WASHINGTON, D.C. — A Nevada federal judge’s decision to award Halo Electronics Inc. prejudgment interest in a patent dispute is not appealable, because a final judgment has not yet been entered in the case, the Federal Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals ruled May 26 (Halo Electronics Inc. v. Pulse Electronics Inc., No. 16-2006, Fed. Cir.).
WASHINGTON, D.C. — A rejection by the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board (TTAB) of a petition for cancellation of the “Alec Bradley Star Insignia” trademark was vacated and remanded by the Federal Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals on May 24 (Joseph Phelps Vineyards LLC v. Fairmont Holdings LLC, No. 16-1089, Fed. Cir., 2017 U.S. App. LEXIS 9006).
WASHINGTON, D.C. — A California federal jury’s finding in May 2016 that Google Inc.’s incorporation of the Java structure, sequence and organization (SSO) in its Android operating system was a fair use was proper and should not be disturbed, Google told the Federal Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals on May 22 (Oracle America Inc. v. Google Inc., Nos. 17-1118, -1202, Fed. Cir.).
SAN JOSE, Calif. — In remand briefs filed May 12 in California federal court, Apple Inc. and Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd. argue over whether a $399 infringer’s profits award related to smartphone design patents should stand or whether the U.S. Supreme Court’s ruling on the “article of manufacture” theory of infringement merits a new trial to determine the portion of Samsung’s profits directly attributable to the infringing components (Apple Inc. v, Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd., et al., No. 5:11-cv-01846, N.D. Calif.).
FORT WAYNE, Ind. — Citing the existence of “many deficiencies” in a complaint for contributory copyright infringement, an Indiana federal judge on May 22 dismissed the action in a dispute over the “Transitioning Into Responsible Students” (TIRS) educational program (Angela Brooks-Ngwenya v. Bart Peterson, et al., No. 16-193, N.D. Ind., 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 77007).
LOS ANGELES — A trademark and copyright dispute over the phrase “Life is Beautiful” rejected on summary judgment due to a lack of similarity and a plaintiff’s unclean hands yielded a $922,309 attorney fee award on May 23 by a California federal judge (Amusement Art LLC v. Life is Beautiful LLC, et al., No. 14-8290, C.D. Calif., 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 79135).
WASHINGTON, D.C. — A Washington federal judge did not err in rejecting allegations that Amazon.com Inc. infringes the intellectual property of others through its online marketplace and “Fulfillment by Amazon” service, the Federal Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals ruled May 23 (Milo & Gabby LLC, et al. v. Amazon.com Inc., No. 16-1290, Fed. Cir., 2017 U.S. App. LEXIS 8932).
LOS ANGELES — A dispute between competing car clubs over the “Stylistics” trademark was resolved in favor of a plaintiff on May 23, when a California federal judge awarded summary judgment (Gilbert Lerma Jr. v. Ernie Armijo, et al., No. 15-9953, C.D. Calif., 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 77575).
ALEXANDRIA, Va. — A patent covering three process categories commonly used in the fabrication of semiconductor devices would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, a petitioner for inter partes review told the Patent Trial and Appeal Board on May 22 (SPTS Technologies Ltd. v. Plasma-Therm LLC, No. IPR2017-01457, PTAB).
TRENTON, N.J. — A dispute over plans by Sandoz Inc. and Momenta Pharmaceuticals Inc. (Sandoz, collectively) to sell generic Copaxone will proceed in Delaware federal court, a New Jersey federal judge ruled May 22 (Teva Pharmaceuticals Industries Ltd. v. Sandoz Inc., et al., No. 17-275, D. N.J., 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 77193).
WASHINGTON, D.C. — Although a Texas federal judge erred in barring the manufacture and sale of an accused generic form of the lymph-node-mapping dye isosulfan blue (ISB) with regard to two patents, relief was proper with regard to a third patent, the Federal Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals ruled May 19 (Mylan Institutional LLC, et al. v. Aurobindo Pharma Ltd., No. 17-1645, Fed. Cir., 2017 U.S. App. LEXIS 8792).
BROOKLYN, N.Y. — A federal judge in New York on May 10 denied stainless steel and silver-plated dinnerware designer and seller Oneida Group Inc.’s motion for preliminary injunction in a trade dress infringement and misappropriation of trade secrets lawsuit, ruling that Oneida failed to show that it owns the trade dress at issue (The Oneida Group Inc. v. Steelite International U.S.A. Inc., et al., No. 17-0957, E.D. N.Y., 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 71438).
WASHINGTON, D.C. — Changes by Congress to the general venue statute, 28 U.S.C. § 1391(c), did not modify the meaning of the patent venue statute, 28 U.S.C. § 1400(b), as interpreted in Fourco Glass Co. v. Transmirra Products Corp., 353 U. S. 222, 226 (1957), to mean that a domestic corporation “resides” only in its state of incorporation, the U.S. Supreme Court unanimously ruled May 22 (TC Heartland LLC d/b/a Heartland Food Products Group v. Kraft Foods Group Brands LLC, No. 16-341, U.S. Sup.).
WASHINGTON, D.C. — A divided June 2016 ruling by the Federal Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals that the Patent Trial and Appeal Board need not address in a final written decision the patentability of all claims identified in a petition for inter partes review (IPR) will be reviewed, the U.S. Supreme Court announced May 22 (SAS Institute Inc. v. Michelle K. Lee, Director, U.S. Patent and Trademark Office and ComplementSoft LLC, No. 16-969, U.S. Sup.).
ALEXANDRIA, Va. — Claims 1-20 of a proposed patented method for quick content channel discovery, streaming content and switching from one content stream to another with minimal latency were rejected May 18 by the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (Ex parte Mika Kuulusa, No. 2016-007047, PTAB).
WASHINGTON, D.C. — Final written decisions by the Patent Trial and Appeal Board that rejected assertions by Medtronic Inc. that two patents directed to methods and systems for ameliorating aberrant spinal column deviations are unpatentable should stand, an inventor told the Federal Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals on May 16 (Medtronic Inc. v. Mark A. Barry, Nos. 17-1169, Fed. Cir.).
ATLANTA — In a May 18 ruling, the 11th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals concluded that copyright registration occurs when the Register of Copyrights registers a work, and not merely when an application for a registration is filed (Fourth Estate Public Benefit Corporation v. Wall-Street.com LLC, No. 16-13726, 11th Cir., 2017 U.S. App. LEXIS 8766).
ATLANTA — A restaurant owner was awarded summary judgment in Georgia federal court on May 18 on an artist’s copyright infringement claims over a drawing he did of the restaurant, with the artist also losing his bid to have his wife testify as an expert witness (Floyd Anthony Fey v. Panacea Management Group LLC, et al., No. 1:16-cv-2851, N.D. Ga., 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 75637).
INDIANAPOLIS — An Indiana federal judge on May 16 granted third-party defendants’ motion to dismiss franchise fraud claims against them in a trademark infringement case, saying counterclaimants failed to plead their claim with sufficient particularity (Britt Interactive LLC, et al. v. A3 Media LLC, et al., No. 1:16-cv-02884, S.D. Ind., 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 73945).
ALEXANDRIA, Va. — The Patent Trial and Appeal Board on May 17 issued a final written decision declaring seven claims of a data optimization patent unpatentable as obvious (Google Inc. v. Vedanti Systems Ltd., No. 2016-00212, PTAB).