WASHINGTON, D.C. — In a long-running dispute over copyright infringement and software licensing between a British and an American company, the American firm on Sept. 16 filed a motion in the U.S. Supreme Court seeking a 60-day extension of its deadline to respond to a petition for certiorari concerning the authority of U.S. courts to enforce monetary judgments against foreign companies under the All Writs Act (AWA) (World Programming Limited v. SAS Institute Inc., No. 20-304, U.S. Sup.).
WASHINGTON, D.C. — A month after The Walt Disney Co. waived its right to respond to a petition for certiorari in a case where both a trial court and an appeals court found that Disney's movie "Inside Out" did not infringe characters created by a child development expert, the U.S. Supreme Court on Sept. 16 requested a response from the company to address questions about the proper copyright standard for fictional characters (The Moodsters Co. v. The Walt Disney Co., et al., No. 20-132, U.S. Sup.).
WASHINGTON, D.C. — In a Sept. 4 response and cross-appellant brief, a petitioner for inter partes review (IPR) with the Federal Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals asserts that the Patent Trial and Appeal Board correctly deemed obvious challenged claims of a patent but erred in granting the patent owner leave to amend in order to add substitute claims (Zaxcom Inc. v. Lectrosonics Inc., Nos. 2020-1350, -1405, Fed. Cir.).
WASHINGTON, D.C. — The Federal Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals on Sept. 2 lifted a stay it entered in July in a dispute over two gaming patents; the same day, a nonprofit inventors association filed an amicus curiae brief in the case, urging the appeals court to take up an appellant's assertion that the administrative patent judge (APJ) system employed by the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) violates due process (New Vision Gaming and Development Inc. v. SG Gaming Inc., No. 20-1399, Fed. Cir.).
WASHINGTON, D.C. — An International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes (ICSID) tribunal in an award issued Aug. 14 and released publicly on Sept. 4 denied two tire companies' nearly $20 million claim against the Republic of Panama after finding that there was not "a scintilla of evidence" showing that the companies' tire trademarks were harmed or lost value due to a Panama Supreme Court judgment against the companies (Bridgestone Licensing Services, Inc., et al. v. Republic of Panama, No. ARB/16/34, ICSID).
WASHINGTON, D.C. — In a Sept. 15 opinion, a federal judge in the District of Columbia indicated that although he agrees that new chemical entity (NCE) exclusivity status does not bar the U.S. Food and Drug Administration from approving a competing drug, the FDA's approval of "Numbrino" ran afoul of timelines prescribed by federal law (Genus Lifesciences Inc. v. Alex M. Azar, et al., No. 20-211, D. D.C., 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 168370).
PHILADELPHIA — The Third Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals on Sept. 16 found that it need not answer the question of whether the voluntary dismissal of copyright infringement claims renders a defendant a "prevailing party" for purposes of an award of attorney fees because a New Jersey federal judge correctly deemed the defendant unentitled to such an award (Morning Sun Books Inc. v. Uncle Dave's Brass Model Trains, No. 18-3510, 3rd Cir., 2020 U.S. App. LEXIS 29448).
ALEXANDRIA, Va. — In a petition filed Sept. 15 with the Patent Trial and Appeal Board, a New Jersey-based online trading company seeks covered business method (CBM) review of seven claims of a patent directed to currency trading, "an age-old business practice stretching back generations" (GAIN Capital Holdings Inc. v. OANDA Corporation, No. CBM2020-00021, PTAB).
LAS VEGAS — In a 94-page order issued Sept. 14, a federal judge in Nevada — in response to seven separate motions for partial summary judgment — ruled in favor of software maker and copyright infringement counterclaimant Oracle Corp., rejecting various defenses raised by a plaintiff seeking a declaration of noninfringement (Rimini Street Inc. v. Oracle Corp., No. 14-1699, D. Nev., 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 168222).
