SEATTLE — A request by a patent infringement defendant for reconsideration of a June ruling that denied dismissal of the dispute was denied July 20 by a Washington federal judge (Westech Aerosol Corporation v. ITW Polymers Sealants North America Inc., No. 17-5068, W.D. Wash., 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 113323).
ATLANTA — Allegations that a copyright and trademark infringement defendant befriended a plaintiff under false pretenses in order to misappropriate portions of her autobiography for a line of perfumes were properly rejected by a Georgia federal judge, the 11th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals ruled July 18 (Daisy Byrd Mobley v. Claire Fermont-Langlais, et al., No. 16-12340, 11th Cir., 2017 U.S. App. LEXIS 12841).
WASHINGTON, D.C. — A Delaware federal judge’s determination of invalidity with regard to various claims of a patented product for the treatment of multiple myeloma and mantle cell lymphoma was erroneous, the Federal Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals ruled July 17 (Millennium Pharmaceuticals Inc. v. Sandoz Inc., et al., Nos. 2015-2066, 2016-1008, -1009, -1010, -1109, -1110, -1283, Fed. Cir., 2017 U.S. App. LEXIS 12702).
WASHINGTON, D.C. — A jury verdict of patent infringement was reversed and remanded by a divided Federal Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals on July 19 after the majority found that a Texas federal judge erroneously construed the disputed claim terms “replacement telephone number,” “modify caller identification data of the call originator” and “outbound call” according to their plain and ordinary meaning (NobelBiz Inc. v. Global Connect, L.L.C., et al., Nos. 16-1104, -1105, Fed. Cir., 2017 U.S. App. LEXIS 12946).
SAN JOSE, Calif. — A federal judge in California on July 14 granted in part and denied in part Google’s motion to dismiss state and federal misappropriation of trade secrets claims from a lawsuit, ruling that a wireless services and solutions firm has failed to show how Google’s actions violated the terms of a nondisclosure agreement (Space Data Corp. v. Alphabet Inc., et al., No. 5:16-cv-03260, N.D. Calif., 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 109842).
MIAMI. — A federal judge in Florida on July 7 denied a glass-pipe maker’s motion for default judgment in a copyright infringement suit and dismissed the suit without prejudice after finding that the plaintiff “lacks standing to pursue its federal claims” and the court lacks subject matter jurisdiction (Sream Inc. v. Mayasam, Inc., No. 16-cv-24825, S.D. Fla., 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 106100).
RICHMOND, Va. — In a July 5 reply brief to the Fourth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals, a day care operator argues that a national marketing campaign in which it participated did not run afoul of a consent judgment prohibiting it from offering services under the “Rainbow” trademark in the Fayetteville, N.C., area and, thus, a contempt ruling against it should be reversed (Rainbow School Inc. v. Rainbow Early Education Holding LLC, et al., Nos. 17-1055 and 17-1123, 4th Cir.).
ALEXANDRIA, Va. — In a July 10 petition for post-grant review (PGR), a pharmaceutical company and a limited liability company that bills itself as a “partner” in inter partes review proceedings alleged that a patent covering an oral, liquid lisinopril formulation should not have been issued (KVK-Tech Inc., et al. v. Silvergate Pharmaceuticals Inc., No. PGR2017-00039, PTAB).
WASHINGTON, D.C. — Former executives of the now-defunct file-sharing service Megaupload filed a reply brief in the U.S. Supreme Court on June 21, supporting their petition for certiorari and urging review and clarification of procedures governing the seizure of foreign assets under the Civil Asset Forfeiture Reform Act (CAFRA), which the petitioners say the U.S. government wrongly invoked to seize their assets in a criminal copyright case (Finn Batato, et al. v. United States of America, No. 16-1206, U.S. Sup.).
