We use cookies on this site to enable your digital experience. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our cookie policy. close

Mealey's Intellectual Property

  • June 18, 2019

    Judge:  Company’s Unfair Competition Claim Against Apple Superseded By CUTSA

    OAKLAND, Calif. — A federal judge in California on June 17 ruled that a technology company has failed to sufficiently show that Apple Inc. engaged in unfair competition under California common law when it allegedly infringed on the company’s patented technology and intellectual property to develop its “Emergency SOS” product for its Apple devices because the claim is preempted by federal patent law and is superseded by the California Uniform Trade Secrets Act (CUTSA) (Zomm LLC v. Apple Inc., No. 18-4969, N.D. Calif., 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 101029).

  • June 18, 2019

    Federal Circuit Affirms: Workpiece Support Reissue Patent Is Invalid

    WASHINGTON, D.C. — A federal judge in Oklahoma did not err in finding that because a reissue patent claims an invention not disclosed by the original patent, the reissue claims fail to comply with the original patent requirement of the Patent Act, the Federal Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals found June 17 (Forum US Inc. v. Flow Valve LLC, No. 18-1765, Fed. Cir., 2019 U.S. App. LEXIS 18055).

  • June 18, 2019

    Studios, VidAngel Debate Judgment As A Matter Of Law During Damages Trial

    LOS ANGELES — Online video-filtering service VidAngel Inc. on June 17 opposed a motion for judgment as a matter of law (JMOL) that plaintiff movie studios filed in California federal court on day four of oral arguments in a damages trial related to copyright infringement and violations of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) (Disney Enterprises Inc., et al. v. VidAngel Inc., No. 2:16-cv-04109, C.D. Calif.).

  • June 18, 2019

    Panel Finds No State Sovereign Immunity In Inter Partes Reviews

    WASHINGTON, D.C. — Efforts by the Regents of the University of Minnesota (UMN) to avoid a challenge to various UMN patents were unsuccessful June 14, when the Federal Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals found that states do not enjoy sovereign immunity in inter partes review (IPR) proceedings (Regents of the University of Minnesota v. LSI Corporation, et al., No. 18-1559; Regents of the University of Minnesota v. Ericsson Inc., Nos. 2018-1560, -1561, -1562, -1563, -1564, -1565, Fed. Cir., 2019 U.S. App. LEXIS 17887).

  • June 18, 2019

    Rejection Of Interpolation Patent Application Upheld By Federal Circuit

    WASHINGTON, D.C. — A patent application relating to a “method of efficiently implementing a multi-dimensional interpolation” was properly rejected, the Federal Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals ruled June 13 (In re: Roman Gitlin, No. 18-1461, Fed. Cir., 2019 U.S. App. LEXIS 17702).

  • June 17, 2019

    In French Press Trade Dress Row, 7th Circuit Upholds Verdict

    CHICAGO — The Seventh Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals on June 12 found no error in an Illinois federal judge’s decision to deny a trade dress infringement defendant judgment as a matter of law (JMOL) that a plaintiff failed to prove that its “Chambord” French press coffeemaker features a nonfunctional design (Bodum USA Inc. v. A Top New Casting Inc., No. 18-3020, 7th Cir., 2019 U.S. App. LEXIS 17555).

  • June 17, 2019

    After Inviting Government Views, Supreme Court Won’t Hear Patent Case

    WASHINGTON, D.C. — In its June 17 orders list, the U.S. Supreme Court denied certiorari in a case that posed the question of whether the Federal Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals can refuse an appeal of an adverse inter partes review (IPR) on standing grounds when no such standing requirement exists for those seeking IPR (RPX Corp. v. ChanBond LLC, No. 17-1686, U.S. Sup.).

  • June 14, 2019

    Travel Site To High Court: PTO’s Fees Award In Trademark Appeal Was Improper

    WASHINGTON, D.C. — In a May 30 reply supporting its petition for certiorari over an attorney fees award granted to the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (PTO) after a successful challenge of a trademark registration denial, Booking.com B.V. asks the U.S. Supreme Court to consolidate its case with a similar already granted petition over a fees award in a patent validity lawsuit (Booking.com B.V. v. Andrei Iancu, No. 18-1309, U.S. Sup.).

  • June 14, 2019

    Fastener Maker Seeks High Court Review Of Trademark Award Willfulness Standard

    WASHINGTON, D.C. — A fastener manufacturer in a June 4 reply brief asks the U.S. Supreme Court to grant its second petition for certiorari in a long-running trademark dispute, arguing that a deep split exists among the circuit courts over whether the finding of willfulness is a prerequisite to an award of profits after a finding of trademark infringement (Romag Fasteners Inc. v. Fossil Inc., et al., No. 18-1233, U.S. Sup.).

  • June 14, 2019

    In Supplemental Brief, Tech Firm Urges Certiorari In Foreign Patent Sales Suit

    WASHINGTON, D.C. — Responding to an amicus curiae brief by the U.S. government, a patent holder filed a supplemental brief with the U.S. Supreme Court on June 3, arguing that an underlying ruling and the precedent on which it relies reflect an incorrect interpretation of what constitutes an offer to sell an infringing item under Section 271(a) of the Patent Act, in asking the high court to provide guidance on domestic an extraterritorial sales (Texas Advanced Optoelectronic Solutions Inc. v. Renesas Electronics America Inc., No. 18-600, U.S. Sup.).

