’s dismissal. In one such argument, Cleveland Clinic asserted the district court failed to give appropriate deference, under Skidmore v. Swift & Co., to subject matter eligibility guidance published by the USPTO. Skidmore requires courts to give some deference to informal agency interpretations of “ambiguous statutory dictates.” According to Cleveland Clinic, Example 29 of the USPTO Guidance confirmed Cleveland Clinic’s patents were directed to patent eligible subject matter, and the district court erred in concluding otherwise. The Federal Circuit disagreed, explaining it is “not bound by [the USPTO’s] guidance” on issues related to subject matter eligibility. The Court further held Example 29 contradicted its own case law, which “must control.” 
</div>

CAFC “Not Bound” by USPTO Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance

<div class="sqs-html-content">
Last week, the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit issued an opinion in Natural <a href="http://www.cafc.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/opinions-orders/18-1295.Opinion.3-15-2019.pdf" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Alternatives International, Inc. v. Creative Compounds, LLC</a>, 2018-1295 (March 15, 2019). Natural Alternatives sued Creative Compounds for infringing several patents related to dietary supplements containing beta-alanine. The district court granted Creative Compounds’ Rule 12(c) motion for judgment on the pleadings, holding all asserted patent claims were directed to patent ineligible laws of nature under 35 U.S.C. § 101 and lacked an inventive concept sufficient to render them patent eligible. Natural Alternatives appealed.  
The Federal Circuit reversed in a split opinion, with Judge Moore writing for the majority. Addressing the asserted method claims, the Court noted that while mere discovery of a natural law does not constitute patent eligible subject matter, claims directed to a specific method of treatment are patent eligible. The Court explained, the method claims at issue require “specific steps to be taken in order to bring about a change in a subject, altering the subject’s natural state. Unlike the claims in Mayo, the [m]ethod [c]laims at issue are treatment claims.” Addressing the asserted product claims, the Court held the incorporation of the natural product, beta-alanine, into particular dosage forms with particular characteristics is sufficient to prevent judgment on the pleadings on patent eligibility. Addressing the asserted manufacturing claims, the Court held they were “not directed to the natural law or product of nature, but instead are an application of the law and new use of that product.” As such, they are addressed to patent eligible subject matter. The Court further held that fact issues concerning the presence of an inventive concept precluded judgment on the pleadings for all of the asserted claims. The majority opinion concluded with the cautionary note that “[w]e live in a natural world, and all inventions are constrained by the laws of nature. . . . [But] we must be careful not to overly abstract claims when performing the Alice analysis.” 
Judge Reyna wrote separately, concurring-in-part and dissenting-in-part, to express his belief that the district court applied an erroneous claim construction, and that certain claims are indeed directed to patent ineligible subject matter when the proper claim construction is applied. Judge Reyna concluded by expressing concern over whether “the time has come for this court to reconsider whether a Rule 12(c) motion based on § 101 should be decided before claim construction.”
</div>

Federal Circuit Reverses Judgment of Patent Ineligibility

<div class="sqs-html-content">
Last week, the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit issued an opinion in <a href="http://www.cafc.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/opinions-orders/17-1694.Opinion.2-7-2019.pdf">Momenta Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v. Bristol-Myers Squibb Company</a>, 2017-1694 (February 7, 2019), dismissing Momenta’s appeal of a decision from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) sustaining patentability of several claims of a Bristol-Myers Squibb (BMS) patent Momenta challenged in Inter Partes Review (IPR). 
The patent at issue covered an immunosuppressive protein molecule for treating immune system disorders, which BMS markets as Orencia. When Momenta filed its IPR petition, it was developing a generic version of Orencia. During the IPR, Momenta’s version failed Phase 1 clinical trials, and Momenta ceased its development efforts. The PTAB sustained the patentability of the challenged claims, and Momenta appealed. BMS moved to dismiss the appeal asserting Momenta lacked Article III standing. “Article III standing requires a concrete injury even in the context of a statutory violation.” BMS argued, without a competitive product, Momenta could not identify a sufficiently concrete injury to it from the PTAB’s decision. The Federal Circuit agreed.
The Court first rejected Momenta’s argument that it had standing based on its cooperation with another company, Mylan, to take over development of the Orencia alternative. While the agreement would have required Momenta to share development costs, which could be affected by the PTAB decision, Momenta’s 8-K SEC filing reported the collaboration with Mylan had been terminated. The Court also rejected Momenta’s argument that the estoppel associated with IPRs creates injury. The Court explained “[e]stoppel cannot constitute an injury-in-fact when Momenta is not engaged in any activity that would give rise to a possible infringement suit.” The Court considered Momenta’s argument that it might in the future seek to profit from an Orencia alternative, but concluded such hypothetical future injury is too speculative to support Article III standing. In addition to standing, the Court also addressed mootness. “In essence, mootness is the doctrine of standing set in a time frame; that is, the requisite personal interest that must exist at the time of commencement of the litigation (standing) must continue throughout its existence (mootness).” The Court explained, even if Momenta’s pursuit of potentially infringing activity had supported standing when the proceedings began, the abandonment of such activity eliminates the potential for injury, “thereby mooting the inquiry.” 
</div>