CHICAGO — A copyright dispute over the retransmission of local television stations to DISH Network subscribers was dismissed Sept. 14 by a federal judge in Illinois, who found that DISH had consent to continue airing footage from 13 Cox Enterprises television stations (Terrier Media Buyer Inc. v. DISH Network, No. 20-583, N.D. Ill., 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 167540).
WASHINGTON, D.C. — In a Sept. 15 per curiam order, the Federal Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals ordered a patent dispute to proceed in California, deeming a Texas federal judge's denial of HP Inc.'s motion to transfer there "clearly wrong" (In re: HP Inc., No. 20-140, Fed. Cir.).
SAN FRANCISCO — Several months after reversing and remanding a final judgment of willful infringement in a dispute over a copyrighted textile design, the Ninth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals on Sept. 14 denied a request by the defendant for reimbursement of attorney fees it incurred in the successful appeal (Unicolors Inc. v. H&M Hennes & Mauritz L.P., Nos. 18-56253, 56548, 9th Cir., 2020 U.S. App. LEXIS 29135).
ALEXANDRIA, Va. — A patent applicant led an examiner "astray" in connection with application of the two-part test for patent eligibility espoused in Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int'l, 573 U.S. 208, 134 S. Ct. 2347 (2014), a petitioner for post-grant review (PGR) tells the Patent Trial and Appeal Board in a Sept. 12 petition (Interactive Communications International Inc. v. Blackhawk Network Inc., No. PGR2020-00085, PTAB).
ALEXANDRIA, Va. — In a Sept. 14 ruling, the Patent Trial and Appeal Board found that various petitioners for inter partes review (IPR) of a position sensor patent established a reasonable likelihood that they will prevail with respect to at least one of the 13 claims that are being challenged (HP Inc., et al. v. Neodron Ltd, No. IPR2020-00459, PTAB).
NEW YORK — The context, alteration and use of a photograph of actor Jon Hamm by the website HuffPost constituted fair use, a New York federal judge ruled Sept. 10, dismissing a photographer's copyright complaint against HuffPost owner Oath Inc. (Lawrence Schwartzwald v. Oath Inc., No. 19-9938, S.D. N.Y., 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 165641).
CINCINNATI — In a wide-ranging ruling issued Sept. 10, the Sixth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals reversed a Michigan federal judge's denial of a copyright and trademark defendant's motion for a new trial while also affirming the judge's determination that the plaintiff in the case is not entitled to judgment as a matter of law with regard to its "CATIA" trademark (Dassault Systèmes, SA v. Keith Childress, Nos. 17-2175, -2239, -2416, 6th Cir., 2020 U.S. App. LEXIS 28941).
NEW YORK — A New York federal judge did not err in granting summary judgment that Apple Inc. did not infringe the "IONEX" trademark when it adopted "Ion-X" to describe the glass face of the Apple watch, the Second Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals concluded Sept. 11 (Saxon Glass Technologies Inc. v. Apple Inc., No. 19-2190, 2nd Cir., 2020 U.S. App. LEXIS 28946).
WASHINGTON, D.C. — Substantial evidence supports findings by the Patent Trial and Appeal Board that Garmin International Inc. and its subsidiary failed to prove that various claims of a patented motion correcting device are obvious, the Federal Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals ruled Sept. 11 (Garmin International Inc., et al. v. LoganTree LP, Nos. 2020-1108, -1109, Fed. Cir., 2020 U.S. App. LEXIS 28893).
WASHINGTON, D.C. — In a Sept. 8 holding, the Federal Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals confirmed findings by the Patent Trial and Appeal Board that various claims of two patents directed to a train warning device are unpatentable (Siemens Mobility Inc. v. Andrei Iancu, Nos. 2019-1732, -1752, Fed. Cir., 2020 U.S. App. LEXIS 28404).
WASHINGTON, D.C. — Efforts by an inventor to overturn findings by the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) that his patent application claims ineligible subject matter were unsuccessful on Sept. 8, when the Federal Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals upheld the rejection (Angadbir Singh Salwan v. Andrei Iancu, et al., No. 20-1061, Fed. Cir., 2020 U.S. App. LEXIS 28404).