WASHINGTON, D.C. — The question of whether a defendant accused of new offenses can be barred from raising defenses not actually litigated in a previous case involving the same plaintiff will be addressed by the U.S. Supreme Court, which on June 28 granted certiorari in a trademark dispute that stretches back to 2001 (Lucky Brand Dungarees Inc., et al. v. Marcel Fashion Group Inc., No. 18-1086, U.S. Sup.).
WASHINGTON, D.C. — The Federal Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals on June 26 agreed with a Texas federal judge that a jury verdict of willful patent infringement was supported by the evidence and left intact that jury’s award of $21,075,750 in damages (Elbit Systems Land and C4I Ltd., et al. v. Hughes Network Systems LLC, No. 18-1910, Fed. Cir., 2019 U.S. App. LEXIS 18852).
WASHINGTON, D.C. — In its June 28 orders list, the U.S. Supreme Court granted certiorari in a long-running trademark case presenting an issue that has “sharply divided the courts of appeal,” according to a petitioner (Romag Fasteners Inc. v. Fossil Inc., et al., No. 18-1233, U.S. Sup.).
WASHINGTON, D.C. — In a June 10 appellant brief, Cook Group Inc. urges the Federal Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals to direct the Patent Trial and Appeal Board to revisit a final written decision in an inter partes review (IPR) that confirmed as patentable five claims of a medical device patent (Cook Group Inc. v. Boston Scientific Scimed Inc., Nos. 19-1413, -1422, Fed. Cir.).
WASHINGTON, D.C. — A real estate photography studio tells the U.S. Supreme Court in a June 13 position for certiorari that the circuit courts of appeal are divided on whether liability for direct copyright infringement requires a showing of volitional conduct, arguing that a website operator, such as respondent Zillow Inc., should be found liable for infringing content on its site when it has the ability to control such content (VHT Inc. v. Zillow Group Inc., et al., No. 18-1540, U.S. Sup.).
NEW YORK — In a June 25 docket entry, the Second Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals proposed an oral argument date of Sept. 30 in a fully briefed appeal of a lawsuit where a California man claims that a newspaper infringed his copyrighted article by publishing it without compensating him for it (Joel D. Joseph v. Buffalo News Inc., No. 18-2793, 2nd Cir.).
WASHINGTON, D.C. — In a June 25 amicus curiae brief, the New York Intellectual Property Law Association (NYIPLA) tells the U.S. Supreme Court that the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (PTO) was not entitled to an award of attorney fees, despite prevailing in a lawsuit brought by a patent applicant, because Section 145 of the Patent Act does not explicitly provide for such an award (Laura Peter v. NantKwest Inc., No. 18-801, U.S. Sup.).
WASHINGTON, D.C. — In a June 24 holding, the Federal Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals found no error in a Michigan federal judge’s claim construction or summary judgment of noninfringement in connection with a loom for making bracelets and other linked articles (Choon’s Design LLC v. IdeaVillage Products Corp., No. 18-1934, Fed. Cir., 2019 U.S. App. LEXIS 18701).
WASHINGTON, D.C. — An oilfield services company on June 20 filed a principal and response brief with the Federal Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals, in which it again maintained that appellate jurisdiction is lacking over a patent owner’s challenge of a Texas federal judge’s claim construction and stipulated final judgment (EnerPol LLC v. Schlumberger Technology Corp., Nos. 2019-1079, -1120, Fed. Cir.).
ALEXANDRIA, Va. — In a June 25 filing with the Patent Trial and Appeal Board, Sanofi-Aventis Deutschland GMBH pointed to the “overwhelming” commercial success of its “LANTUS® SoloSTAR®” pen injector as evidence of non-obviousness (Mylan Pharmaceuticals Inc. v. Sanofi-Aventis Deutschland GMBH, No. IPR2018-01678, PTAB).
ALEXANDRIA, Va. — In a June 26 final written decision, the Patent Trial and Appeal Board deemed 15 claims of a patented radio controlled toy unpatentable as obvious and rejected efforts by the patent owner to substitute the canceled claims (SZ DJI Technology Co. Ltd. v. DroneControl LLC, No. IPR2018-00208, PTAB).
ALEXANDRIA, Va. — In a June 24 petition for inter partes review Intel Corp. told the Patent Trial and Appeal Board that a single claim of a patented computer system should be canceled as obvious (Intel Corp. v. VLSI Technology LLC, No. IPR2019-01192, PTAB).
ALEXANDRIA, Va. — A patent directed to a method and apparatus for controlling presentation rates of broadcast multimedia is anticipated and rendered obvious by prior art, Google LLC asserts in a June 21 petition for inter partes review (IPR) by the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (Google LLC v. Virentem Ventures LLC, No. IPR2019-01246, PTAB).
WASHINGTON, D.C. — The question of whether a sale must take place domestically to assert infringement under Section 271(a) of the Patent Act won’t be answered by the U.S. Supreme Court, which on June 24 denied certiorari in dispute over ambient light sensors (Texas Advanced Optoelectronic Solutions Inc. v. Renesas Electronics America Inc., No. 18-600, U.S. Sup.).
WASHINGTON, D.C. — The U.S. Supreme Court on June 24 declined to consider a question over whether “used” digital music files can legally be resold under the Copyright Act’s first-sale doctrine, denying a petition for certiorari by digital music marketplace operator ReDigi Inc. (ReDigi Inc., et al. v. Capitol Records LLC, et al., No. 18-1430, U.S. Sup., 2019 U.S. LEXIS 4296).
WASHINGTON, D.C. — The U.S. Supreme Court on June 24 announced that it will not review a 2017 ruling by the Federal Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals that affirmed the rejection of a petition for inter partes review because the filing relied on unavailable prior art (Ariosa Diagnostics Inc. v. Illumina Inc., No. 18-109, U.S. Sup).
WASHINGTON, D.C. — In a June 21 holding, the Federal Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals upheld findings by the Patent Trial and Appeal Board that 11 claims of a patented process for generating a “gamvatar” are invalid (Game and Technology Co. v. Activision Blizzard Inc., et al., No. 18-1981, Fed. Cir., 2019 U.S. App. LEXIS 18601).
MIAMI — A former franchisee on June 18 moved for a Florida federal court to reconsider its order a day earlier granting a motion for preliminary injunction that bars it from using Tim Hortons trademarks or service marks and from representing the restaurants as authorized Tim Hortons restaurants (Tim Hortons USA, Inc., States, et al. v. Tims Milner LLC, et al., No. 18-cv-24152, S.D. Fla.; 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 100978).
WASHINGTON, D.C. — Drawing heavily on its 2017 holding in Matal v. Tam that the Lanham Act ban on registering disparaging marks is unconstitutional, a divided U.S. Supreme Court on June 24 found that the statute’s related prohibition on registrations for “immoral or scandalous” trademarks also “collides” with the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution (Andrei Iancu v. Erik Brunetti, No. 18-302, U.S. Sup.).
WASHINGTON, D.C. — The U.S. Supreme Court on June 24 agreed to take on a dispute that poses the question of whether Section 314(b) of the America Invents Act (AIA) permits an appeal of a decision by the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) with regard to the time bar established by Section 315(b) of the statute (Dex Media Inc. v. Click-To-Call Technologies L.P. and Andrei Iancu, No. 18-916, U.S. Sup.).