Federal Circuit Dismisses IPR Appeal for Lack of Standing

<div class="sqs-html-content">
Last week, the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit issued an opinion in <a href="http://www.cafc.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/opinions-orders/16-2599.Opinion.11-19-2018.pdf" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Enplas Display Device Corp. v. Seoul Semiconductor Co., Ltd.</a>, No. 2016-2599 (Nov. 19, 2018). After affirming the district court judgment of induced infringement, the Federal Circuit vacated and remanded the damages award as to one of the asserted patents. At trial, Seoul Semiconductor’s damages expert testified a hypothetical reasonable royalty negotiation with respect to that patent would have resulted in a lump-sum royalty of $2 – $4 million to cover not just the accused products, but also other similar and potentially infringing products Enplas may sell in the future. The expert testified such a license represented the pragmatic business approach to avoid future infringement disputes and negotiations. The jury awarded $4 million in damages based on this testimony, and the district court denied Enplas’s motion for JMOL. The Federal Circuit, Stoll, J., joined by Hughes, J., reversed. The Court held the expert’s method of estimating the volume of potentially infringing future products improperly relied on Enplas’s past sales of non-infringing products. The Court explained a reasonable royalty cannot include activities that do not constitute patent infringement. And the expert failed to explain how past sales volumes for non-accused products predicted future sales volumes of “infringing or even potentially infringing” products. Newman, J., dissented from reversal of the damages award. The dissent asserted Enplas did not appeal the denial of its motions to exclude the expert testimony before and during trial. The dissent further asserted the jury award, viewed with appropriate deference, was based on substantial evidence, including reasonable business considerations and a reasonable expert estimate of sales of infringing and potentially infringing products. The lesson: While a reasonable royalty damages award for patent infringement can properly take the form of a lump sum that includes estimated future sales of infringing or potentially infringing products, the estimated volume of such future sales cannot be based on past sales of non-accused products. 
</div>

Lump Sum Reasonable Royalty Damages Award Vacated and Remanded

<div class="sqs-html-content">
Last week, the Seventh Circuit issued an opinion in <a href="http://media.ca7.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/rssExec.pl?Submit=Display&Path=Y2019/D01-29/C:17-1873:J:Wood:aut:T:fnOp:N:2285724:S:0" target="_blank" rel="noopener">ABS Global, Inc. v. Inguran, LLC</a>, No. 17-1873 (7th Cir. Jan. 29, 2019), affirming the district court’s judgment in part, but ordering a new trial on enablement. ABS initiated the case against Inguran asserting antitrust violations. Inguran asserted counterclaims for breach of contract and infringement of its patent claims covering a method of sorting sperm cells to permit cattle breeders to determine the sex of calves. After a jury trial on ABS’s antitrust claims and Inguran’s counterclaims, the district court entered an injunction against Inguran for its antitrust violation and judgment in favor of Inguran on its claims for patent infringement and breach of contract. ABS appealed.
The Court first addressed how it came to have jurisdiction over the appeal, even though it involved patent issues. The Court explained that because the patent claims were permissive counterclaims the case did not fall within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Federal Circuit, which extends only to actions, or compulsory counterclaims, arising under the patent laws.
On the substantive issues, the Court affirmed the district court’s ruling that the asserted patent claims were nonobvious and that ABS was liable on Inguran’s breach of contract claims. On the issue of enablement under 35 U.S.C. § 112(a), however, the Court concluded a new trial is necessary. Specifically, the jury found independent claim 1 enabled, but dependent claim 2 not enabled. The Court explained “the jury’s verdicts were irreconcilable. A proper dependent claim cannot fail for lack of enablement while its independent claim stands, because the dependent claim’s scope is a subset of the independent claim’s scope.” The Court distinguished the enablement requirement from the written description requirement, explaining that the lack of support for a dependent claim limitation could render such a claim invalid for lack of written description even where the independent claim from which it depends is adequately described. Indeed, the Court noted, “dependent claims may be more likely than independent claims to fail the written description requirement simply because they feature more limitations.” Regarding enablement, however, the Court concluded “it is certainly possible for a dependent claim to be more enabled than the independent variant, [but] it is impossible for it to be less so.” Concluding that the jury’s verdict was “irreconcilably inconsistent,” the Court reversed and remanded the case to the district court for a new trial on that issue.
</div>

