WASHINGTON, D.C. — An attorney told the Supreme Court at oral arguments on Feb. 20 that his client did not violate the Bankruptcy Code when it stripped a former licensee of the right to continue use of a trademark following a voluntary petition under Chapter 11 (Mission Product Holdings Inc. v. Tempnology LLC, No. 17-1657, U.S. Sup.).
WASHINGTON, D.C. — A Delaware federal judge erred in finding no genuine disputes of material fact with regard to whether a patented real-time location (RTL) system lacks written description support, the Federal Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals ruled Feb. 14 (CenTrak Inc. v. Sonitor Technologies Inc., No. 17-2510, Fed. Cir., 2019 U.S. App. LEXIS 4442).
DENVER — In a Feb. 15 decision, the 10th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals found that an Oklahoma federal judge did not err in denying a motion to reconsider his earlier entry of a default judgment and injunction against a pro se defendant accused of copyright infringement (Christ Center of Divine Philosophy Inc. v. Ellen Victoria Elam, No. 18-6089, 10th Cir., 2019 U.S. App. LEXIS 4628).
CINCINNATI — Efforts by a pro se Colorado man to overturn a Tennessee federal judge’s denial of his request for entry of a default judgment against three music industry defendants were unsuccessful Feb. 15, when the Sixth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals deemed the argument moot (Mark Halper v. Sony/ATV Music Publishing LLC, et al., No. 18-5915, 6th Cir., 2019 U.S. App. LEXIS 4720).
LOS ANGELES — Arguing that VidAngel Inc. waived any attorney-client privilege in a memorandum authored by its lawyer by referencing it as a source of its advice-of-counsel defense against willful copyright infringement, a group of plaintiff movie studios asked a California federal court on Feb. 14 to compel the online movie-filtering service to submit the memorandum and any other documents related to its defenses (Disney Enterprises Inc., et al. v. VidAngel Inc., No. 2:16-cv-04109, C.D. Calif.).
WASHINGTON, D.C. — A California federal judge’s decision to award a patent assignee $600,000 in attorney fees it incurred in bringing an infringement action that ultimately settled was upheld Feb. 8 by the Federal Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals (Drop Stop LLC v. Jian Qing Zhu, et al., No. 18-1533, Fed. Cir., 2019 U.S. App. LEXIS 3923).
WASHINGTON, D.C. — In oral arguments at the U.S. Supreme Court on Feb. 19, the U.S. Postal Service (USPS) defended the right of governmental agencies to levy challenges before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (Return Mail Inc. v. U.S. Postal Service, et al., No. 17-1594, U.S. Sup.).
WASHINGTON, D.C. — A finding by the Patent Trial and Appeal Board that two of four patents are unpatentable as obvious was vacated Feb. 13 by the Federal Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals, which found that “the patents at issue are for technological inventions and thus were not properly subject to” challenged covered business method (CBM) review (IBG LLC, et al. v. Trading Technologies International Inc., Nos. 2017-1732, -1766, -1769, -2052-55, Fed. Cir., 2019 U.S. App. LEXIS 4299).
SAN DIEGO — The owner of a sole-proprietorship failed to sufficiently state a claim for relief for copyright infringement, misappropriation of trade secrets or antitrust and unfair trade practices against her former collaborative partner and others, a federal judge in California ruled Feb. 13 in granting a pair of dismissal motions (Sara Elizabeth Siegler v. Sorrento Therapeutics Inc., et al., No. 18-1681, S.D. Calif., 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 23779).
WASHINGTON, D.C. — A stipulated judgment of noninfringement was vacated Feb. 8 by the Federal Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals, which found that the stipulation was based upon an overly limiting claim construction by an Arizona federal judge (Continental Circuits LLC v. Intel Corp., et al., No. 18-1076, Fed. Cir., 2019 U.S. App. LEXIS 3920).
ALEXANDRIA, Va. — In a Feb. 13 opening brief on remand, an inter partes review (IPR) petitioner tells the Patent Trial and Appeal Board that a prior art reference the board previously failed to address renders claimed Finjan Inc. antivirus technology obvious (Palo Alto Networks Inc. v. Finjan Inc., No. IPR2016-00151, PTAB).
OKLAHOMA CITY — Allegations that a Virginia author engaged in copyright misuse when submitting takedown notices to online vendors of e-books indicating that a three-part romance series infringes her copyright were dismissed Feb. 13 by an Oklahoma federal judge (Quill Ink Books Ltd. v. Rachelle Soto, et al., No. 19-920, W.D. Okla., 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 23095).
ALEXANDRIA, Va. — Various claims of a patented system for integrating “real-time information” into a “virtual thematic environment” should be canceled, a petitioner for inter partes review (IPR) told the Patent Trial and Appeal Board on Feb. 12 (Niantic Inc. v. Barbaro Technologies LLC, No. IPR2019-00669, PTAB).
WASHINGTON, D.C. — In a Jan. 30 appellee brief, Sirius XM (SXM) Radio Inc. tells the Federal Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals that a Delaware federal judge did not err in dismissing patent infringement allegations levied against the subscription radio service (Fraunhofer- Gesellschaft Zur Forderung v. Sirius XM Radio Inc., No. 18-2400, Fed. Cir.).
WASHINGTON, D.C. — The owner of a patent relating to a dental implant recently told the Federal Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals that its allegations of infringement are not objectively baseless in response to a California federal judge’s award of more than $500,000 in attorney fees on behalf of a prevailing defendant (Spitz Technologies Corporation v. Nobel Biocare USA LLC, Nos. 2018-2345, -2346, Fed. Cir.).
WASHINGTON, D.C. — A determination by the Patent Trial and Appeal Board that a patented controller for gas turbofan engines used in aircraft is obvious should be reversed because the findings are premised on an erroneous construction claim construction, the patent owner maintains in a recent appeal to the Federal Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals (United Technologies Corporation v. General Electric Company, No. 18-2340, Fed. Cir.).
LOS ANGELES — A candle maker on Feb. 11 sued another candle company in a California federal court, asserting claims for copyright and trademark infringement and violation of California’s unfair competition law (UCL), alleging that the company made and sold candles using its artwork and federally registered proprietary names (Indio Products, Inc. v. CSP Yemaya International, Inc., et al., No. 2:19cv1018, C.D. Calif.).
ALEXANDRIA, Va. — Asserting seven separate grounds of unpatentability, Lyft Inc. on Feb. 12 petitioned the Patent Trial and Appeal Board for inter partes review (IPR) of a patented ride-sharing system (Lyft Inc. v. RideApp Inc., No. IPR2019-00671, PTAB).
CHICAGO — Although rejecting allegations that an architect removed copyright management information (CMI) from copyrighted house plans, an Illinois federal judge on Feb. 11 agreed to allow a plaintiff to move forward with claims of willful infringement (Design Basics LLC, et al. v. WK Olson Architects Inc., et al., No. 17-7432, N.D. Ill., 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 21873).
PITTSBURGH — A state court declaratory judgment complaint was properly removed to federal court because the filing contains allegations of ownership of various intellectual property that would be preempted by copyright law, a Pennsylvania federal judge ruled Feb. 11 (Four Quarters Interfaith Sanctuary of Earth Religion v. Kate Gille, et al., No. 19-12, W.D. Pa., 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 21516).