RICHMOND, Va. — With briefing completed on its appeal of a trial court finding it contributorily liable for users’ online infringement, an internet service provider (ISP) on June 28 filed a supplemental brief in the Fourth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals, voicing its objections to a subsequent award of attorney fees against it (BMG Rights Management [US] LLC, et al. v. Cox Communications Inc., et al., No. 16-1972, 17-1352 and 17-1353, 4th Cir.).
WASHINGTON, D.C. — The Federal Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals on July 13 heard oral arguments in a dispute in which Microsoft Corp. prevailed on allegations that two data-mining patents are indefinite (MasterMine Software Inc. v. Microsoft Corp., No. 16-2465, Fed. Cir.).
WASHINGTON, D.C. — U.S. Rep. Darrel Issa, R-Calif., on July 13 deemed “reprehensible” a recent interpretation by U.S. Judge J. Rodney Gilstrap of the Eastern District of Texas of the U.S. Supreme Court’s holding in TC Heartland LLC v. Kraft Foods Grp. Brands LLC during a meeting of the House Judiciary Committee Subcommittee on Courts, Intellectual Property and the Internet.
NEW ORLEANS — A high-end bourbon whiskey distributor argues in a June 30 brief to the Fifth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals that a jury incorrectly found its “Cowboy Little Barrel” trademark to be abandoned because it was wrongly precluded from presenting evidence of an intent to resume use of the mark (Allied Lomar Inc. v. Lone Star Distillery LLC, et al., No. 17-50148, 5th Cir.).
ALEXANDRIA, Va. — In a July 11 petition for inter partes review filed with the Patent Trial and Appeal Board, Microsoft Corp. and Microsoft Mobile Inc. allege that a patent that claims a method of text entry on devices such as handheld computers would have been obvious as of the patent’s priority date of June 2001 (Microsoft Corporation, et al. v. Koninklijke Philips Electronics N.V., No. IPR2017-01766, PTAB).
ALEXANDRIA, Va. — A patent covering a system that supplies digital signals in a variety of formats to accommodate different types of external units, assigned by its inventors to Sony Corp., would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, several petitioners allege in a July 11 filing with the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (ARRIS International plc, et al. v. Sony Corporation, No. IPR2017-01699, PTAB).
WILMINGTON, Del. — An effort by a defendant to obtain dismissal of allegations that it infringed a patented invention that — among other things — would purportedly replace human meter readers was unsuccessful July 11, when a Delaware federal judge ruled that the case should proceed (Smart Meter Technologies Inc. v. Duke Energy Corporation, No. 16-208, D. Del., 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 106493).
WASHINGTON, D.C. — A patent challenger recently told the Federal Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals that the Patent Trial and Appeal Board “violated a basic tenet of patent law” in turning away allegations of obviousness presented in a petition for inter partes review (IPR) (Ericsson Inc. v. Intellectual Ventures I LLC, No. 17-1521, Fed. Cir.).
NEW YORK — A New Jersey-based dungaree manufacturer argues in a July 10 brief in the Second Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals that a 2003 agreement that settled a previous trademark dispute with a rival clothier serves to bar the present trademark claims brought against it by that same company (Marcel Fashions Group Inc. v. Lucky Brand Dungarees Inc., et al., No. 17-0361, 2nd Cir.).
WASHINGTON, D.C. — A panel of Federal Circuit U.S. Judges Sharon Prost, Raymond T. Chen and Todd M. Hughes heard oral argument on July 10 in a case that asserts that a California federal judge erroneously granted defendant Apple Inc. summary judgment on allegations of patent infringement (Rembrandt Patent Innovations LLC, et al. v. Apple Inc., No. 16-2324, Fed. Cir.).
WASHINGTON, D.C. — A Texas federal judge’s decision to deny a patent plaintiff permanent injunctive relief, following a jury verdict of infringement, was vacated by the Federal Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals on July 11 (Genband US LLC v. Metaswitch Networks Corp., et al., No. 17-1148, Fed. Cir., 2017 U.S. App. LEXIS 12233).