7th Cir. Orders New Trial On Enablement Of Sex Selection Claims

<div class="sqs-html-content">
Last week, the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit issued an opinion in <a href="http://www.cafc.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/opinions-orders/18-1407.Opinion.12-20-2018.pdf" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Glasswall Solutions Limited v. Clearswift Ltd.</a> , 2018-1407 (December 20, 2018). The district court dismissed Glasswall’s patent infringement action under Rule 12(b)(6) after concluding all asserted claims of Glasswall’s patents are invalid as patent ineligible abstract ideas under 35 U.S.C. § 101. The Federal Circuit affirmed. The Court explained that the claims required nothing more than the conventional manipulation of information by a computer. The Court characterized Glasswall’s claims as directed to “‘the filtering of electronic files and data’ by regenerating an electronic file without non-conforming data.” Instead of purporting to state how any of the claimed steps are to be performed, however, the Court concluded the claims are framed in “wholly functional terms.” The Court took particular note of the fact that the specifications of the patents themselves concede the claims are “implemented using known computer programming techniques.” The Court also distinguished the Glasswall claims from other claims it has found to be directed to patent eligible subject matter, relying on the absence in the Glasswall patents of any improvement in computer functionality (i.e. something allowing “the computer to do something it could not previously do”). The Court held Glasswall’s claims “fare no better under Alice Step 2, as they recite steps that do not amount to anything more than an instruction to apply the abstract idea of filtering nonconforming data and regenerating a file without it, plus the generic steps needed to implement the idea.” Finally, the Court explained the declaration submitted by Glasswall’s expert did not prevent dismissal on the pleadings because the alleged “factual” allegations contained therein were instead conclusory legal assertions, which the district court is “not bound to accept as true.” 
</div>

Federal Circuit Affirms § 101 Dismissal of Patent Suit

Last week, the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit decided <a href="http://www.cafc.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/opinions-orders/13-1527.Opinion.1-11-2019.pdf">WesternGeco v. ION Geophysical</a>, 2013-1527, 2014-1121, 2014-1526, 2014-1528 (Fed. Cir. January 11, 2019). The Supreme Court remanded the case on the sole issue of lost profits, having reversed the Federal Circuit’s prior decision that an award of lost profits constituted an unauthorized extraterritorial application of the patent laws. On remand, the Court first considered whether the PTAB’s invalidation of most of the asserted patent claims after the parties stipulated to a final judgment on the reasonable royalty damages award affects that award. The Court held it does not, and that Fresenius does not apply because “[t]he particular facts of this case establish that the reasonable royalty award constitutes a fully satisfied and unappealable final judgment such that the subsequent invalidation of asserted patent claims does not support reopening.” On the issue of lost profits, the Court rejected ION’s argument that district court’s lost profits award could not be supported under Panduit because the parties do not compete in the same marketplace, concluding ION waived the argument by not raising it during supplemental briefing and asserting it for the first time at oral argument. The Court noted, however, that if the district court on remand orders a new trial on lost profits, the argument could be raised at that time. In terms of the impact of the PTAB’s invalidation of most of the asserted patent claims on the district court’s lost profits award, the Court decided the district court was in a better position to decide the issue in the first instance and instructed the district court to do so on remand. In its discussion of the issue, the Court noted the general rule is that “when a ‘jury was told it could rely on any of two or more independent legal theories, one of which was defective,’ the general verdict must be set aside.” Because several of the patent claims were invalidated and the jury did not specify, on a claim-by-claim basis, the basis for its lost profits award, a new trial on lost profits might be necessary. But, the Court concluded, a new trial is not automatically required if the jury must have found the remaining infringed claim “essential” to the infringement.

