WASHINGTON, D.C. — In a nearly 20-year-old dispute over the “Get Lucky” clothing trademark, the defendant in the latest litigation argues in a June 4 reply brief to the U.S. Supreme Court that its defense over the effect of a release in a prior suit was never litigated or resolved and, thus, it was wrongly concluded from raising it below (Lucky Brand Dungarees Inc., et al v. Marcel Fashion Group Inc., No. 18-1086, U.S. Sup.).
WASHINGTON, D.C. — In supplemental briefs filed June 4, a genetics analysis company and the maker of a purportedly infringing DNA test respond to a recently filed brief by the U.S. government, arguing in the U.S. Supreme Court as to whether certiorari should be granted on a question of patent priority dates and prior art (Ariosa Diagnostics Inc. v. Illumina Inc., No. 18-109, U.S. Sup).
WILMINGTON, Del. — In a June 4 holding, a federal judge in Delaware found that because a patent infringement defendant’s theory of patent indefiniteness has “substantial” merit, the patent owner is not entitled to a preliminary injunction (Ingevity Corporation v. BASF Corporation, No. 18-1391, D. Del., 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 93109).
MARSHALL, Texas — Efforts by two defendants to persuade a federal judge in Texas to toss a jury’s $3.5 million award of presuit damages were unsuccessful on June 5, when the request was denied (Packet Intelligence LLC v. NetScout Systems Inc., et al., No. 16-230, E.D. Texas, 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 93710).
ALEXANDRIA, Va. — In a June 3 petition, a solar energy company told the Patent Trial and Appeal Board that a claimed method for manufacturing solar cells and a resulting structure would have been obvious to a person of skill in the art (POSITA) (REC Solar Pte. Ltd. v. Hanwha Q CELLS & Advanced Materials Corporation, No. IPR2019-01145, PTAB).
ALEXANDRIA, Va. — In a June 3 patent owner response, Nasdaq Inc. asserts that a July 2018 petition for covered business method (CBM) review of a Nasdaq patent suffers from “fatal flaws” and fails to establish indefiniteness or ineligibility (Investors Exchange LLC v. Nasdaq Inc., No. CBM2018-00039, PTAB).
SAN FRANCISCO — In a June 4 opinion, a panel of the Ninth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals found that a defendant accused of copyright infringement is entitled to an award of attorney fees, “even though” it prevailed “on a technical defense” (Gold Value International Textile Inc. v. Sanctuary Clothing LLC, No. 17-55818, 9th Cir., 2019 U.S. App. LEXIS 16675).
LAFAYETTE, La. — A federal judge in Louisiana on May 31 transferred a hydraulic fracturing patent dispute to Texas federal court after he ruled that although the case could remain in its current jurisdiction, the object of the patent and key witnesses are located in Texas (Extreme Technologies LLC v. Stabil Drill Specialties LLC, No. 19-219, W.D. La.).
KANSAS CITY, Mo. — A defendant on June 3 won the right to amend its answer to patent infringement allegations to include a claim for inequitable conduct, in connection with alleged misleading statements made to the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) by two inventors (J&M Industries Inc. v. Raven Industries Inc., No. 16-2723, D. Kan., 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 92337).
WILMINGTON, Del. — On May 30, a Delaware federal magistrate judge denied a motion to dismiss filed by patent infringement defendants Rhapsody International and Spotify USA Inc., deeming their request premature (S.I.SV.EL. Societa Italiana per lo Sviluppo Dell’Elettronica S.p.A. v. Rhapsody International, No. 18-69; S.I.SV.EL. Societa Italiana per lo Sviluppo Dell’Elettronica S.p.A. v. Spotify USA Inc., No. 18-70, D. Del., 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 91542).
DETROIT — Efforts by a patent owner to obtain dismissal of an action seeking a declaration of noninfringement were unsuccessful on June 3, when a federal judge in Michigan instead ruled that the case will proceed (Myco Industries Inc. v. Blephex LLC, No. 19-10645, E.D. Mich., 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 92204).
WASHINGTON, D.C. — Although a California federal judge correctly concluded that a patent infringement plaintiff cannot maintain the action in its own name because it does not own “all substantial rights” to the patents in suit, dismissal without first considering whether the patentee should be joined ran afoul of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 19, Fed. R. Civ. P. 19, the Federal Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals concluded May 30 (Lone Star Silicon Innovations LLC v. Nanya Technology Corporation, et al., No. 18-1580, Fed. Cir., 2019 U.S. App. LEXIS 16077).
WASHINGTON, D.C. — A verdict of literal infringement and infringement under the doctrine of equivalents was undone May 31 by the Federal Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals, which found that “under the correct claim construction,” the disputed claims of a patent could not be infringed (Cobalt Boats LLC v. Brunswick Corporation, No. 18-1376, Fed. Cir., 2019 U.S. App. LEXIS 16277).
WASHINGTON, D.C. — In its orders list issued June 3, the U.S. Supreme Court agreed to take on a challenge to the Fourth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals’ July 2018 holding that the Copyright Remedy Clarification Act of 1990 (CRCA), 17 U.S.C. § 511, is unconstitutional (Frederick L. Allen, et al. v. Roy A. Cooper III, et al., No. 18-877, U.S. Sup.).
MIAMI — Allegations of copyright infringement by a journalist who authored a memoir of her relationship with the drug lord Pablo Escobar were largely dismissed without prejudice on May 24 by a Florida federal judge (Virginia Vallejo v. Narcos Productions LLC, et al., No. 18-23462, S.D. Fla., 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 89008).
NASHVILLE, Tenn. — A Tennessee federal judge on May 28 found that allegations by Vanderbilt University that a professor at the school, along with Scholastic Inc., infringed the “Vanderbilt” trademark may proceed (Vanderbilt University v. Scholastic Inc., et al., No. 18-46, M.D. Tenn., 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 89065).
NEW YORK — Shire LLC and two co-defendants on May 29 won attorney fees of $133,803.75 in connection with a New York federal lawsuit in which the drug maker was accused of submitting a fraudulent declaration to the Patent Trial and Appeal Board during an inter partes review (IPR) (LCS Group LLC v. Shire LLC, et al., No. 18-2688, S.D. N.Y., 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 89882).
BOSTON — In a May 29 ruling, the First Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals upheld a grant of summary judgment in favor of San Juan Mayor Carmen Yulín Cruz Soto and the municipality of San Juan on allegations of trademark infringement in connection with the 2015 Fiestas de la Calle San Sebastián celebration (The Comité Fiestas de la Calle San Sebastián, Inc. v. Carmen Yulín Cruz Soto, et al., No. 17-1723, 1st Cir., 2019 U.S. App. LEXIS 15918).
WASHINGTON, D.C. — In a May 16 respondent brief, the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (PTO) asks the U.S. Supreme Court to hold a petition for certiorari filed by an online travel website operator, stating that a pending high court case over parallel attorney fee issues, but in the patent context, will likely resolve the trademark-related fees issues in the present case (Booking.com B.V. v. Andrei Iancu, No. 18-1309, U.S. Sup.).
ALEXANDRIA, Va. — In a May 28 filing, Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd. told the Patent Trial and Appeal Board that various claims of a recently issued patent should be canceled (Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd. v. NuCurrent Inc., No. PGR2019-00049, PTAB).