  • June 12, 2019

    Discovery Sanctions Granted In Suit Over Hong Kong Photos’ Copyrights, Trademarks

    OAKLAND, Calif. — A California federal judge on June 7 granted a motion for discovery sanctions to the widow of a photographer embroiled in a lawsuit over her husband’s works’ intellectual property rights, with the judge mostly adopting a magistrate’s report and recommendation related to the defendants’ ongoing failure to comply with their discovery obligations (Rita C. Ho v. Mark Pinsukanjana, et al., No. 4:17-cv-06520, N.D. Calif., 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 96274).

  • June 11, 2019

    Apple, Facebook, WhatsApp Dispute Board’s Patentability Findings

    WASHINGTON, D.C. — In a May 29 appellant brief, three partly unsuccessful inter partes review (IPR) petitioners tell the Federal Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals that the Patent Trial and Appeal Board erred in determining that various claims of a voice messaging patent are not obvious (Apple Inc., et al. v. Uniloc 2017 LLC, Nos. 2019-1151, -1179, -1203, Fed. Cir.).

  • June 11, 2019

    Patentee, Licensee Defend Enhanced Damages In Patent Case

    WASHINGTON, D.C. — Allegations by two patent infringement defendants that a jury’s damage award was not properly apportioned are forfeited, the patent owners tell the Federal Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals in a May 24 appellee brief (Alfred E. Mann Foundation for Scientific Research, et al. v. Cochlear Corp., et al., No. 19-1201, Fed. Cir.).

  • June 11, 2019

    Recommended Relief Largely Adopted In New York ‘Subway’ Franchise Row

    BROOKLYN, N.Y. — In a June 4 ruling, a New York federal judge endorsed a magistrate judge’s earlier recommendation that a former Subway franchisee should be barred from any further use of the “Subway” trademarks and a related, copyrighted mural (Doctor’s Associates LLC, et al. v. Abdul Hai, No. 19-1968, E.D. N.Y., 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 95417).

  • June 10, 2019

    Search Engines Not Liable For Scam Locksmith Listings, D.C. Circuit Rules

    WASHINGTON, D.C. — Affirming a lower court’s dismissal of antitrust and Lanham Act claims brought by a coalition of locksmiths, a District of Columbia U.S. Court of Appeals panel on June 7 found that Google LLC, Microsoft Corp. and Yahoo Inc. were immune from liability under the Communications Decency Act (CDA) for the online publication on their respective search engines of listings for purported scam locksmith companies (Marshall’s Locksmith Service Inc., et al. v. Google LLC, et al., No. 18-7018, D.C. Cir., 2019 U.S. App. LEXIS 17123).

  • June 10, 2019

    9th Circuit Affirms Verdict Of Willful Trade Dress Infringement

    SAN FRANCISCO — In a June 7 unpublished decision, the Ninth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals found no error in a Washington federal judge’s denial of a renewed motion for judgment as a matter of law (JMOL) of no willful trade dress infringement (National Products Inc. v. Arkon Resources Inc., Nos. 18-35220 and 18-35221, 9th Cir., 2019 U.S. App. LEXIS 17170).

  • June 10, 2019

    Georgia Federal Judge Agrees: Patent Case Belongs In California

    DUBLIN, Ga. — Two defendants on June 6 won transfer of patent infringement allegations when a federal judge in Georgia found that the interests of justice are better served with the case proceeding in the Central District of California (Rehrig Pacific Co. v. Polymer Logistics Ltd., et al., No. 18-55, S.D. Ga., 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 95384).

  • June 10, 2019

    ‘Anti-Ram’ Patent Is Obvious, Petitioner Tells Patent Board

    ALEXANDRIA, Va. — In a June 6 petition for inter partes review (IPR), a perimeter security company maintains that a patented “Anti-Ram System and Method of Installation” recites bollard technology that has been “commonplace . . . for decades” (Guardiar Technologies Inc. v. RSA Protective Technologies LLC, No. IPR2019-01162, PTAB).

  • June 10, 2019

    High Court Rejects Government Bid To Initiate AIA Challenges

    WASHINGTON, D.C. — The three administrative review proceedings established by the Leahy-Smith America Invents Act (AIA) cannot be initiated by the U.S. government, which does not qualify as a “person” under the statute, a divided U.S. Supreme Court ruled June 10 (Return Mail Inc. v. U.S. Postal Service, et al., No. 17-1594, U.S. Sup.).

  • June 10, 2019

    Lithuanian Firm Sues Facebook, Princeton Over Virtual Reality Trade Secrets

    SAN FRANCISCO — In a June 5 complaint in California federal court, a technology and research company in the Republic of Lithuania sued Facebook Inc. and Princeton University for purportedly misappropriating its trade secrets related to scene recognition technology and the area of virtual reality (UAB “Planner5D” v. Facebook Inc., et al., No. 3:19-cv-03132, N.D. Calif.).

Can't find the article you're looking for? Click here to search the Mealey's Intellectual Property archive.