Federal Circuit Remands Lost Profits After Supreme Court Reversal

Recently, the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board (TTAB) issued an opinion in <a href="http://ttabvue.uspto.gov/ttabvue/v?pno=91241083&pty=OPP&eno=12">Rebecca Curtin v. United Trademark Holdings Inc.</a>, Opposition No. 91241083 (December 28, 2018). The TTAB denied United Trademark Holdings’ Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss for lack of standing, holding a party need not have a specific commercial interest in a mark to oppose its registration. United had sought to register the mark RAPUNZEL for use on dolls and toys. The opposer, Rebecca Curtin, was not a commercial competitor, as is commonly the case, but rather a law school professor asserting registration of the mark would cause damage to her as a consumer. Curtin asserted the mark should be denied registration because it is highly descriptive, if not generic, for the identified goods. United moved to dismiss the opposition for lack of standing, asserting Curtin’s lack of competitive interest prevented her from maintaining the action. The TTAB denied United’s motion, stating “in no case has this court ever held that one must have a specific commercial interest, not shared by the general public, in order to have standing as an opposer.” The TTAB explained the standing analysis properly asks whether an opposer’s belief it will be damaged is reasonable and reflects a genuine interest in the issue, not how many others share that belief. The TTAB further explained consumers “may have a real interest in keeping merely descriptive or generic words in the public domain, (1) to prevent the owner of a mark from inhibiting competition in the sale of particular goods; and (2) to maintain freedom of the public to use the language involved.” The TTAB thus held that Curtin, as a member of the consuming public, alleged a reasonable basis for her belief she would be damaged by United’s registration of the RAPUNZEL mark, and United’s motion to dismiss must, therefore, be denied.

Consumer Has Standing To Oppose Registration Of Mark

I created this blog and did not relate any people or practices from the microsite admin. 



I then went to the main site, and related this blog to the broadcasted person and broadcasted practice in the MAIN site admin.

Lindsey Test Blog 2

I created this post in the microsite admin and did not relate any people or practices. 



I then went to the main site and opened the broadcasted post from the main site admin and added a broadcasted person and practice to this page from the main site admin https://admin.merchantstaging.contentpilot.net/wp-admin/post.php?post=22578&action=edit

Lindsey Test Blog 3

Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum.



Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum.



Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum.

DU Test Blog

Testing after updates







Test update after publish….adding kamal as related person







Another test update after publish. adding heather chatterson as related person







Test adding content but no additional related fields.

Lindsey Blog Test 4

<div class="sqs-html-content">
Last week, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit issued a precedential decision in <a href="https://cafc.uscourts.gov/opinions-orders/22-1212.OPINION.10-18-2023_2207653.pdf">Great Concepts, LLC v. Chutter, Inc., No. 2022-1212 (Oct. 18, 2023)</a>, on appeal from the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board. In 2010, Great Concepts’ counsel filed a combined Section 8 and 15 declaration with the USPTO, declaring in part that the DANTANNA’S mark was not involved in any pending legal proceeding. At the time of that filing, however, the mark was subject to both a cancellation action at the Board and a pending appeal from a trademark infringement lawsuit, both initiated by Chutter’s predecessor. Chutter then filed a new petition to cancel the DANTANNA’S mark in 2015, based on the fraudulent affidavit, which the Board ultimately granted in 2021. Great Concepts appealed to the Federal Circuit.
The Federal Circuit applied a de novo standard of review and reversed, finding the Board was not permitted to cancel the trademark registration based on the unambiguous language in the statute. Section 15 of the Lanham Act enables registered marks to acquire incontestable status after five consecutive years of use following registration—provided there is no pending proceeding involving the owner’s rights in the mark. 15 U.S.C. § 1065. Section 14, however, provides that even an incontestable mark may be canceled if “its registration was obtained fraudulently.” 15 U.S.C. § 1064(3) (emphasis added). For decades, the Board believed that it had the power to cancel a trademark after a fraudulent Section 15 declaration was filed in support of incontestability. See Crown Wallcovering Corp. v. Wall Paper Mfrs. Ltd., 188 USPQ 141 (TTAB 1975); see also Torres v. Cantine Torresella S.r.l, 808 F.2d 46 (Fed. Cir. 1986) (“Fraud in obtaining renewal of a registration amounts to fraud in obtaining a registration within the meaning of section 14(c) of the Lanham Act.”).
Citing the plain and unambiguous language in the Lanham Act, the Court disagreed. It concluded that a declaration of incontestability is not filed in furtherance of obtaining a registration. And although incontestability is an important right—indeed, it is conclusive evidence of the mark’s validity—incontestability is still fundamentally different than registration. The Section 15 declaration filed by Great Concepts did not cause or even contribute to the issuance of the registration. Accordingly, the Court held the Section 15 declaration could not be the basis for canceling the mark under 15 U.S.C. § 1064(3).
</div>

CAFC Overrules USPTO’s Trademark Cancellation Decision

Manager of Attorney Recruiting

Rachel  V. Atencio

Denver Area Legal Recruiting Association
Twin Cities Diversity in Practice
Professional Development Consortium