NEW YORK — Allegations by an artist that two individual defendants falsely attributed her name as the creator of an oil painting will proceed in New York federal court, according to an Oct. 2 ruling (Annamarie Trombetta v. Marie Novocin, et al., No. 18-993, S.D. N.Y., 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 171228).
WASHINGTON, D.C. — In a recent appellee brief filed with the Federal Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals, the California Institute of Technology (Caltech) maintains that the Patent Trial and Appeal Board did not err in rejecting allegations of obviousness made by Apple Inc. in an inter partes review (IPR) (Apple Inc. v. California Institute of Technology, Nos. 19-1580, -1581, Fed. Cir.).
WASHINGTON, D.C. — In a Sept. 11 appellant brief, LiquidPower Specialty Products Inc. (LSPI) accuses the Patent Trial and Appeal Board of committing “the exact same error” in three inter partes reviews (IPRs) that already led to one remand by the Federal Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals in a case involving a related patent (LiquidPower Specialty Products Inc. v. Baker Hughes, No. 19-1838, Fed. Cir.).
WASHINGTON, D.C. — Opining that lines of Java computer code copied by Google LLC constituted protectable expressive content, Solicitor General (SG) Noel J. Francisco, in a Sept. 27 amicus curiae brief filed on behalf of the U.S. government, asserts that the Federal Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals correctly ruled in favor of Oracle America Inc. in a long-running copyright dispute, recommending that the U.S. Supreme Court deny Google’s petition for certiorari (Google LLC v. Oracle America Inc., No. 18-956, U.S. Sup.).
WASHINGTON, D.C. — In an Oct. 1 ruling, the Federal Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals found that the Patent Trial and Appeal Board abused its discretion when it denied a request by Honeywell International Inc. to correct an error in the chain of priority listed on the face of a Honeywell patent (Honeywell International Inc. v. Arkema Inc., Nos. 2018-1151, -1153, Fed. Cir., 2019 U.S. App. LEXIS 29478).
ALEXANDRIA, Va. — A petitioner told the Patent Trial and Appeal Board on Sept. 27 that it should institute inter partes review (IPR) of a patent claiming a method of making an arrestor bed used to stop airplanes that overrun their runway (Runway Safe Group AB v. EarthStone International LLC, No. IPR2019-01624, PTAB).
NEW YORK — A panel of the Second Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals on Sept. 30 found no error in a New York federal magistrate judge’s sua sponte dismissal of allegations that a convenience store infringed the “Deli Express” trademark (E.A. Sween Company v. A&M Deli Express Inc., No. 18-2998, 2nd Cir., 2019 U.S. App. LEXIS 29313).
NEW YORK — A federal judge in New York on Sept. 27 entered judgment in favor of general and excess liability insurers one day after granting their motion to reconsider an earlier ruling that they had a duty to defend their insured against an underlying copyright infringement suit, finding that they had no duty to defend (Jovani Fashion, Ltd. v. Federal Insurance Company, et al., No. 17-4518, S.D. N.Y., 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 165898).
KANSAS CITY, Mo. — In a Sept. 27 ruling, a federal judge in Missouri rejected a lawsuit by a jewelry company that seeks a declaration that it is the rightful owner of the “Hallmark Diamonds” and “Hallmark Rings” trademarks (Hallmark Industries Inc. v. Hallmark Licensing LLC, No. 18-236, W.D. Mo., 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 166665).
NEW YORK — Just over one year after winning a summary judgment that their display of 116 thumbnail versions of photographs taken by Henri Cartier-Bresson qualified as a fair use, two art galleries were denied an award of attorney fees on Sept. 26 by a federal judge in New York (Magnum Photos International Inc. v. Houk Gallery Inc., et al., No. 16-7030, S.D. N.Y., 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 165852).
LOS ANGELES — A California federal judge on Sept. 23 issued judgment against VidAngel Inc., in accordance with a $62.4 million jury verdict that penalized the online video-filtering service provider for violating the Copyright Act and the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) via its services (Disney Enterprises Inc., et al. v. VidAngel Inc., No. 2:16-cv-04109, C.D. Calif.).
WASHINGTON, D.C. — The Copyright Remedy Clarification Act of 1990 (CRCA) does not abrogate states’ sovereign immunity, North Carolina argues to the U.S. Supreme Court in a Sept. 20 brief, asking the high court to find that the statute is unconstitutional and that its enactment “was not a valid exercise of Congress’s enumerated powers (Frederick L. Allen, et al. v. Roy A. Cooper III, et al., No. 18-877, U.S. Sup.).
ALEXANDRIA, Va. — In a Sept. 26 petition, Biogen MA Inc. told the Patent Trial and Appeal Board that it erred in instituting inter partes review (IPR) of a patented multiple sclerosis (MS) treatment method, as well as in joining several petitioners to a pre-existing IPR proceeding (Mylan Pharmaceuticals Inc., et al. v. Biogen MA Inc., No. IPR2018-01403, PTAB).
COLUMBUS, Ohio — A couple and their homebuilder won dismissal Sept. 24 of allegations of unfair competition but will face copyright claims levied in connection with their home design, a federal judge in Ohio ruled (W.H. Midwest LLC v. A.D. Baker Homes, No. 18-1387, S.D. Ohio, 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 163108).
CINCINNATI — In reversing and remanding a lower federal court, a majority of the Sixth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals on Sept. 25 found that an insurance policy’s “dishonest acts” exclusion does not bar coverage for a steel products producer’s lawsuit alleging that a trade association published false statements about its products (Evanston Insurance Co. v. Certified Steel Stud Association, Inc., et al., Nos.18-3406 and 3407, 6th Cir., 2019 U.S. App. LEXIS 28937).
WASHINGTON, D.C. — In a Sept. 26 holding, a divided Federal Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals partly vacated findings by the Patent Trial and Appeal Board regarding the validity of a gravity feed dispenser (Campbell Soup Co. v. Gamon Plus Inc., No. 18-2029, Fed. Cir.).
WASHINGTON, D.C. — In a Sept. 25 brief opposing a petition for certiorari by Time Warner Cable Inc., Sprint Communications Co. L.P. tells the U.S. Supreme Court that the Federal Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals properly upheld a $140 million patent infringement award in its favor, arguing that the appeals court’s ruling does not conflict with longstanding principles of patent apportionment (Sprint Communications Company L.P. v. Time Warner Cable Inc., et al., No. 19-211, U.S. Sup.).
WASHINGTON, D.C. — A divided Federal Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals on Sept. 25 vacated findings of patent ineligibility by the Patent Trial and Appeal Board, finding instead that under a correct claim construction, the patent in suit may be exempt from covered business method (CBM) review (SIPCO LLC v. Emerson Electric Company, No. 18-1635, Fed. Cir., 2019 U.S. App. LEXIS 28935).
ALEXANDRIA, Va. — The Patent Trial and Appeal Board should deny a petition for inter partes review (IPR) of a patented method of measuring genetic data, the patent owner maintains in a Sept. 19 preliminary patent owner response (Illumina Inc. v. Natera Inc., No. IPR2019-01201, PTAB).
ATLANTA — A Georgia federal judge’s decision to sanction two corporate officers and their company for continuing to sell the “Gorilla Gym” playset following a permanent injunction barring further use of the “Gorilla” trademark was affirmed Sept. 24 by the 11th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals (PlayNation Play Systems Inc. v. Velex Corporation, et al., No. 18-12828, 11th Cir., 2019 U.S. App. LEXIS 28810).